🔗 Share this article

Just two days prior to the NYC race for mayor, political analyst Michael Lange made a significant electoral prediction – not just the winner citywide, and precinct by precinct. The analyst, a political analyst born and raised in New York City, devoted more than ten years in left-leaning activism and emerged as something of a well-known figure recently for his thorough analyses into municipal statistics and polling.

He published his highly detailed prediction map – accurately predicting that the progressive candidate was victorious although failed to predict the independent candidate’s strong performance – on his Substack, his platform. He has a flair for witty coinages. He highlighted, as an example, the divide between the progressive stronghold, running from Park Slope to another area to Astoria, where he forecasted (accurately) that Mamdani would triumph by large leads, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. In those areas, “the Free Press and financial newspapers outrank the New York Times” in audience and the majority of electors leaned toward the independent, campaigning as a conservative-courting independent.

Election Night Patterns and Surprises

How was your election night?

I had to do that because they were dropping approximately 200K votes into the system every few minutes! I was actually a little nervous at the beginning: Mamdani led the initial ballots by 12 points, but there were two big batches of votes added after that and his lead dropped from 12% to 8%. It was concerning.

You know, it was possible in which election day went somewhat badly for Mamdani, where the opponent would have essentially doubling his votes from the earlier contest. But Mamdani gained 500,000 votes to his initial base, and that’s a huge reason why he won. He went out and greatly broadened his support from the primary.

Coalition Building

Where did the mayor-elect gain additional support from?

He assembled the coalition that the left always wanted to build: it’s multiracial, youthful, it’s renters and it’s people facing cost pressures. He gained significantly with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, compared to the earlier election. Plus he boosted his core of liberal progressives, youthful radicals, and Muslims and south Asians. He couldn’t have won without making those significant inroads.

He built the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: multiracial, young, renters and people 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 Islamic voters. Voters in immigrant strongholds that supported Trump last year went for the progressive this year. But I wouldn’t say he was winning over white working-class voters and Maga voters.

Voter Participation and Effects

One of the big stories of the election was the sky-high turnout. Who did that help?

Both sides. Participation was much greater than I had expected. I thought it could go over 2 million, but it’s closer to 2.3 million – that is a huge number of participants. Existed a substantial anti-Mamdani block, energized, but his supporters was equally driven, and that sufficed to win.

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

Right now it appears he’s likely to surpass half. He has 50.4% but there’s still around 200K ballots uncounted at that time. Thus it’s not it’s definitive, but I think it’s likely, and I wish he achieves it because then none can claim Sliwa was a spoiler.

GOP Decline

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

He didn’t win a single precinct in any borough. Including one neighborhood in the borough, similar to an 88% Trump area. That really was unexpected. The independent kept very white areas, very wealthy areas and very religiously Jewish areas, and plus gained all of these Republicans on the island with a strong turnout. I think there was a lot of strategic balloting by GOP voters. This happened prior to the former president tweeted his support for Cuomo, but it assisted. It might have changed the outcome if the winning alliance hadn’t grown.

The “Commie Corridor”

What about your much mentioned “commie corridor” – was support for Mamdani dominant in those areas of the boroughs?

I think there was a little dilution of the progressive zone in certain places like neighborhoods that have older Caucasian residents. In Astoria, for example, the Greek landlords and residents supported the independent. Thus there existed a little resistance. However no, 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.

Community Support

In the lead-up to the election there was coverage on if Mamdani was making inroads with the community. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?

Exist areas with many non-religious and left-inclined voters – like specific locales – where he did well. But in the wealthy Jewish communities such as the Upper East Side, his position on Israel was influential in those places. Similarly in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they all leaned Cuomo. Plus, you have Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe in the borough, they were pretty staunchly supportive. So I don’t know if there were crazy narrative-busters here, but Mamdani retained left-leaning areas and including sections of the another locale with large leads.

Long-Term Significance

Has Mamdani rewritten what New York represents in politics? Will the progressive base become a launch pad for progressive contenders?

Absolutely, it’s no coincidence that key political leaders from the left come from a few areas in the boroughs. I’m sure that there will be more of that – people will emerge from these areas to be elevated nationally.

But I think that each urban center in America can have their own commie corridor. Urban places are the epicenters of progressive influence in America – because they’re young, tenancy is common and they are places where people are crushed by the inequalities we face.