🔗 Share this article

Just two days before the NYC race for mayor, Michael Lange issued a significant electoral prediction – not just the winner citywide, but precinct by precinct. The analyst, a political analyst born and raised in the city, devoted over a decade in progressive politics and emerged as a kind of well-known figure this year for his thorough analyses into city data and polling.

He released his highly detailed forecast map – which correctly forecast that Zohran Mamdani was victorious while failed to predict the independent candidate’s solid showing – on his Substack, the Narrative War. Lange possesses a talent for witty coinages. He pointed out, for instance, the split between the “commie corridor”, running from one neighborhood to another area to Astoria, where he predicted (accurately) that the left-wing candidate would win 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 surpass the New York Times” in readership and most voters leaned toward the independent, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Voting Day Trends and Surprises

How was your night?

I had to do that because they were dropping around 200,000 ballots into the tally frequently! I felt somewhat anxious at the beginning: Mamdani was ahead the early vote by 12 points, but there were large groups of votes added after that and the advantage dropped from 12 to 8%. It was concerning.

Understand, there was a world in which yesterday went somewhat badly for Mamdani, where the opponent would have basically increasing his support from the earlier contest. But the winner added half a million votes to his primary coalition, and this was critical why he won. He campaigned and greatly broadened his support from the primary.

Coalition Building

How did Mamdani get additional support from?

He built the alliance that progressives always wanted to build: it’s multiracial, youthful, tenants and individuals facing cost pressures. He improved significantly with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, compared to the earlier election. Additionally he boosted his base of liberal progressives, youthful radicals, and Muslims and south Asians. He couldn’t have won without expanding his appeal.

He built the alliance that progressives long aimed for: multiracial, youthful, tenants and residents squeezed by affordability

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

It is a real thing, confined to Hispanic laborers, south Asians and Islamic voters. Voters in immigrant strongholds that supported Trump previously backed the progressive this year. But it’s not that he was winning over white working-class voters and Trump loyalists.

Voter Participation and Impact

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

Both sides. Turnout was significantly higher than I had expected. I figured it could exceed two million, but it reached 2.3 million – that is a huge number of participants. Existed a decent anti-Mamdani block, energized, but his supporters was also motivated, and that was enough to win.

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

Currently you would say he’s favored to get over half. He’s at just over 50% but there’s still probably 200K ballots 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 because then none can claim Sliwa was a disruptor.

GOP Decline

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

He didn’t win any district in any borough. Including one neighborhood in Staten Island, which is like an highly conservative neighborhood. That really was unexpected. Cuomo held Caucasian districts, affluent zones and very religiously Jewish areas, and then added all of these conservatives on Staten Island who had a strong turnout. I believe occurred significant tactical voting by GOP voters. This happened prior to Trump tweeted his support for the candidate, but it assisted. It could have even turned the tide unless Mamdani’s coalition failed to expand.

The “Commie Corridor”

Regarding your often-discussed “commie corridor” – did backing for the candidate overwhelming in those areas of the boroughs?

In my view there was a little dilution of the progressive zone in some areas like Astoria or Greenpoint that have older Caucasian residents. There, for example, the Greek landlords and homeowners all went for the independent. Thus there was some opposition. However no, largely the commie corridor is a key factor why Zohran won – he scored between 77% and 83% in specific neighborhoods.

Jewish Voters

In the lead-up to the vote there was coverage on if the candidate was making inroads with Jewish New Yorkers. Any indication that he succeeded?

There are areas with a lot of non-religious and left-inclined voters – such as Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. However in the affluent districts such as the Manhattan area, his Middle East stance definitely mattered there. Likewise in the moderate communities including Queens neighborhoods, or Bronx areas – they favored Cuomo. And also, you have newcomers from the former Soviet Union in the borough, who were pretty staunchly supportive. So it’s unclear if there were major surprises on this one, but Mamdani retained left-leaning areas and including sections of the Upper West Side with large leads.

Long-Term Significance

Did Mamdani redefine what New York means politically? Will the commie corridor become a launch pad 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’m sure that we’ll see additional examples – candidates will emerge from these areas to be promoted to higher office.

But I think that each urban center in the US can have similar progressive hubs. Cities are the centers of leftwing power in America – because youth reside there, tenancy is common and they represent locales where people are crushed by the inequalities exist.