🔗 Share this article

Just 48 hours prior to the New York race for mayor, Michael Lange made a bold electoral prediction – going beyond the winner citywide, but precinct by precinct. Lange, an expert in elections who grew up in New York City, devoted more than ten years in left-leaning activism and emerged as something of a local celebrity recently for his deep dives into city data and voter surveys.

He published his extremely precise forecast map – which correctly forecast that Zohran Mamdani would win although missing Andrew Cuomo’s strong performance – on his newsletter, his platform. Lange has a flair for witty coinages. He highlighted, for instance, the divide between the progressive stronghold, stretching from Park Slope to Bushwick to Astoria, where he predicted (correctly) that Mamdani would triumph by large leads, and the conservative-leaning zone on affluent parts of Manhattan. There, “the Free Press and financial newspapers surpass the mainstream paper” in readership and the majority of electors favored the independent, campaigning as a conservative-courting independent.

Voting Day Patterns and Unexpected Results

What was your night?

It was necessary because they were dropping approximately 200K votes into the tally frequently! I was actually somewhat anxious initially: Mamdani led the initial ballots by 12 points, but there were two big batches of votes that came in after that and the advantage dropped from 12% to 8%. I was worried.

You know, it was possible where yesterday turned out somewhat badly for him, where Cuomo would have essentially doubling his votes from the earlier contest. However Mamdani gained half a million votes to his initial base, and this was critical why he won. He campaigned and greatly broadened his base from the primary.

Coalition Building

How did Mamdani get those extra votes from?

He built the coalition that the left always wanted to build: diverse racially, youthful, tenants and it’s people facing cost pressures. He gained significantly with Black and Hispanic voters, working- and middle-class voters, relative to the earlier election. Additionally he further maximized his base of left-leaning activists, young leftists, and immigrant groups. He couldn’t have won without expanding his appeal.

He built the alliance that progressives always wanted to build: diverse, young, renters and residents squeezed by affordability

There were also some supporters of both candidates – is this significant?

It is a real thing, confined to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Islamic voters. Electors in immigrant strongholds that supported the former president previously went for the progressive now. But I wouldn’t say he was winning over white working-class voters and Trump loyalists.

Turnout and Effects

One of the big stories of the election was the record turnout. Who benefited?

Each candidate. Turnout was significantly higher than anticipated. I thought it could exceed two million, but it reached 2.3 million – which is a lot of darn voters. There was a substantial anti-Mamdani block, who were motivated, but his supporters was equally driven, and that was enough to secure victory.

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

Right now you would say he’s favored to surpass 50%. He has 50.4% but remain probably 200,000 votes uncounted at that time. So I don’t think it’s definitive, but I believe it’s likely, and I hope he achieves it so afterwards none can claim the Republican 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. Not even one neighborhood in Staten Island, similar to an 88% Trump neighborhood. That really was unexpected. The independent kept very white areas, affluent zones and devout communities, and plus gained many Republicans on Staten Island with a strong turnout. I believe occurred significant tactical voting by GOP voters. This happened before Trump tweeted his support for the candidate, but it assisted. It might have changed the outcome unless Mamdani’s coalition failed to expand.

The “Commie Corridor”

Regarding your much mentioned left-wing base – did backing for Mamdani overwhelming in those parts of the boroughs?

I think existed some weakening of the progressive zone in certain places like neighborhoods that have more older white ethnic folks. There, for example, the Greek landlords and homeowners supported Cuomo. Thus there existed some opposition. However overall, largely the commie corridor is a key factor why Mamdani prevailed – he was polling between 77% and 83% in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Jewish Voters

Prior to the vote there was coverage on if the candidate was making inroads 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. But in the wealthy Jewish communities such as the Manhattan area, his Middle East stance was influential in those places. Likewise in the moderate communities like Queens neighborhoods, or Bronx areas – they favored Cuomo. And also, you have Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe in the borough, they were strongly supportive. So I don’t know if there were major surprises on this one, but Mamdani did hold left-leaning areas and including sections of the Upper West Side by big margins.

Political Impact

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

Yes, it’s no coincidence that some of the biggest figures from the left come from a handful of neighborhoods in the boroughs. I’m sure that we’ll see additional examples – candidates will emerge from these areas to be elevated nationally.

But I think that every city in the US can have similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the epicenters of progressive influence in America – because they’re young, people rent and they represent locales where individuals struggle by the inequalities we face.