🔗 Share this article

Only 48 hours before the NYC race for mayor, political analyst Michael Lange issued a bold electoral prediction – going beyond who would win overall, and precinct by precinct. Lange, an expert in elections who grew up in the city, devoted over a decade in progressive politics and has become something of a well-known figure this year for his deep dives into municipal statistics and voter surveys.

He published his extremely precise forecast map – accurately predicting that the progressive candidate would win although failed to predict Andrew Cuomo’s strong performance – on his Substack, his platform. He has a flair for clever terms. He highlighted, as an example, the divide between the “commie corridor”, running from one neighborhood to Bushwick to Astoria, where he forecasted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would win by large leads, and the “capitalist corridor” on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. There, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal outrank the mainstream paper” in audience and most voters favored the independent, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Election Night Trends and Surprises

What was your night?

It was necessary because they were dropping approximately 200K votes into the tally frequently! I felt a little nervous at the beginning: The candidate led the early vote by a dozen percentage points, but there were two big batches of ballots that came in later and the advantage went from 12 to 8%. I was worried.

Understand, it was possible in which election day turned out kind of poorly for Mamdani, where the opponent was going to end up essentially increasing his support from the earlier contest. But the winner gained half a million supporters to his primary coalition, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He campaigned and greatly broadened his base from the primary.

Expanding Support

Where did the mayor-elect get additional support from?

He assembled the coalition that the left always wanted to build: it’s multiracial, youthful, tenants and individuals facing cost pressures. He gained considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the earlier election. Additionally he further maximized his base of liberal progressives, youthful radicals, and Muslims and south Asians. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

He created the alliance that progressives long aimed for: multiracial, youthful, tenants and residents squeezed by affordability

Additionally, there were some Trump/Mamdani voters – is this significant?

It is a genuine phenomenon, limited to working-class Latinos, south Asians and Islamic voters. Electors in immigrant strongholds that went for the former president previously backed the progressive now. But it’s not that he was winning over Caucasian laborers and Trump loyalists.

Turnout and Impact

A major development of the night was the sky-high turnout. Who did that help?

Both sides. Turnout was significantly higher than anticipated. I thought it could go over two million, but it’s closer to 2.3M – which is a huge number of participants. There was a decent anti-Mamdani block, energized, but his supporters was also motivated, and that sufficed to secure victory.

You forecasted he’d exceed 50% of the vote. Is he likely for that?

Right now it appears he’s likely to get over 50%. He has 50.4% but there’s still probably 200K ballots left to report at that time. Thus I don’t think it’s definitive, but I think it’s likely, and I wish he does because then none can claim Sliwa was a spoiler.

Republican Collapse

Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, is the other big story. His support completely collapsed.

He didn’t win a single precinct in any area. Not even one neighborhood in Staten Island, which is like an 88% Trump area. That really surprised me. The independent kept very white areas, affluent zones and devout communities, and then added all of these Republicans on the island who had a strong turnout. I believe there was significant tactical voting by the Republicans. They were doing it prior to the former president endorsed for the candidate, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide if Mamdani’s coalition failed to expand.

Progressive Strongholds

Regarding your often-discussed left-wing base – did backing for the candidate dominant in those areas of Brooklyn and Queens?

In my view there was some weakening of the progressive zone in certain places like Astoria or Greenpoint that have more older white ethnic folks. In Astoria, instance, the Greek landlords and homeowners all went for Cuomo. Thus there was a little resistance. However no, largely the leftist base is another huge reason why Zohran won – he was polling between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.

Jewish Voters

Prior to the vote there was coverage on if the candidate was gaining ground with Jewish New Yorkers. Any indication that he did?

Exist areas with a lot of non-religious and left-inclined voters – like specific locales – where he performed strongly. However in the affluent districts such as the Manhattan area, his Middle East stance was influential there. Likewise in the moderate communities including Queens neighborhoods, or Bronx areas – they all leaned the independent. And also, there are newcomers from Eastern Europe in southern Brooklyn, they were pretty staunchly supportive. So it’s unclear if existed major surprises here, but Mamdani retained more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the another locale by big margins.

Long-Term Significance

Has Mamdani rewritten what New York represents in politics? Will the progressive base become a launch pad for leftwing candidates?

Absolutely, it’s not accidental that key political leaders from the left come from a handful of neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I’m sure that we’ll see more of that – candidates will come from these neighborhoods to be promoted to higher office.

But I think that each urban center in the US can have similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the centers of leftwing power in America – since they’re young, tenancy is common and they represent locales where individuals struggle by the disparities exist.