🔗 Share this article

Just two days prior to the NYC mayoral election, political analyst Michael Lange made a significant electoral prediction – going beyond who would win citywide, but block by block. The analyst, an expert in elections who grew up in the city, has spent more than ten years in progressive politics and emerged as something of a 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 was victorious while missing Andrew Cuomo’s solid showing – on his Substack, the Narrative War. Lange has a flair for clever terms. He pointed out, for instance, the divide between the progressive stronghold, running from one neighborhood to another area to a third locale, where he predicted (correctly) that Mamdani would triumph by large leads, and the conservative-leaning zone on affluent parts of Manhattan. There, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal outrank the mainstream paper” in readership and the majority of electors favored Cuomo, campaigning as a conservative-courting independent.

Voting Day Patterns and Surprises

How was your election night?

It was necessary because they were dropping around 200,000 votes into the system frequently! I felt a little nervous initially: The candidate led 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%. I was worried.

Understand, there was a world in which yesterday turned out kind of poorly for him, where the opponent would have essentially increasing his support from the earlier contest. But the winner gained 500,000 votes to his initial base, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He campaigned and massively expanded his support from the primary.

Coalition Building

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

He built the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: diverse racially, it’s young, tenants and individuals squeezed by affordability. He improved considerably with minority communities, everyday New Yorkers, compared to the primary. Additionally he boosted his core of liberal progressives, youthful radicals, and Muslims and south Asians. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

He built the alliance that progressives always wanted to build: multiracial, young, renters and residents squeezed by affordability

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

It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, limited to working-class Latinos, Asian communities and Islamic voters. Voters in immigrant strongholds that went for the former president last year went for the progressive this year. However I wouldn’t say he was gaining Caucasian laborers and Trump loyalists.

Voter Participation and Effects

A major development of the night was the sky-high turnout. Who benefited?

Both sides. Participation was much greater than I had expected. I figured it could exceed two million, but it’s closer to 2.3 million – that is a lot of darn voters. There was a substantial opposition group, who were motivated, but his supporters was also motivated, and that was enough to win.

You predicted he’d get over half the ballots. Is he likely for that?

Currently you would say he’s favored to get over half. He has just over 50% but remain probably 200,000 votes left to report at that time. Thus it’s not it’s definitive, but I think probable, and I hope he does because afterwards none can claim Sliwa was a disruptor.

GOP Decline

Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, is the other big story. His support plummeted.

He lost a single precinct in any area. Including Tottenville in the borough, similar to an highly conservative area. That truly surprised me. The independent kept Caucasian districts, very wealthy areas and very religiously Jewish areas, and plus gained all of these conservatives on Staten Island with a high participation. I believe occurred a lot of tactical voting by GOP voters. This happened prior to the former president endorsed for Cuomo, but it assisted. It might have changed the outcome if Mamdani’s coalition hadn’t grown.

Progressive Strongholds

What about your often-discussed left-wing base – did backing for the candidate dominant in those parts of Brooklyn and Queens?

In my view existed some weakening 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. So there existed some opposition. However no, largely the leftist base is another huge reason why Zohran prevailed – he was polling between 77% and 83% in specific neighborhoods.

Community Support

Prior to the election there was coverage on whether the candidate was making inroads with the community. Any indication that he did?

There are neighborhoods with many non-religious and left-inclined voters – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. However in the affluent districts like the Manhattan area, his position on Israel was influential there. Similarly in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they all leaned the independent. And also, you have Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe in southern Brooklyn, they were strongly Cuomo. Therefore it’s unclear if there were major surprises here, but he did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and even parts of the another locale by big margins.

Long-Term Significance

Has Mamdani rewritten what New York means politically? Will commie corridor serve as a springboard for progressive contenders?

Absolutely, it’s no coincidence that key political leaders from progressives come from a few areas in the boroughs. I believe that there will be additional examples – people will come from these neighborhoods to be promoted to higher office.

However I believe that every city in America could develop similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the centers of progressive influence in America – because they’re young, people rent and they are places where individuals struggle by the disparities we face.