🔗 Share this article

Just two days prior to the New York mayoral election, Michael Lange issued a significant forecast – going beyond the winner citywide, and block by block. The analyst, a political analyst who grew up in the city, has spent over a decade in progressive politics and emerged as a kind of well-known figure this year for his deep dives into city data and polling.

He published his extremely precise forecast map – which correctly forecast that Zohran Mamdani was victorious although failed to predict Andrew Cuomo’s strong performance – on his Substack, the Narrative War. He has a flair for witty coinages. He pointed out, as an example, the split between the progressive stronghold, running from one neighborhood to Bushwick to a third locale, where he forecasted (accurately) that the left-wing candidate would triumph by huge margins, and the “capitalist corridor” on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. There, certain media outlets and financial newspapers outrank the New York Times” in readership and most voters leaned toward the independent, who ran as a moderate alternative.

Election Night Trends and Unexpected Results

What was your election night?

I had to do that since they were dropping approximately 200K votes into the tally every few minutes! I felt somewhat anxious initially: The candidate led the initial ballots by 12 points, but came two big batches of ballots added after that and his lead went from 12% to 8%. It was concerning.

Understand, there was a world in which election day turned out somewhat badly for Mamdani, where Cuomo was going to end up basically doubling his votes from the Democratic primary. But Mamdani gained half a million votes to his initial base, and this was critical why he won. He went out and massively expanded his base from the primary.

Expanding Support

Where did Mamdani get additional support from?

He assembled the alliance that progressives long aimed for: it’s multiracial, youthful, it’s renters and it’s people facing cost pressures. He improved significantly with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the earlier election. Additionally he further maximized his base of left-leaning activists, young leftists, and immigrant groups. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

He created the alliance that the left always wanted to build: diverse, youthful, renters and people squeezed by affordability

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

It is a real thing, confined to working-class Latinos, Asian communities and Muslims. Electors in immigrant strongholds that went for Trump previously backed Zohran this year. However I wouldn’t say he was gaining Caucasian laborers and Maga voters.

Voter Participation and Effects

A major development of the night was the record turnout. Who did that help?

Both sides. Participation was much greater than anticipated. I figured we might go over 2 million, but it reached 2.3 million – which is a huge number of participants. Existed a decent anti-Mamdani block, energized, but his supporters was also motivated, and that was enough to secure victory.

You predicted he’d get over 50% of the vote. Is he on course for that?

Currently it appears he’s likely to surpass 50%. He has just over 50% but there’s still around 200K ballots left to report as of Wednesday morning. So I don’t think it’s definitive, but I think it’s likely, and I wish he achieves it so afterwards no one can say the Republican was a disruptor.

GOP Decline

Curtis Sliwa, the conservative contender, was another surprise. His vote plummeted.

He lost any district in any borough. Not even Tottenville in Staten Island, which is like an 88% Trump neighborhood. That truly was unexpected. The independent held Caucasian districts, affluent zones and very religiously Jewish areas, and plus gained many conservatives on the island with a high participation. I think there was significant tactical voting by the Republicans. This happened before the former president endorsed for Cuomo, but that definitely helped. It might have changed the outcome unless Mamdani’s coalition hadn’t grown.

The “Commie Corridor”

Regarding your often-discussed left-wing base – was support for Mamdani dominant in those parts of Brooklyn and Queens?

I think existed some weakening of the progressive zone in certain places like neighborhoods that have older Caucasian residents. There, instance, the Greek landlords and homeowners supported the independent. So there existed a little resistance. But overall, largely the commie corridor is another huge reason why Mamdani won – he was polling between 77% and 83% in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Community Support

In the lead-up to the election we reported on whether Mamdani was making inroads with the community. Any indication that he did?

There are neighborhoods with many non-religious and left-inclined voters – such as Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. But in the wealthy Jewish communities like the Upper East Side, his position on Israel was influential there. Likewise in the moderate communities including Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they all leaned the independent. And also, there are newcomers from Eastern Europe in the borough, who were pretty staunchly supportive. Therefore it’s unclear if existed crazy narrative-busters on this one, but Mamdani retained left-leaning areas and even parts of the another locale by big margins.

Long-Term Significance

Has Mamdani rewritten what New York means politically? Will the progressive base become a launch pad for leftwing candidates?

Absolutely, it’s not accidental that some of the biggest figures from progressives come from a handful of neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I’m sure that we’ll see additional examples – people will emerge from these areas to be promoted to higher office.

However I believe that each urban center in America could develop similar progressive hubs. Urban places 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.