🔗 Share this article

Just two days prior to the New York race for mayor, Michael Lange issued a significant forecast – going beyond the winner overall, but block by block. The analyst, a political analyst born and raised in the city, has spent over a decade in progressive politics and emerged as something of a local celebrity recently for his deep dives into city data and voter surveys.

He released his highly detailed prediction map – which correctly forecast that the progressive candidate would win although missing Andrew Cuomo’s strong performance – on his newsletter, his platform. He possesses a talent for clever terms. He pointed out, as an example, the split between the progressive stronghold, stretching from Park Slope to another area to a third locale, where he predicted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would win by huge margins, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. In those areas, “the Free Press and financial newspapers outrank the New York Times” in readership and most voters favored the independent, who ran as a moderate alternative.

Election Night Patterns and Unexpected Results

How was your election night?

I had to do that since they were dropping around 200,000 ballots into the system frequently! I was actually somewhat anxious at the beginning: Mamdani led the early vote by a dozen percentage points, but came large groups of ballots added after that and the advantage went from 12% to 8%. I was worried.

Understand, there was a world where election day turned out somewhat badly for Mamdani, where the opponent would have basically increasing his support from the Democratic primary. However the winner added half a million supporters to his primary coalition, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He campaigned and greatly broadened his base from the first round.

Expanding Support

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

He built the alliance that the left always wanted to build: it’s multiracial, youthful, tenants and individuals squeezed by affordability. He improved considerably with minority communities, working- and middle-class voters, relative to the primary. Additionally he further maximized his core of left-leaning activists, young leftists, and immigrant groups. He couldn’t have won without making those significant inroads.

He built the alliance that the left always wanted to build: diverse, young, tenants and residents squeezed by affordability

Additionally, there were a number of Trump/Mamdani voters – is that a big trend?

It is a real thing, limited to Hispanic laborers, south Asians and Islamic voters. Voters in ethnic enclaves that supported the former president previously went for the progressive this year. But it’s not that he was winning over white working-class voters and Trump loyalists.

Turnout and Effects

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

Both sides. Participation was significantly higher than I had expected. I thought we might go over 2 million, but it reached 2.3M – that is a huge number of participants. Existed a substantial opposition group, who were motivated, but his supporters was equally driven, and that sufficed to secure victory.

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

Currently it appears he’s favored to get over 50%. He has just over 50% but there’s still around 200K ballots left to report at that time. So I don’t think it’s definitive, but I think probable, and I wish he achieves it so afterwards none can claim Sliwa was a disruptor.

GOP Decline

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

He lost a single precinct in any borough. Not even one neighborhood in Staten Island, which is like an 88% Trump area. That truly surprised me. Cuomo held Caucasian districts, affluent zones and devout communities, and plus gained all of these Republicans on Staten Island with a high participation. I believe there was a lot of strategic balloting by the Republicans. They were doing it prior to Trump tweeted his support for the candidate, but it assisted. It might have changed the outcome unless the winning alliance hadn’t grown.

Progressive Strongholds

What about your much mentioned “commie corridor” – did backing for the candidate dominant in those areas of Brooklyn and Queens?

I think existed 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 homeowners all went for the independent. Thus there was a little resistance. But no, mostly the commie corridor is a key factor why Mamdani won – he was polling between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.

Community Support

Prior to the vote we reported on if Mamdani was gaining ground with Jewish New Yorkers. Is there any suggestion that he did?

There are neighborhoods with many secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – like specific locales – where he did well. But in the affluent districts like the Upper East Side, his Middle East stance was influential there. Similarly in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Bronx areas – they all leaned the independent. And also, you have newcomers from Eastern Europe in the borough, who were strongly supportive. So it’s unclear if there were major surprises on this one, but Mamdani retained more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the another locale with large leads.

Political Impact

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

Absolutely, it’s no coincidence that some of the biggest political leaders from the left come from a few areas in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I’m sure that we’ll see additional examples – people will emerge from these neighborhoods to be promoted to higher office.

But I believe that every city in the US could develop their own commie corridor. Urban places are the centers of progressive influence in America – because youth reside there, tenancy is common and they represent locales where individuals struggle by the disparities we face.