🔗 Share this article

Just two days before the New York mayoral election, political analyst Michael Lange issued a bold electoral prediction – not just the winner citywide, but precinct by precinct. The analyst, an expert in elections born and raised in the city, has spent over a decade in progressive politics and has become a kind of well-known figure this year for his thorough analyses into municipal statistics and polling.

He released his highly detailed prediction map – accurately predicting that the progressive candidate was victorious although missing Andrew Cuomo’s strong performance – on his Substack, his platform. He possesses a talent for witty coinages. He pointed out, as an example, the split between the progressive stronghold, stretching from one neighborhood to Bushwick to Astoria, where he predicted (accurately) that the left-wing candidate would triumph by huge margins, and the conservative-leaning zone 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, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Election Night Patterns and Unexpected Results

What was your night?

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

You know, there was a world where yesterday went kind of poorly for Mamdani, in which Cuomo was going to end up essentially doubling his votes from the Democratic primary. However the winner gained half a million votes to his initial base, and this was critical why he succeeded. He campaigned and massively expanded his base from the first round.

Coalition Building

Where did Mamdani gain those extra votes from?

He assembled the alliance that progressives always wanted to build: diverse racially, youthful, tenants and individuals squeezed by affordability. He gained considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, working- and middle-class voters, relative to the earlier election. Plus he further maximized his core of liberal progressives, youthful radicals, and Muslims and south Asians. He couldn’t have won without expanding his appeal.

He created the coalition that the left long aimed for: diverse, youthful, tenants and residents struggling with costs

Additionally, there were some supporters of both candidates – is that a big trend?

It is a real thing, limited to Hispanic laborers, south Asians and Muslims. Voters in immigrant strongholds that supported the former president previously went for Zohran now. However I wouldn’t say he was gaining Caucasian laborers and Maga voters.

Turnout and Impact

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

Each candidate. Turnout was much greater than I had expected. I figured it could exceed 2 million, but it reached 2.3 million – that is a lot of darn voters. Existed a substantial anti-Mamdani block, energized, but the Mamdani base was also motivated, and that sufficed to secure victory.

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

Right now it appears he’s favored to surpass half. He’s at just over 50% but there’s still probably 200K ballots uncounted as of Wednesday morning. So I don’t think it’s definitive, but I believe probable, and I hope he achieves it because then none can claim Sliwa was a disruptor.

Republican Collapse

The GOP candidate, the conservative contender, is the other big story. His vote completely collapsed.

He lost a single precinct in any area. Not even one neighborhood in the borough, similar to an 88% Trump neighborhood. That truly was unexpected. The independent kept Caucasian districts, very wealthy areas and devout communities, and plus gained all of these conservatives on Staten Island with a high participation. I believe there was significant strategic balloting by the Republicans. This happened prior to the former president endorsed for Cuomo, but it assisted. It could have even turned the tide if Mamdani’s coalition failed to expand.

The “Commie Corridor”

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

In my view there was a little dilution of the commie corridor in some areas like Astoria or Greenpoint that have more older white ethnic folks. In Astoria, for example, the Greek landlords and residents supported Cuomo. Thus there was some opposition. But overall, mostly the leftist base is another huge reason why Zohran won – he scored between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.

Jewish Voters

In the lead-up to the vote we reported on whether the candidate was gaining ground with the community. Any indication that he did?

Exist 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 Upper East Side, his Middle East stance definitely mattered there. Similarly in the moderate communities including Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Bronx areas – they all leaned the independent. And also, you have Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe in the borough, they were pretty staunchly Cuomo. Therefore it’s unclear if there were crazy narrative-busters on this one, but Mamdani did hold left-leaning areas and including sections of the Upper West Side by big margins.

Long-Term Significance

Did Mamdani redefine what the city means politically? Will the progressive base become a launch pad for leftwing candidates?

Absolutely, it’s no coincidence that some of the biggest political leaders from the left come from a handful of neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I believe that we’ll see more of that – candidates will emerge from these neighborhoods to be elevated nationally.

However I believe that every city in America can have similar progressive hubs. Cities are the epicenters of progressive influence in the nation – because youth reside there, tenancy is common and they represent locales where individuals struggle by the disparities exist.