🔗 Share this article

Only two days before the New York race for mayor, Michael Lange issued a bold forecast – going beyond the winner overall, and precinct by precinct. Lange, an expert in elections who grew up in New York City, has spent over a decade in progressive politics and has become something of a well-known figure recently for his thorough analyses into city data and polling.

He released his extremely precise forecast map – accurately predicting that Zohran Mamdani was victorious although failed to predict Andrew Cuomo’s strong performance – on his Substack, the Narrative War. Lange possesses a talent for clever terms. He highlighted, for instance, the split between the “commie corridor”, stretching from Park Slope to Bushwick to Astoria, where he forecasted (correctly) 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, certain media outlets and Wall Street Journal outrank the New York Times” in audience and the majority of electors leaned toward the independent, campaigning as a moderate alternative.

Election Night Trends and Surprises

What was your election night?

It was necessary since they were dropping around 200,000 votes into the tally frequently! I was actually somewhat anxious at the beginning: The candidate led the early vote by 12 points, but there were two big batches of ballots added later and the advantage dropped from 12 to 8%. I was worried.

Understand, there was a world in which yesterday turned out somewhat badly for Mamdani, where the opponent was going to end up essentially increasing his support from the earlier contest. However the winner 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

How did Mamdani gain 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, everyday New Yorkers, compared to the earlier election. Additionally he further maximized his base of left-leaning activists, young leftists, and immigrant groups. He couldn’t have won without making those significant inroads.

He created the coalition that progressives long aimed for: diverse, youthful, renters and residents struggling with costs

There were also a number of Trump/Mamdani voters – is that a big trend?

It is a genuine phenomenon, limited to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Islamic voters. Voters in immigrant strongholds that went for the former president previously went for the progressive this year. But I wouldn’t say he was winning over Caucasian laborers and Maga voters.

Voter Participation and Effects

A major development of the election was the sky-high turnout. Who benefited?

Both sides. Turnout was much greater than I had expected. I figured we might exceed two million, but it’s closer to 2.3 million – that is a lot of darn voters. There was a substantial anti-Mamdani block, who were motivated, but his supporters was equally driven, and that sufficed to secure victory.

You predicted he’d exceed 50% of the vote. Is he on course for that?

Currently it appears he’s likely to surpass 50%. He has 50.4% but there’s still probably 200,000 votes uncounted as of Wednesday morning. Thus I don’t think certain, but I believe it’s likely, and I wish he achieves it because then no one can say Sliwa was a spoiler.

Republican Collapse

Curtis Sliwa, the conservative contender, is the other big story. His vote completely collapsed.

He lost a single precinct in any area. Not even one neighborhood in Staten Island, which is like an 88% Trump area. That really was unexpected. The independent kept Caucasian districts, affluent zones and devout communities, and then added many conservatives on the island who had a high participation. I think there was significant tactical voting by the Republicans. This happened prior to Trump tweeted his support for Cuomo, but it assisted. It might have changed the outcome if Mamdani’s coalition hadn’t grown.

Progressive Strongholds

Regarding your often-discussed left-wing base – was support for Mamdani overwhelming 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 Greek landlords and residents all went for the independent. Thus there existed some opposition. However no, largely the commie corridor is another huge reason why Mamdani prevailed – he scored between 77% and 83% in specific neighborhoods.

Community Support

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

There are neighborhoods with a lot of non-religious and left-inclined voters – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he did well. But in the affluent districts such as the Manhattan area, his position on Israel was influential in those places. Likewise in the moderate communities like Queens neighborhoods, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored the independent. And also, you have newcomers from the former Soviet Union in southern Brooklyn, they were strongly Cuomo. So it’s unclear if existed crazy narrative-busters here, but Mamdani retained more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the another locale by big margins.

Political Impact

Did Mamdani redefine what New York means politically? Will commie corridor serve as a springboard for progressive contenders?

Yes, it’s not accidental that some of the biggest figures from the left hail from a few areas in the boroughs. I’m sure that there will be more of that – candidates will emerge from these neighborhoods to be promoted to higher office.

However I think that each urban center in the US could develop their own commie corridor. Cities are the centers of leftwing power in the nation – because they’re young, tenancy is common and they are places where individuals struggle by the disparities exist.