🔗 Share this article

Just 48 hours before the New York mayoral election, Michael Lange made a bold electoral prediction – not just who would win citywide, and precinct by precinct. The analyst, an expert in elections who grew up in New York City, has spent over a decade in progressive politics and emerged as a kind of well-known figure this year for his thorough analyses into city data and polling.

He released his highly detailed forecast map – which correctly forecast that Zohran Mamdani was victorious although missing Andrew Cuomo’s solid showing – on his Substack, the Narrative War. Lange has a flair for witty coinages. He pointed out, for instance, the split between the progressive stronghold, running from one neighborhood to another area to a third locale, where he predicted (accurately) that Mamdani would triumph by huge margins, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. In those areas, certain media outlets and Wall Street Journal surpass the New York Times” in readership and the majority of electors leaned toward the independent, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Election Night Trends and Unexpected Results

What was your night?

It was necessary since they were dropping approximately 200K ballots into the tally frequently! I felt somewhat anxious initially: Mamdani was ahead the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but came large groups of votes 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 somewhat badly for him, where the opponent would have basically doubling his votes from the earlier contest. However Mamdani added 500,000 votes to his primary coalition, and that’s a huge reason why he won. He went out and massively expanded his support from the primary.

Expanding Support

Where did Mamdani get those extra votes from?

He assembled the coalition that progressives long aimed for: it’s multiracial, it’s young, it’s renters and individuals facing cost pressures. He improved considerably with minority communities, working- and middle-class voters, relative to the primary. Plus he boosted his base of left-leaning activists, young leftists, and Muslims and south Asians. He couldn’t have won without expanding his appeal.

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

Additionally, there were some Trump/Mamdani voters – is this significant?

It’s definitely a real thing, confined to working-class Latinos, Asian communities and Muslims. Voters in immigrant strongholds that supported the former president previously backed the progressive now. But I wouldn’t say he was gaining Caucasian laborers and Trump loyalists.

Turnout and Impact

A major development of the election was the record participation. Who did that help?

Both sides. Turnout was significantly higher than anticipated. I thought it could exceed 2 million, but it’s closer to 2.3M – that is a lot of darn voters. Existed a decent anti-Mamdani block, energized, but the Mamdani base was equally driven, and that sufficed to win.

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

Right now it appears he’s likely to get over 50%. He’s at just over 50% but there’s still probably 200,000 votes left to report as of Wednesday morning. Thus it’s not certain, but I believe it’s likely, and I hope he does because then no one can say Sliwa 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 area. Including Tottenville in the borough, similar to an 88% Trump neighborhood. That really surprised me. Cuomo kept very white areas, affluent zones and devout communities, and then added all of these Republicans on Staten Island with a high participation. I think there was a lot of strategic balloting by GOP voters. They were doing it 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.

The “Commie Corridor”

Regarding your much mentioned “commie corridor” – did backing for Mamdani dominant in those areas of the boroughs?

I think there was a little dilution of the progressive zone in some areas like neighborhoods that have older Caucasian residents. There, instance, the property owners and residents all went for the independent. Thus there existed a little resistance. But no, mostly the leftist base is another huge reason why Mamdani prevailed – he scored between 77% and 83% in specific neighborhoods.

Jewish Voters

In the lead-up to the vote there was coverage on whether the candidate was gaining ground with Jewish New Yorkers. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?

There are neighborhoods with many non-religious and left-inclined voters – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he did well. However in the affluent districts like the Upper East Side, 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 favored Cuomo. Plus, you have newcomers from the former Soviet Union in the borough, who were pretty staunchly supportive. So I don’t know if there were major surprises on this one, but he did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the another locale by big margins.

Long-Term Significance

Has Mamdani rewritten what the city represents in politics? Will progressive base become a launch pad for leftwing candidates?

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

But I believe that each urban center in America can have their own commie corridor. Cities are the epicenters of leftwing power in America – because they’re young, people rent and they represent locales where individuals struggle by the disparities we face.