🔗 Share this article

Only two days prior to the NYC race for mayor, Michael Lange made a significant electoral prediction – not just the winner overall, but block by block. Lange, 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 highly detailed forecast map – accurately predicting that Zohran Mamdani was victorious while missing Andrew Cuomo’s strong performance – on his newsletter, his platform. He has a flair for clever terms. He pointed out, for instance, the split between the progressive stronghold, running from one neighborhood to Bushwick to a third locale, where he predicted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would win by huge margins, and the “capitalist corridor” on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. There, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal surpass the mainstream paper” in readership and most voters leaned toward Cuomo, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Voting Day Trends and Surprises

How was your night?

It was necessary since they were adding around 200,000 ballots into the system frequently! I was actually somewhat anxious initially: The candidate led the early vote by a dozen percentage points, but there were two big batches of ballots that came in after that and the advantage went from 12 to 8%. It was concerning.

You know, it was possible where election day turned out kind of poorly for him, in which Cuomo was going to end up essentially increasing his support from the Democratic primary. But the winner added half a million supporters to his primary coalition, and this was critical why he succeeded. He campaigned and massively expanded his base from the primary.

Expanding Support

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

He assembled the alliance that progressives always wanted to build: it’s multiracial, it’s young, tenants and it’s people facing cost pressures. He improved significantly with minority communities, everyday New Yorkers, compared to the earlier election. Plus he further maximized his base of liberal progressives, youthful radicals, and immigrant groups. Victory required without expanding his appeal.

He created the alliance that the left always wanted to build: multiracial, youthful, renters and people squeezed by affordability

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 Islamic voters. Electors in ethnic enclaves that supported Trump last year went for Zohran this year. However it’s not that he was winning over white working-class voters and Maga voters.

Voter Participation and Effects

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

Both sides. Participation was significantly higher than anticipated. I figured it could go over two million, but it’s closer to 2.3 million – that is a lot of darn voters. There was a decent opposition group, who were motivated, but his supporters was also motivated, and that sufficed to win.

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

Currently you would say he’s likely to get over half. He’s at 50.4% but remain probably 200K ballots uncounted as of Wednesday morning. Thus I don’t think certain, but I think it’s likely, and I hope he achieves it so afterwards no one can say Sliwa was a disruptor.

Republican Collapse

Curtis Sliwa, the conservative contender, was another surprise. His vote plummeted.

He lost a single precinct in any borough. Not even one neighborhood in Staten Island, similar to an 88% Trump area. That truly was unexpected. The independent held Caucasian districts, affluent zones and very religiously Jewish areas, and plus gained many conservatives on the island who had a high participation. I think there was a lot of tactical voting by the Republicans. They were doing it prior to Trump endorsed for Cuomo, but it assisted. It could have even turned the tide unless the winning alliance failed to expand.

The “Commie Corridor”

What about your often-discussed “commie corridor” – was support for Mamdani dominant in those areas of Brooklyn and Queens?

In my view existed a little dilution of the commie corridor in some areas like neighborhoods that have older Caucasian residents. In Astoria, instance, the Greek landlords and residents all went for Cuomo. Thus there existed some opposition. However overall, mostly the commie corridor is another huge reason why Mamdani won – he was polling between 77% and 83% in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Jewish Voters

In the lead-up to the vote there was coverage on if the candidate was making inroads with the community. Any indication that he did?

There are areas with many non-religious and left-inclined voters – like specific locales – where he performed strongly. However in the affluent districts such as the Upper East Side, his Middle East stance definitely mattered in those places. Similarly in the more middle-class Jewish areas including Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they all leaned the independent. Plus, there are newcomers from the former Soviet Union in southern Brooklyn, who were strongly supportive. So I don’t know if existed crazy narrative-busters here, but Mamdani did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the Upper West Side with large leads.

Political Impact

Did Mamdani redefine what New York means politically? Will progressive base become a launch pad for leftwing candidates?

Yes, it’s not accidental that key political leaders from the left come from a few areas in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I’m sure that we’ll see more of that – candidates will emerge from these neighborhoods to be elevated nationally.

But I believe that every city in America could develop their own commie corridor. Urban places are the centers of leftwing power in America – since they’re young, people rent and they represent locales where people are crushed by the inequalities we face.