🔗 Share this article

Only two days before the New York mayoral election, Michael Lange made a bold forecast – not just the winner citywide, and precinct by precinct. The analyst, an expert in elections born and raised in the city, has spent more than ten years in left-leaning activism and emerged as something of a local celebrity this year for his thorough analyses into city data and voter surveys.

He published his highly detailed prediction map – accurately predicting that the progressive candidate would win although missing the independent candidate’s solid showing – on his newsletter, his platform. Lange possesses a talent for clever terms. He pointed out, for instance, the split between the progressive stronghold, stretching from Park Slope to another area to a third locale, where he predicted (correctly) that Mamdani would triumph by large leads, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. In those areas, “the Free Press and financial newspapers outrank the New York Times” in readership and most voters favored the independent, who ran as a moderate alternative.

Voting Day Patterns and Unexpected Results

What was your night?

It was necessary since they were adding approximately 200K votes into the tally frequently! I felt somewhat anxious at the beginning: The candidate led the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but there were two big batches of ballots that came in after that and his lead went from 12% to 8%. It was concerning.

You know, there was a world where yesterday turned out kind of poorly for Mamdani, where the opponent would have basically increasing his support from the earlier contest. But Mamdani added half a million supporters to his primary coalition, and that’s a huge reason why he won. He went out and greatly broadened his support from the first round.

Expanding Support

How did the mayor-elect gain additional support from?

He assembled the alliance that the left long aimed for: it’s multiracial, it’s young, tenants and it’s people facing cost pressures. He improved significantly with minority communities, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the earlier election. Plus he boosted his core of left-leaning activists, young leftists, and immigrant groups. He couldn’t have won without expanding his appeal.

He created the coalition that the left long aimed for: diverse, youthful, tenants and people squeezed by affordability

There were also some Trump/Mamdani voters – is that a big trend?

It is a real thing, limited to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Muslims. Voters in immigrant strongholds that went for Trump last year went for the progressive now. But it’s not that he was gaining white working-class voters and Maga voters.

Turnout and Impact

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

Each candidate. Turnout was much greater than anticipated. I thought we might exceed 2 million, but it reached 2.3M – that is a huge number of participants. There was a substantial anti-Mamdani block, energized, but his supporters was also motivated, and that was enough to secure victory.

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

Currently you would say he’s likely to surpass 50%. He’s at 50.4% but there’s still around 200K ballots left to report at that time. Thus it’s not it’s definitive, but I believe probable, and I wish he achieves it because then no one can say Sliwa was a disruptor.

Republican Collapse

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

He lost a single precinct in any borough. Not even one neighborhood in the borough, which is like an 88% Trump area. That truly was unexpected. The independent kept Caucasian districts, affluent zones and very religiously Jewish areas, and plus gained many Republicans on Staten Island who had a strong turnout. I think there was significant tactical voting by the Republicans. This happened before Trump endorsed for Cuomo, but it assisted. It might have changed the outcome unless Mamdani’s coalition failed to expand.

The “Commie Corridor”

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

In my view there was some weakening of the commie corridor in some areas like Astoria or Greenpoint that have more older white ethnic folks. In Astoria, for example, the property owners and homeowners all went for Cuomo. So there was a little resistance. However no, mostly the commie corridor is a key factor why Zohran won – he was polling between high percentages in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Community Support

Prior to the election there was coverage on whether the candidate was gaining ground with Jewish New Yorkers. Is there any suggestion that he did?

There are areas with many secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – like specific locales – where he performed strongly. However in the affluent districts like the Upper East Side, 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 Eastern Europe in the borough, they were strongly supportive. Therefore I don’t know if existed major surprises here, but he did hold left-leaning areas and including sections of the Upper West Side with large leads.

Long-Term Significance

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 Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I believe that there will be more of that – people will come from these areas to be promoted to higher office.

But I believe that every city in America could develop similar progressive hubs. Cities are the epicenters of leftwing power in America – because youth reside there, tenancy is common and they are places where individuals struggle by the disparities exist.