🔗 Share this article

Only two days before the NYC mayoral election, Michael Lange issued a significant forecast – not just 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 has become something of a local celebrity this year for his thorough analyses into municipal statistics and voter surveys.

He published his extremely precise prediction map – accurately predicting that Zohran Mamdani was victorious while failed to predict Andrew Cuomo’s solid showing – on his Substack, the Narrative War. He has a flair for witty coinages. He highlighted, for instance, the divide between the “commie corridor”, stretching from one neighborhood to another area to Astoria, where he forecasted (accurately) that Mamdani would win by large leads, and the “capitalist corridor” on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. There, “the Free Press and financial newspapers surpass the mainstream paper” in readership and the majority of electors favored Cuomo, campaigning as a moderate alternative.

Voting Day Trends and Surprises

How was your election night?

I had to do that because they were adding approximately 200K ballots into the tally frequently! I felt a little nervous at the beginning: The candidate led the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but there were large groups of votes added after that and his lead dropped from 12% to 8%. It was concerning.

You know, it was possible in which yesterday turned out kind of poorly for Mamdani, in which Cuomo would have essentially increasing his support from the earlier contest. But Mamdani gained half a million votes to his initial base, and this was critical why he won. He campaigned and massively expanded his base from the primary.

Expanding Support

Where did the mayor-elect gain additional support from?

He assembled the coalition that the left always wanted to build: diverse racially, youthful, it’s renters and it’s people facing cost pressures. He improved significantly with Black and Hispanic voters, working- and middle-class voters, relative to the earlier election. Plus he further maximized his core of left-leaning activists, youthful radicals, and Muslims and south Asians. He couldn’t have won without making those significant inroads.

He built the alliance that the left long aimed for: diverse, youthful, tenants and people squeezed by affordability

There were also some Trump/Mamdani voters – is this significant?

It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, confined to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Islamic voters. Voters in immigrant strongholds that went for the former president previously backed the progressive now. But I wouldn’t say he was gaining Caucasian laborers and Maga voters.

Turnout and Effects

A major development of the night was the record turnout. Who benefited?

Both sides. Participation was significantly higher than I had expected. I figured it could exceed two million, but it reached 2.3 million – which is a huge number of participants. There was a decent opposition group, who were motivated, but his supporters was also motivated, and that sufficed to secure victory.

You forecasted he’d get over 50% of the vote. Is he likely for that?

Currently you would say he’s likely to get over half. He has just over 50% but there’s still around 200,000 votes uncounted at that time. So it’s not it’s definitive, but I think probable, and I hope he does so afterwards none can claim Sliwa was a disruptor.

GOP Decline

The GOP candidate, the conservative contender, was another surprise. His support plummeted.

He didn’t win any district in any borough. Including one neighborhood in Staten Island, similar to an highly conservative neighborhood. That truly was unexpected. The independent kept very white areas, affluent zones and devout communities, and plus gained all of these Republicans on the island with a strong turnout. I think occurred significant tactical voting by GOP voters. They were doing it before Trump tweeted his support for the candidate, but it assisted. It could have even turned the tide unless the winning alliance failed to expand.

The “Commie Corridor”

What about your much mentioned “commie corridor” – did backing for Mamdani dominant in those parts of the boroughs?

I think existed a little dilution of the commie corridor in certain places like neighborhoods that have more older white ethnic folks. There, instance, the property owners and homeowners supported Cuomo. Thus there existed a little resistance. But overall, largely the leftist base is a key factor why Zohran won – he scored between high percentages in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Community Support

Prior to the election there was coverage on whether Mamdani was gaining ground with Jewish New Yorkers. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?

Exist neighborhoods with many secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. But in the affluent districts such as the Upper East Side, his position on Israel was influential there. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas including Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Bronx areas – they all leaned the independent. Plus, there are newcomers from Eastern Europe in the borough, who were strongly supportive. So I don’t know if existed crazy narrative-busters here, but he retained more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and even parts of the another locale with large leads.

Political Impact

Did Mamdani redefine what the city represents in politics? Will progressive base become a launch pad for progressive contenders?

Yes, it’s no coincidence that some of the biggest figures from progressives come from a handful of neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I’m sure that there will be more of that – people will come from these areas to be promoted to higher office.

However I believe that each urban center in the US can have their own commie corridor. Cities are the centers of progressive influence in America – because they’re young, tenancy is common and they represent locales where people are crushed by the disparities we face.