🔗 Share this article

Only two days prior to the New York race for mayor, political analyst Michael Lange issued a bold electoral prediction – going beyond who would win citywide, but precinct by precinct. Lange, an expert in elections who grew up in the city, devoted over a decade in left-leaning activism and has become something of a local celebrity recently for his deep dives into municipal statistics and polling.

He released his extremely precise prediction map – which correctly forecast that the progressive candidate would win although missing Andrew Cuomo’s solid showing – on his Substack, the Narrative War. Lange has a flair for witty coinages. He pointed out, as an example, the split between the progressive stronghold, stretching from one neighborhood to another area to Astoria, where he predicted (correctly) that Mamdani would triumph by huge margins, and the “capitalist corridor” on affluent parts of Manhattan. In those areas, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal outrank the mainstream paper” in readership and the majority of electors leaned toward Cuomo, who ran as a moderate alternative.

Election Night Trends and Unexpected Results

What was your night?

It was necessary because they were adding around 200,000 votes into the tally every few minutes! I was actually somewhat anxious at the beginning: Mamdani led the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but came large groups of votes that came in later and the advantage dropped from 12% to 8%. I was worried.

You know, there was a world in which election day went kind of poorly for Mamdani, in which Cuomo was going to end up basically increasing his support from the earlier contest. However Mamdani added 500,000 supporters to his primary coalition, and this was critical why he won. He went out and greatly broadened his base from the primary.

Expanding Support

How did Mamdani gain those extra votes from?

He assembled the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: diverse racially, it’s young, it’s renters and it’s people facing cost pressures. He improved considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, compared to the earlier election. Additionally he boosted his base of left-leaning activists, youthful radicals, and immigrant groups. Victory required without expanding his appeal.

He created the alliance that progressives always wanted to build: diverse, youthful, tenants and residents squeezed by affordability

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

It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, confined to Hispanic laborers, south Asians and Muslims. Electors in ethnic enclaves that went for Trump last year backed the progressive now. However I wouldn’t say he was gaining Caucasian laborers and Trump loyalists.

Voter Participation and Effects

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

Both sides. Participation was significantly higher than anticipated. I figured it could go over 2 million, but it’s closer to 2.3 million – which is a lot of darn voters. Existed a substantial opposition group, energized, but his supporters was equally driven, and that sufficed to secure victory.

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

Currently you would say he’s favored to surpass half. He has just over 50% but there’s still around 200K ballots left to report at that time. Thus I don’t think it’s definitive, but I think it’s likely, and I hope he does so afterwards no one can say the Republican was a disruptor.

GOP Decline

The GOP candidate, the Republican candidate, was another surprise. His support completely collapsed.

He lost a single precinct in any borough. Not even one neighborhood in the borough, similar to an 88% Trump area. That really surprised me. Cuomo kept Caucasian districts, affluent zones and devout communities, and then added all of these conservatives on the island with a high participation. I believe there was a lot of strategic balloting by GOP voters. This happened prior to Trump endorsed for Cuomo, but that definitely helped. It might have changed the outcome unless Mamdani’s coalition hadn’t grown.

Progressive Strongholds

What about your much mentioned “commie corridor” – did backing for Mamdani overwhelming in those areas of Brooklyn and Queens?

In my view there was some weakening of the commie corridor in certain places like Astoria or Greenpoint that have more older white ethnic folks. In Astoria, for example, the Greek landlords and homeowners all went for Cuomo. Thus there existed some opposition. But overall, largely the leftist base is a key factor why Zohran won – he was polling between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.

Community Support

In the lead-up to the vote we reported on whether Mamdani was making inroads with Jewish New Yorkers. Any indication that he succeeded?

There are areas with many secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – such as Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. However in the wealthy Jewish communities such as the Upper East Side, his position on Israel was influential there. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas including Queens neighborhoods, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored Cuomo. Plus, there are newcomers from Eastern Europe in the borough, who were strongly supportive. Therefore I don’t know if existed major surprises here, but he did hold left-leaning areas and even parts of the another locale with large leads.

Long-Term Significance

Has Mamdani rewritten what New York represents in politics? Will the progressive base serve as a springboard for leftwing candidates?

Absolutely, it’s not accidental that some of the biggest figures from the left hail from a handful of neighborhoods in the boroughs. I’m sure that we’ll see additional examples – people will come from these areas to be elevated nationally.

But I think that each urban center in America could develop their own commie corridor. Urban places are the centers of leftwing power in America – since youth reside there, tenancy is common and they represent locales where individuals struggle by the disparities we face.