🔗 Share this article

Only two days prior to the NYC mayoral election, Michael Lange made a bold forecast – not just the winner citywide, but block by block. The analyst, a political analyst who grew up in the city, devoted over a decade in left-leaning activism and has become something of a well-known figure recently for his deep dives into city data and polling.

He published his highly detailed prediction map – accurately predicting that Zohran Mamdani was victorious although failed to predict 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 Park Slope to another area to a third locale, where he predicted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would triumph by huge margins, and the “capitalist corridor” on affluent parts of Manhattan. In those areas, certain media outlets and financial newspapers surpass the New York Times” in readership and the majority of electors leaned toward the independent, campaigning as a moderate alternative.

Voting Day Patterns and Unexpected Results

What was your night?

It was necessary because they were dropping around 200,000 ballots 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 large groups of ballots that came in later and his lead went from 12 to 8%. I was worried.

You know, there was a world where election day went somewhat badly for Mamdani, in which the opponent would have essentially increasing his support from the Democratic primary. But the winner added 500,000 votes to his primary coalition, and this was critical why he won. He campaigned and massively expanded his support from the first round.

Coalition Building

Where did the mayor-elect gain those extra votes from?

He built the alliance that the left long aimed for: diverse racially, it’s young, it’s renters and it’s people facing cost pressures. He gained significantly with minority communities, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the primary. Additionally he boosted his core of liberal progressives, young leftists, and immigrant groups. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

He built the alliance that the left long aimed for: diverse, young, tenants and residents squeezed by affordability

Additionally, there were some supporters of both candidates – is this significant?

It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, confined to working-class Latinos, south Asians and Muslims. Electors in immigrant strongholds that supported Trump last year went for the progressive this year. But it’s not that he was gaining white working-class voters and Maga voters.

Turnout and Effects

One of the big stories of the election was the sky-high turnout. Who benefited?

Each candidate. Turnout was much greater than I had expected. I thought we might exceed 2 million, but it reached 2.3M – that is a huge number of participants. There was a decent anti-Mamdani block, who were motivated, but his supporters was equally driven, and that was enough to secure victory.

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

Right now you would say he’s likely to get over half. He’s at 50.4% but remain around 200,000 votes uncounted as of Wednesday morning. So it’s not certain, but I believe probable, and I hope he achieves it because afterwards no one can say Sliwa was a spoiler.

GOP Decline

Curtis Sliwa, the conservative contender, is the other big story. His support completely collapsed.

He lost a single precinct in any borough. Including one neighborhood in the borough, similar to an 88% Trump neighborhood. That really surprised me. The independent held Caucasian districts, affluent zones and devout communities, and then added all of these Republicans on the island with a high participation. I think occurred a lot of tactical voting by GOP voters. They were doing it prior to Trump endorsed for the candidate, but it assisted. It might have changed the outcome if Mamdani’s coalition hadn’t grown.

Progressive Strongholds

Regarding your often-discussed “commie corridor” – was support for the candidate overwhelming in those areas of the boroughs?

I think there was some weakening of the progressive zone in certain places like Astoria or Greenpoint that have older Caucasian residents. There, instance, the Greek landlords and homeowners all went for the independent. Thus there was some opposition. But no, mostly the leftist base is a key factor why Mamdani won – he scored between 77% and 83% in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Jewish Voters

In the lead-up to the election we reported on if Mamdani was making inroads with the community. 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 did well. However in the affluent districts like the Manhattan area, his Middle East stance definitely mattered in those places. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Bronx areas – they all leaned Cuomo. And also, you have Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in the borough, who were strongly supportive. So I don’t know if there were major surprises on this one, but Mamdani retained left-leaning areas and even parts of the another locale with large leads.

Political Impact

Did Mamdani redefine what the city means politically? Will the commie corridor become a launch pad for progressive contenders?

Absolutely, it’s not accidental that key figures from the left come from a handful of neighborhoods in the boroughs. I believe that there will be additional examples – candidates will come from these areas to be elevated nationally.

But I believe that every city in the US could develop similar progressive hubs. Cities are the centers of leftwing power in America – because youth reside there, people rent and they are places where people are crushed by the disparities we face.