🔗 Share this article

Just two days before the NYC race for mayor, Michael Lange issued a significant forecast – going beyond the winner citywide, and block by block. Lange, an expert in elections born and raised in New York City, has spent over a decade in progressive politics and emerged as a kind of well-known figure recently for his deep dives into municipal statistics and voter surveys.

He released his extremely precise prediction map – which correctly forecast that Zohran Mamdani would win although missing the independent candidate’s strong performance – on his Substack, the Narrative War. He possesses a talent for witty coinages. He highlighted, for instance, the split between the progressive stronghold, running from Park Slope to Bushwick to a third locale, where he predicted (accurately) that the left-wing candidate would triumph by large leads, and the “capitalist corridor” on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. There, “the Free Press and financial newspapers outrank the New York Times” in readership and most voters favored the independent, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Election Night Patterns and Surprises

What was your night?

I had to do that because they were adding around 200,000 ballots into the tally every few minutes! I felt somewhat anxious at the beginning: The candidate was ahead the early vote by a dozen percentage points, but there were large groups of votes added after that and his lead went from 12 to 8%. I was worried.

You know, it was possible in which yesterday turned out somewhat badly for Mamdani, in which the opponent was going to end up essentially doubling his votes from the earlier contest. However the winner added half a million supporters to his initial base, and this was critical why he succeeded. He went out and massively expanded his support from the first round.

Coalition Building

How did Mamdani get those extra votes from?

He built the alliance that the left long aimed for: diverse racially, youthful, tenants and individuals squeezed by affordability. He gained significantly with minority communities, working- and middle-class voters, relative to the earlier election. Additionally he boosted his core of liberal progressives, young leftists, and Muslims and south Asians. Victory required without expanding his appeal.

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

There were also a number of supporters of both candidates – is this significant?

It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, confined to working-class Latinos, south Asians and Islamic voters. Voters in immigrant strongholds that went for Trump previously went for Zohran this year. But I wouldn’t say he was gaining Caucasian laborers and Trump loyalists.

Turnout and Effects

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

Each candidate. Turnout was significantly higher than I had expected. I thought it could exceed 2 million, but it’s closer to 2.3 million – which is a huge number of participants. There was a substantial anti-Mamdani block, energized, but his supporters was also motivated, and that sufficed to secure victory.

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

Currently you would say he’s favored to surpass half. He has just over 50% but there’s still probably 200,000 votes uncounted as of Wednesday morning. So it’s not certain, but I think probable, and I wish he does so then none can claim the Republican was a spoiler.

Republican Collapse

Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, was another surprise. His support completely collapsed.

He lost any district in any area. Including one neighborhood in the borough, which is like an highly conservative neighborhood. That really was unexpected. Cuomo held very white areas, affluent zones and devout communities, and plus gained all of these conservatives on Staten Island with a high participation. I think there was significant strategic balloting by GOP voters. They were doing it before Trump tweeted his support for the candidate, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide unless the winning alliance failed to expand.

The “Commie Corridor”

Regarding your much mentioned “commie corridor” – was support for Mamdani dominant in those parts of the boroughs?

In my view there was a little dilution of the progressive zone in certain places like neighborhoods that have older Caucasian residents. There, for example, the property owners and homeowners all went for the independent. So there was a little resistance. However no, mostly the leftist base is another huge reason why Zohran prevailed – he was polling between 77% and 83% in specific neighborhoods.

Jewish Voters

In the lead-up to the election we reported on if the candidate was making inroads with the community. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?

Exist areas with a lot of non-religious and left-inclined voters – such as specific locales – where he did well. But in the wealthy Jewish communities such as the Manhattan area, his position on Israel was influential in those places. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they all leaned the independent. Plus, you have newcomers from the former Soviet Union in southern Brooklyn, who were pretty staunchly supportive. Therefore it’s unclear if existed major surprises on this one, but Mamdani retained left-leaning areas and including sections of the Upper West Side with large leads.

Political Impact

Has Mamdani rewritten what New York represents in politics? Will the commie corridor become a launch pad for progressive contenders?

Absolutely, it’s not accidental that key figures from the left hail from a handful of neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I believe that there will be more of that – candidates will emerge from these neighborhoods to be elevated nationally.

However I believe that each urban center in the US can have similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the epicenters of leftwing power in America – because youth reside there, people rent and they represent locales where individuals struggle by the inequalities we face.