🔗 Share this article

Only 48 hours prior to the NYC mayoral election, Michael Lange issued a significant electoral prediction – going beyond who would win overall, but precinct by precinct. Lange, a political analyst who grew up in New York City, has spent more than ten years in progressive politics and has become a kind of well-known figure recently for his deep dives into city data and voter surveys.

He released his highly detailed prediction map – accurately predicting 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 highlighted, for instance, the split between the progressive stronghold, stretching from one neighborhood to another area to a third locale, where he forecasted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would win by huge margins, and the conservative-leaning zone on affluent parts of Manhattan. There, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal surpass the New York Times” in audience and the majority of electors leaned toward the independent, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Election Night Patterns and Surprises

How was your election night?

I had to do that because they were dropping around 200,000 ballots into the system every few minutes! I was actually a little nervous initially: The candidate was ahead the early vote by 12 points, but there were two big batches of ballots that came in after that and his lead went from 12% to 8%. It was concerning.

You know, it was possible where yesterday went kind of poorly for him, in which the opponent was going to end up essentially increasing his support from the Democratic primary. However the winner added 500,000 votes to his initial base, and that’s a huge reason why he won. He campaigned and greatly broadened his support from the first round.

Expanding Support

Where did Mamdani gain those extra votes from?

He assembled the coalition that progressives long aimed for: diverse racially, it’s young, tenants and individuals squeezed by affordability. He gained considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, working- and middle-class voters, compared 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 always wanted to build: multiracial, young, renters and people struggling with costs

There were also a number of Trump/Mamdani voters – is this significant?

It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, limited to Hispanic laborers, south Asians and Muslims. Electors in ethnic enclaves that supported Trump last year backed the progressive this year. However I wouldn’t say he was winning over white working-class voters and Trump loyalists.

Turnout and Impact

One of the big stories of the election was the sky-high participation. Who benefited?

Both sides. Turnout was significantly higher than I had expected. I thought we might go over two million, but it’s closer to 2.3M – that is a lot of darn voters. There was a decent anti-Mamdani block, energized, but his supporters was also motivated, and that sufficed to win.

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

Right now you would say he’s favored to get over 50%. He has just over 50% but remain probably 200,000 votes left to report as of Wednesday morning. So I don’t think certain, but I believe it’s likely, and I hope he achieves it so then none can claim the Republican was a spoiler.

GOP Decline

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

He didn’t win any district in any area. Not even one neighborhood in Staten Island, which is like an 88% Trump neighborhood. That really surprised me. The independent kept very white areas, very wealthy areas and devout communities, and plus gained all of these conservatives on Staten Island who had a high participation. I think there was significant strategic balloting by GOP voters. This happened before the former president tweeted his support for Cuomo, but it assisted. It could have even turned the tide if the winning alliance failed to expand.

Progressive Strongholds

What about your often-discussed “commie corridor” – was support for Mamdani overwhelming in those parts of the boroughs?

I think existed some weakening of the commie corridor in some areas like Astoria or Greenpoint that have older Caucasian residents. In Astoria, for example, the Greek landlords and homeowners all went for Cuomo. Thus there existed a little resistance. But overall, largely the commie corridor is a key factor why Zohran prevailed – he was polling between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.

Community Support

In the lead-up to the election there was coverage on whether Mamdani was gaining ground with the community. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?

There are areas with a lot of secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. However in the wealthy Jewish communities such as the Manhattan area, his position on Israel was influential in those places. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas including Queens neighborhoods, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they all leaned Cuomo. Plus, you have newcomers from Eastern Europe in southern Brooklyn, they were strongly Cuomo. So it’s unclear if existed crazy narrative-busters on this one, but he retained more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the Upper West Side with large leads.

Long-Term Significance

Did Mamdani redefine what the city means politically? Will the progressive base serve as a springboard for leftwing candidates?

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’m sure that there will be more of that – people will emerge from these areas to be promoted to higher office.

But I believe that each urban center in the US could develop similar progressive hubs. Cities are the centers of progressive influence in the nation – since they’re young, tenancy is common and they represent locales where people are crushed by the disparities we face.