🔗 Share this article

Only 48 hours prior to the New York race for mayor, Michael Lange issued a significant electoral prediction – not just the winner overall, but precinct by precinct. The analyst, an expert in elections who grew up in New York City, devoted over a decade in progressive politics and has become a kind of local celebrity this year for his deep dives into city data and voter surveys.

He released his extremely precise forecast map – which correctly forecast that the progressive candidate would win although missing the independent candidate’s strong performance – on his Substack, the Narrative War. Lange possesses a talent for clever terms. He highlighted, as an example, the split between the progressive stronghold, stretching from Park Slope to another area to Astoria, where he forecasted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate 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 Wall Street Journal outrank the New York Times” in audience and most voters leaned toward the independent, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Election Night Patterns and Unexpected Results

What was your night?

I had to do that since they were dropping approximately 200K votes into the tally frequently! I felt somewhat anxious initially: Mamdani led the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but came two big batches of votes added after that and the advantage went from 12% to 8%. It was concerning.

Understand, it was possible in which yesterday turned out somewhat badly for him, in which the opponent was going to end up basically doubling his votes from the earlier contest. But the winner gained 500,000 votes to his initial base, and this was critical why he succeeded. He went out and greatly broadened his base from the primary.

Expanding Support

How did the mayor-elect gain those extra votes from?

He assembled the alliance that progressives long aimed for: diverse racially, it’s young, tenants and individuals facing cost pressures. He improved considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the primary. Plus he further maximized his base of left-leaning activists, young leftists, and Muslims and south Asians. He couldn’t have won without making those significant inroads.

He created the alliance that the left long aimed for: diverse, young, renters and residents squeezed by affordability

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

It is a genuine phenomenon, limited to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Islamic voters. Electors in ethnic enclaves that supported the former president previously went for the progressive this year. But I wouldn’t say he was winning over Caucasian laborers and Trump loyalists.

Voter Participation and Effects

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

Both sides. Turnout was much greater than anticipated. I thought we might go over two million, but it reached 2.3M – which is a huge number of participants. Existed a substantial anti-Mamdani block, who were motivated, but the Mamdani base was equally driven, and that sufficed to secure victory.

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

Currently you would say he’s favored to get over half. He has just over 50% but there’s still around 200K ballots left to report at that time. So it’s not it’s definitive, but I believe probable, and I hope he does because afterwards no one can say Sliwa was a disruptor.

Republican Collapse

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

He didn’t win a single precinct in any area. Including one neighborhood in Staten Island, which is like an highly conservative neighborhood. That really was unexpected. The independent held Caucasian districts, very wealthy areas and very religiously Jewish areas, and then added all of these Republicans on the island who had a high participation. I think there was a lot of tactical voting by GOP voters. They were doing it before the former president endorsed for Cuomo, but it assisted. It could have even turned the tide unless the winning alliance failed to expand.

The “Commie Corridor”

Regarding your much mentioned “commie corridor” – was support for the candidate dominant in those parts of the boroughs?

I think existed a little dilution of the progressive zone in certain places like Astoria or Greenpoint that have older Caucasian residents. There, for example, the Greek landlords and homeowners all went for the independent. So there was a little resistance. But no, mostly the leftist base is a key factor why Mamdani won – he scored between high percentages in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Jewish Voters

Prior to the election we reported on if Mamdani was gaining ground with the community. Any indication that he did?

Exist neighborhoods with many non-religious and left-inclined voters – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. But in the wealthy Jewish communities like the Manhattan area, his position on Israel definitely mattered there. Similarly in the moderate communities including Queens neighborhoods, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored Cuomo. Plus, you have newcomers from Eastern Europe in the borough, who were pretty staunchly supportive. Therefore I don’t know if there were major surprises here, but Mamdani retained more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the another locale with large leads.

Political Impact

Has Mamdani rewritten what New York represents in politics? Will commie corridor serve as a springboard for progressive contenders?

Absolutely, it’s not accidental that key figures from the left come from a handful of neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I believe that we’ll see more of that – people will come from these areas to be elevated nationally.

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