🔗 Share this article

Just 48 hours before the NYC race for mayor, Michael Lange made a significant forecast – going beyond who would win citywide, but precinct by precinct. Lange, an expert in elections who grew up in the city, has spent more than ten years in left-leaning activism and emerged as a kind of well-known figure this year for his deep dives into municipal statistics and polling.

He published his highly detailed forecast map – accurately predicting that the progressive candidate would win although missing the independent candidate’s strong performance – on his Substack, the Narrative War. He possesses a talent for clever terms. He pointed out, for instance, the split between the progressive stronghold, stretching from Park Slope to another area to Astoria, where he predicted (accurately) that Mamdani would triumph by large leads, and the conservative-leaning zone on affluent parts of Manhattan. In those areas, “the Free Press and financial newspapers outrank the New York Times” in audience and the majority of electors favored the independent, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Voting Day Trends and Surprises

How was your night?

It was necessary since they were dropping around 200,000 votes into the system every few minutes! I was actually a little nervous initially: The candidate led the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but came two big batches of votes added after that and his lead went from 12% to 8%. I was worried.

You know, there was a world where election day went kind of poorly for him, in which the opponent was going to end up essentially increasing his support from the earlier contest. However the winner gained 500,000 supporters to his initial base, and this was critical why he succeeded. He went out and greatly broadened his support from the first round.

Expanding Support

How did the mayor-elect gain additional support from?

He assembled the coalition that progressives long aimed for: it’s multiracial, youthful, tenants and individuals squeezed by affordability. He improved significantly with Black and Hispanic voters, working- and middle-class voters, compared to the primary. Additionally he boosted his base of left-leaning activists, young leftists, and Muslims and south Asians. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

He built the coalition that the left always wanted to build: multiracial, young, renters and people squeezed by affordability

There were also some Trump/Mamdani voters – is this significant?

It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, confined to Hispanic laborers, south Asians and Islamic voters. Voters in immigrant strongholds that supported the former president previously backed the progressive this year. However I wouldn’t say he was winning over white working-class voters and Trump loyalists.

Voter Participation and Effects

A major development of the night was the sky-high participation. Who did that help?

Each candidate. Participation was much greater than anticipated. I thought we might go over 2 million, but it’s closer to 2.3 million – which is a lot of darn voters. There was a decent anti-Mamdani block, who were motivated, but the Mamdani base was equally driven, and that was enough to win.

You forecasted he’d get over 50% of the vote. Is he likely for that?

Right now it appears he’s favored to get over 50%. He’s at 50.4% but remain around 200,000 votes left to report as of Wednesday morning. Thus it’s not certain, but I think it’s likely, and I wish he achieves it so then no one can say the Republican was a disruptor.

GOP Decline

The GOP candidate, the Republican candidate, is the other big story. His support plummeted.

He lost a single precinct in any area. Including Tottenville in the borough, which is like an 88% Trump neighborhood. That truly was unexpected. Cuomo held very white areas, affluent zones and very religiously Jewish areas, and then added all of these Republicans on Staten Island with a high participation. I believe there was a lot of tactical voting by the Republicans. This happened before Trump tweeted his support for Cuomo, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide unless the winning alliance hadn’t grown.

Progressive Strongholds

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

I think existed a little dilution of the progressive zone in some areas like Astoria or Greenpoint that have more older white ethnic folks. There, for example, the Greek landlords and residents all went for the independent. Thus there existed some opposition. But overall, largely the commie corridor is a key factor why Zohran won – he scored between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.

Jewish Voters

Prior to the election there was coverage on whether the candidate was gaining ground with the community. Is there any suggestion that he did?

There are areas with many secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. But in the wealthy Jewish communities such as the Manhattan area, his position on Israel was influential there. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Queens neighborhoods, or Bronx areas – they favored the independent. And also, you have Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in southern Brooklyn, who were pretty staunchly Cuomo. Therefore it’s unclear if there were major surprises on this one, but he did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and even parts of the another locale with large leads.

Long-Term Significance

Did Mamdani redefine what New York represents in politics? Will the commie corridor serve as a springboard for progressive contenders?

Absolutely, it’s not accidental 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 additional examples – candidates will come from these areas to be elevated nationally.

But I believe that every city in the US could develop similar progressive hubs. Cities are the centers of progressive influence in America – since they’re young, tenancy is common and they represent locales where individuals struggle by the disparities we face.