🔗 Share this article

Just two days prior to the New York mayoral election, Michael Lange issued a bold forecast – 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 recently for his deep dives into municipal statistics and voter surveys.

He published his highly detailed forecast map – accurately predicting that the progressive candidate was victorious although missing the independent candidate’s strong performance – on his Substack, his platform. He possesses a talent for clever terms. He highlighted, for instance, the divide between the progressive stronghold, running from one neighborhood to Bushwick to Astoria, where he forecasted (accurately) that the left-wing candidate would win by huge margins, and the “capitalist corridor” on affluent parts of Manhattan. In those areas, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal surpass the New York Times” in readership and most voters favored the independent, campaigning as a conservative-courting independent.

Voting Day Trends and Unexpected Results

How was your election night?

I had to do that since they were adding around 200,000 votes into the tally frequently! I was actually a little nervous at the beginning: The candidate led the early vote by a dozen percentage points, but there were large groups of ballots added later and the advantage dropped from 12% to 8%. It was concerning.

You know, there was a world in which yesterday turned out somewhat badly for him, where Cuomo would have essentially doubling his votes from the Democratic primary. But Mamdani added 500,000 votes to his initial base, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He campaigned and greatly broadened his base from the primary.

Coalition Building

Where did the mayor-elect gain additional support from?

He built the alliance that progressives long aimed for: diverse racially, youthful, it’s renters and individuals squeezed by affordability. He gained considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, compared to the primary. Plus he boosted his base of left-leaning activists, youthful radicals, and immigrant groups. He couldn’t have won without making those significant inroads.

He built the coalition that the left long aimed for: multiracial, youthful, tenants and residents struggling with costs

Additionally, there were some Trump/Mamdani voters – is that a big trend?

It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, limited to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Islamic voters. Voters in ethnic enclaves that went for Trump last year backed the progressive now. However it’s not that he was winning over white working-class voters and Maga voters.

Voter Participation and Effects

One of the big stories of the night was the sky-high turnout. Who did that help?

Each candidate. Participation was significantly higher than anticipated. I figured it could exceed 2 million, but it reached 2.3M – which is a huge number of participants. There was a substantial anti-Mamdani block, energized, but the Mamdani base was also motivated, and that sufficed to win.

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

Right now it appears he’s favored to get over 50%. He has 50.4% but there’s still around 200,000 votes left to report as of Wednesday morning. Thus it’s not certain, but I believe probable, and I wish he does so then none can claim the Republican was a spoiler.

Republican Collapse

Curtis Sliwa, the conservative contender, was another surprise. His support completely collapsed.

He lost a single precinct in any borough. Including one neighborhood in the borough, similar to an highly conservative neighborhood. That truly was unexpected. The independent kept very white areas, very wealthy areas and devout communities, and plus gained all of these conservatives on Staten Island with a strong turnout. I think there was a lot of tactical voting by the Republicans. This happened before the former president endorsed for Cuomo, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide unless the winning alliance failed to expand.

The “Commie Corridor”

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

I think existed some weakening of the commie corridor in certain places like Astoria or Greenpoint that have older Caucasian residents. In Astoria, instance, the Greek landlords and residents all went for the independent. So 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 election there was coverage on whether Mamdani was making inroads with the community. Any indication that he succeeded?

Exist areas with a lot of secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – such as specific locales – where he performed strongly. But in the affluent districts such as the Manhattan area, his position on Israel definitely mattered in those places. Similarly in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Queens neighborhoods, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they all leaned Cuomo. Plus, you have Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in southern Brooklyn, who were pretty staunchly Cuomo. Therefore I don’t know if there were crazy narrative-busters on this one, but he retained more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and even parts of the Upper West Side with large leads.

Political Impact

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

Absolutely, it’s not accidental that key figures from the left hail from a handful of neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I’m sure that there will be additional examples – people will emerge from these neighborhoods to be elevated nationally.

But I believe that each urban center in the US could develop similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the centers of progressive influence in the nation – because youth reside there, tenancy is common and they represent locales where people are crushed by the disparities we face.