🔗 Share this article

Only 48 hours prior to the NYC mayoral election, political analyst Michael Lange issued a bold forecast – not just who would win overall, and precinct by precinct. The analyst, a political analyst born and raised in the city, has spent over a decade in progressive politics and has become a kind of local celebrity recently for his thorough analyses into city data and polling.

He released his extremely precise prediction map – which correctly forecast that Zohran Mamdani was victorious although failed to predict Andrew Cuomo’s strong performance – on his Substack, his platform. He has a flair for clever terms. He pointed out, for instance, the divide between the progressive stronghold, running from Park Slope to Bushwick to a third locale, where he predicted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would triumph by huge margins, and the conservative-leaning zone on affluent parts of Manhattan. There, “the Free Press and financial newspapers outrank the mainstream paper” in audience and the majority of electors favored Cuomo, campaigning as a moderate alternative.

Voting Day Patterns and Surprises

How was your election night?

It was necessary because they were adding approximately 200K ballots into the system frequently! I felt a little nervous at the beginning: The candidate led the initial ballots by 12 points, but came large groups of ballots that came in after that and the advantage dropped from 12 to 8%. I was worried.

Understand, it was possible where election day turned out kind of poorly for Mamdani, where Cuomo was going to end up essentially increasing his support from the Democratic primary. But Mamdani gained 500,000 votes to his primary coalition, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He campaigned and massively expanded his support from the first round.

Coalition Building

How did Mamdani get additional support from?

He built the alliance that progressives always wanted to build: diverse racially, it’s young, it’s renters and individuals facing cost pressures. He gained significantly with minority communities, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the earlier election. Additionally he further maximized his base of left-leaning activists, young leftists, and Muslims and south Asians. He couldn’t have won without expanding his appeal.

He built the coalition that the left long aimed for: multiracial, youthful, renters and people squeezed by affordability

Additionally, there were a number of supporters of both candidates – is that a big trend?

It is a genuine phenomenon, limited to working-class Latinos, south Asians and Islamic voters. Electors in immigrant strongholds that supported Trump previously went for Zohran this year. However it’s not that he was gaining Caucasian laborers and Trump loyalists.

Turnout and Effects

A major development of the night was the record turnout. Who did that help?

Each candidate. Turnout was significantly higher than anticipated. I thought it could go over 2 million, but it’s closer to 2.3M – which is a huge number of participants. There was a decent opposition group, who were motivated, but the Mamdani base was equally driven, and that was enough to secure victory.

You forecasted he’d get over half the ballots. Is he on course for that?

Right now you would say he’s favored to get over 50%. He’s at 50.4% but remain probably 200K ballots left to report as of Wednesday morning. Thus I don’t think it’s definitive, but I believe it’s likely, and I wish he does because afterwards none can claim the Republican was a disruptor.

GOP Decline

The GOP candidate, the Republican candidate, is the other big story. His support plummeted.

He didn’t win any district in any borough. Including one neighborhood in Staten Island, similar to an highly conservative area. That truly was unexpected. Cuomo held Caucasian districts, affluent zones and very religiously Jewish areas, and plus gained all of these conservatives on the island with a strong turnout. I think there was significant strategic balloting by GOP voters. This happened prior to the former president tweeted his support for Cuomo, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide unless the winning alliance hadn’t grown.

Progressive Strongholds

What about your much mentioned “commie corridor” – was support for Mamdani dominant in those parts of Brooklyn and Queens?

In my view existed a little dilution of the commie corridor in some areas like neighborhoods that have more older white ethnic folks. There, instance, the Greek landlords and residents all went for the independent. Thus there was some opposition. But overall, largely the leftist base is another huge reason why Zohran won – he scored between high percentages in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Community Support

Prior to the vote we reported on whether Mamdani was gaining ground with Jewish New Yorkers. Any indication that he succeeded?

There are areas with a lot of non-religious and left-inclined voters – such as Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. But in the wealthy Jewish communities like the Manhattan area, his position on Israel was influential in those places. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas including Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Bronx areas – they favored Cuomo. And also, you have Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in the borough, who were strongly Cuomo. Therefore it’s unclear if there were major surprises here, but he did hold left-leaning areas and including sections of the Upper West Side with large leads.

Long-Term Significance

Has Mamdani rewritten what New York means politically? Will commie corridor serve as a springboard for leftwing candidates?

Yes, it’s not accidental that key figures from progressives come from a handful of neighborhoods in the boroughs. I believe that there will be additional examples – people will emerge from these areas to be promoted to higher office.

However I believe that each urban center in the US can have their own commie corridor. Cities are the centers of progressive influence in the nation – since youth reside there, tenancy is common and they represent locales where individuals struggle by the inequalities exist.