🔗 Share this article

Just 48 hours before the New York race for mayor, political analyst Michael Lange made a bold forecast – going beyond the winner overall, but precinct by precinct. Lange, an expert in elections born and raised in New York City, has spent more than ten years in progressive politics and emerged as something of a well-known figure this year for his deep dives into city data and voter surveys.

He published his extremely precise prediction map – which correctly forecast that Zohran Mamdani would win while missing the independent candidate’s strong performance – on his Substack, his platform. 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 predicted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would triumph by huge margins, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. There, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal surpass the New York Times” in readership and the majority of electors favored Cuomo, campaigning as a moderate alternative.

Voting Day Patterns and Surprises

How was your election night?

It was necessary because they were dropping approximately 200K votes into the tally frequently! I was actually somewhat anxious initially: The candidate was ahead the initial ballots by 12 points, but came two big batches of votes that came in after that and his lead went from 12 to 8%. It was concerning.

Understand, there was a world in which election day turned out kind of poorly for Mamdani, where the opponent would have basically increasing his support from the Democratic primary. However the winner added 500,000 supporters to his primary coalition, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He campaigned and greatly broadened his base from the primary.

Expanding Support

How did the mayor-elect gain additional support from?

He built the coalition that the left long aimed for: it’s multiracial, it’s young, it’s renters and individuals facing cost pressures. He gained significantly with minority communities, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the earlier election. Additionally he boosted his core of left-leaning activists, youthful radicals, and immigrant groups. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

He built the alliance that progressives always wanted to build: diverse, youthful, renters and people struggling with costs

There were also a number of supporters of both candidates – is this significant?

It is a real thing, confined to Hispanic laborers, south Asians and Islamic voters. Voters in ethnic enclaves that supported Trump last year went for the progressive this year. But I wouldn’t say he was gaining Caucasian laborers and Maga voters.

Voter Participation and Impact

One of the big stories of the election was the record turnout. Who benefited?

Both sides. Turnout was significantly higher than anticipated. I figured it could go over two million, but it reached 2.3 million – which is a lot of darn voters. Existed a decent anti-Mamdani block, energized, but his supporters was also motivated, and that sufficed to win.

You forecasted he’d get over half the ballots. Is he on course for that?

Right now it appears he’s favored to get over half. He’s at just over 50% but there’s still around 200K ballots left to report as of Wednesday morning. So I don’t think it’s definitive, but I think it’s likely, and I hope he does so afterwards no one can say the Republican was a disruptor.

Republican Collapse

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

He didn’t win any district in any area. Not even Tottenville in Staten Island, similar to an 88% Trump neighborhood. That really was unexpected. The independent held Caucasian districts, affluent zones and very religiously Jewish areas, and then added many conservatives on Staten Island who had a strong turnout. I believe there was a lot of strategic balloting by GOP voters. They were doing it before the former president endorsed for the candidate, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide unless Mamdani’s coalition failed to expand.

Progressive Strongholds

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

In my view there was 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. Thus there existed a little resistance. But overall, largely the leftist base is another huge reason why Zohran won – he scored between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.

Jewish Voters

Prior to the vote we reported on whether the candidate was making inroads with Jewish New Yorkers. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?

There are neighborhoods with a lot of non-religious and left-inclined voters – such as Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he did well. However in the affluent districts like the Upper East Side, his Middle East stance definitely mattered in those places. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Bronx areas – they all leaned the independent. Plus, you have newcomers from the former Soviet Union in the borough, they were strongly supportive. Therefore I don’t know if there were crazy narrative-busters on this one, but Mamdani retained left-leaning areas and even parts of the Upper West Side with large leads.

Political Impact

Did Mamdani redefine what the city means politically? Will commie corridor become a launch pad for progressive contenders?

Absolutely, it’s not accidental that key figures from the left come from a few areas in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I’m sure that there will be additional examples – candidates will come from these neighborhoods to be promoted to higher office.

But I think that each urban center in America could develop their own commie corridor. Urban places are the epicenters of progressive influence in the nation – since they’re young, tenancy is common and they represent locales where people are crushed by the inequalities exist.