🔗 Share this article

Just 48 hours prior to the NYC mayoral election, Michael Lange issued a bold electoral prediction – going beyond who would win overall, and block by block. The analyst, an expert in elections who grew up in the city, devoted more than ten years in left-leaning activism and emerged as a kind of local celebrity this year for his deep dives into municipal statistics and voter surveys.

He released his highly detailed forecast map – which correctly forecast that the progressive candidate was victorious although missing Andrew Cuomo’s solid showing – on his Substack, his platform. He has a flair for clever terms. He pointed out, as an example, the divide between the progressive stronghold, running from one neighborhood to Bushwick to Astoria, where he predicted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would win by large leads, and the “capitalist corridor” on affluent parts of Manhattan. In those areas, certain media outlets and Wall Street Journal surpass the mainstream paper” in readership and most voters leaned toward the independent, campaigning as a conservative-courting independent.

Voting Day Trends and Unexpected Results

What was your night?

It was necessary since they were dropping approximately 200K ballots into the tally every few minutes! I was actually a little nervous initially: The candidate led the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but there were large groups of ballots added after that and the advantage went from 12 to 8%. I was worried.

You know, there was a world in which yesterday turned out kind of poorly for Mamdani, in which Cuomo was going to end up basically doubling his votes from the Democratic primary. But Mamdani gained half a million supporters to his primary coalition, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He campaigned and massively expanded his base from the first round.

Coalition Building

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

He assembled the alliance that the left long aimed for: it’s multiracial, youthful, tenants and individuals facing cost pressures. He improved considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, working- and middle-class voters, relative to the primary. Plus he boosted his base of left-leaning activists, youthful radicals, and Muslims and south Asians. Victory required without expanding his appeal.

He created the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: multiracial, youthful, tenants and people squeezed by affordability

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

It’s definitely a real thing, confined to Hispanic laborers, south Asians and Muslims. Voters in ethnic enclaves that went for Trump previously backed Zohran this year. However it’s not that he was gaining white working-class voters and Maga voters.

Turnout and Effects

A major development of the night was the record participation. Who did that help?

Both sides. Participation was much greater than anticipated. I figured it could exceed 2 million, but it’s closer to 2.3 million – that is a huge number of participants. There was a decent anti-Mamdani block, energized, but the Mamdani base was equally driven, and that sufficed to win.

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

Right now you would say he’s favored to surpass 50%. He has 50.4% but there’s still probably 200,000 votes 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 achieves it because afterwards no one can say Sliwa was a disruptor.

Republican Collapse

The GOP candidate, the Republican candidate, was another surprise. His support completely collapsed.

He lost any district in any borough. Not even one neighborhood in Staten Island, similar to an 88% Trump neighborhood. That really was unexpected. The independent held Caucasian districts, affluent zones and devout communities, and then added many Republicans on the island who had a strong turnout. I think occurred a lot of strategic balloting by GOP voters. They were doing it prior to the former president endorsed for the candidate, but it assisted. It could have even turned the tide unless the winning alliance hadn’t grown.

The “Commie Corridor”

Regarding your much mentioned left-wing base – was support for Mamdani dominant in those areas of Brooklyn and Queens?

In my view there was a little dilution of the commie corridor in some areas like neighborhoods that have more older white ethnic folks. In Astoria, for example, the property owners and residents supported the independent. Thus there was some opposition. However no, mostly the leftist base is a key factor why Mamdani prevailed – he scored between 77% and 83% in specific neighborhoods.

Jewish Voters

In the lead-up to the election there was coverage on whether the candidate was gaining ground with the community. Any indication that he succeeded?

Exist neighborhoods with a lot of non-religious and left-inclined voters – such as specific locales – where he performed strongly. But in the wealthy Jewish communities such as the Upper East Side, his Middle East stance was influential in those places. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas including Queens neighborhoods, or Bronx areas – they favored Cuomo. Plus, there are Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in the borough, who were strongly supportive. So it’s unclear if there were crazy narrative-busters on this one, but he retained more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the Upper West Side by big margins.

Political Impact

Has Mamdani rewritten what the city represents in politics? Will progressive base become a launch pad for leftwing candidates?

Yes, it’s no coincidence that some of the biggest political leaders from the left hail from a few areas in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I believe that there will be more of that – candidates will come from these neighborhoods to be elevated nationally.

But I think that each urban center in the US can have 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 disparities we face.