🔗 Share this article

Just 48 hours before the New York mayoral election, Michael Lange issued a significant electoral prediction – going beyond the winner citywide, but precinct by precinct. Lange, a political analyst born and raised in the city, devoted more than ten years in left-leaning activism and emerged as a kind of well-known figure recently for his deep dives into municipal statistics and polling.

He published his highly detailed forecast map – which correctly forecast that Zohran Mamdani was victorious although failed to predict Andrew Cuomo’s strong performance – on his newsletter, the Narrative War. He possesses a talent for witty coinages. He pointed out, as an example, the divide between the progressive stronghold, stretching from Park Slope to Bushwick to Astoria, where he predicted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would triumph by huge margins, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. In those areas, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal surpass the New York Times” in readership and most voters leaned toward the independent, campaigning as a moderate alternative.

Election Night Patterns and Unexpected Results

What was your election night?

I had to do that since they were dropping around 200,000 votes into the system frequently! I felt a little nervous at the beginning: The candidate was ahead the early vote by a dozen percentage points, but there were two big batches of votes added after that and the advantage dropped from 12% to 8%. I was worried.

Understand, it was possible in which election day went kind of poorly for him, in which Cuomo would have basically increasing his support from the earlier contest. But Mamdani gained half a million votes to his primary coalition, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He went out and massively expanded his base from the first round.

Expanding Support

Where did the mayor-elect gain additional support from?

He built the alliance that progressives long aimed for: it’s multiracial, youthful, tenants and it’s people squeezed by affordability. He gained significantly with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the earlier election. Additionally he boosted his base of left-leaning activists, young leftists, and immigrant groups. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

He created the alliance that the left long aimed for: multiracial, young, renters and residents struggling with costs

There were also a number of Trump/Mamdani voters – is this significant?

It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, limited to working-class Latinos, south Asians and Islamic voters. Voters in immigrant strongholds that went for Trump previously backed Zohran now. But I wouldn’t say he was gaining white working-class voters and Trump loyalists.

Voter Participation and Effects

A major development of the night was the sky-high turnout. Who benefited?

Both sides. Participation was much greater than anticipated. I thought we might exceed two million, but it’s closer to 2.3 million – which is a lot of darn voters. Existed a decent anti-Mamdani block, energized, but his supporters was also motivated, and that was enough to win.

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

Currently it appears he’s likely to surpass 50%. He has 50.4% but remain probably 200,000 votes left to report as of Wednesday morning. So it’s not it’s definitive, but I think it’s likely, and I wish he achieves it because then none can claim the Republican was a spoiler.

GOP Decline

The GOP candidate, the Republican candidate, was another surprise. His vote plummeted.

He lost a single precinct in any borough. Not even Tottenville in the borough, which is like an 88% Trump area. That truly surprised me. The independent kept Caucasian districts, affluent zones and devout communities, and plus gained all of these conservatives on the island with a high participation. I think occurred a lot of strategic balloting by the Republicans. This happened before the former president tweeted his support for Cuomo, but that definitely helped. It might have changed the outcome unless the winning alliance failed to expand.

The “Commie Corridor”

Regarding your often-discussed “commie corridor” – did backing for the candidate dominant in those areas of Brooklyn and Queens?

In my view existed a little dilution of the commie corridor in certain places like Astoria or Greenpoint that have older Caucasian residents. In Astoria, for example, the property owners and residents all went for the independent. Thus there existed some opposition. However no, mostly the leftist base is another huge reason why Mamdani prevailed – he was polling between 77% and 83% in specific neighborhoods.

Jewish Voters

In the lead-up to the election we reported on whether Mamdani was making inroads with Jewish New Yorkers. Any indication that he succeeded?

There are neighborhoods with a lot of secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. However in the wealthy Jewish communities such as the Manhattan area, his position on Israel definitely mattered there. Similarly in the more middle-class Jewish areas including Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Bronx areas – they all leaned the independent. Plus, there are Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in the borough, they were strongly Cuomo. Therefore it’s unclear if existed crazy narrative-busters here, but Mamdani retained more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the Upper West Side with large leads.

Long-Term Significance

Did Mamdani redefine what New York means politically? Will the progressive base serve as a springboard for leftwing candidates?

Absolutely, it’s not accidental that some of the biggest figures from the left hail from a few areas in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I believe that there will be additional examples – people will come from these neighborhoods to be promoted to higher office.

But I believe that every city in the US can have similar progressive hubs. Cities are the centers of progressive influence in America – since youth reside there, tenancy is common and they are places where individuals struggle by the disparities we face.