🔗 Share this article

Just 48 hours prior to the NYC mayoral election, political analyst Michael Lange issued a bold forecast – going beyond who would win citywide, and precinct by precinct. The analyst, an expert in elections who grew up in New York City, devoted over a decade in progressive politics and has become something of a well-known figure recently for his thorough analyses into city data and voter surveys.

He released his highly detailed forecast map – which correctly forecast that the progressive candidate was victorious although missing the independent candidate’s strong performance – on his newsletter, the Narrative War. He possesses a talent for witty coinages. He pointed out, as an example, the split between the “commie corridor”, stretching from one neighborhood to Bushwick to a third locale, where he forecasted (accurately) that Mamdani would win by large leads, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. In those areas, “the Free Press and financial newspapers surpass the mainstream paper” in readership and the majority of electors favored the independent, who ran as a moderate alternative.

Voting Day Trends and Surprises

How was your night?

It was necessary since they were dropping around 200,000 ballots into the tally every few minutes! I felt somewhat anxious initially: Mamdani was ahead the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but there were two big batches of ballots that came in later and the advantage went from 12 to 8%. I was worried.

Understand, there was a world where election day went somewhat badly for Mamdani, in which the opponent was going to end up basically increasing his support from the earlier contest. However Mamdani added half a million votes to his primary coalition, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He campaigned and massively expanded his support from the first round.

Expanding Support

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

He assembled the alliance that progressives always wanted to build: diverse racially, it’s young, tenants and it’s people squeezed by affordability. He gained significantly with Black and Hispanic voters, working- and middle-class voters, compared to the earlier election. Plus he further maximized his core of liberal progressives, young leftists, and immigrant groups. Victory required without expanding his appeal.

He built the coalition that progressives long aimed for: multiracial, young, tenants and people squeezed by affordability

Additionally, there were a number of supporters of both candidates – is this significant?

It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, limited to working-class Latinos, Asian communities and Islamic voters. Electors in immigrant strongholds that supported Trump last year went for the progressive this year. But it’s not that he was gaining Caucasian laborers and Trump loyalists.

Turnout and Impact

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

Each candidate. Turnout was much greater than I had expected. I figured we might exceed 2 million, but it’s closer to 2.3 million – that is a huge number of participants. There was a substantial opposition group, energized, but his supporters was equally driven, and that was enough to win.

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

Right now you would say he’s favored to surpass half. He’s at 50.4% but there’s still around 200,000 votes uncounted as of Wednesday morning. Thus it’s not it’s definitive, but I think it’s likely, and I hope he achieves it because then none can claim Sliwa was a disruptor.

GOP Decline

Curtis Sliwa, the conservative contender, is the other big story. His support plummeted.

He lost a single precinct in any borough. Not even Tottenville in Staten Island, similar to an highly conservative neighborhood. That really was unexpected. The independent held Caucasian districts, affluent zones and very religiously Jewish areas, and then added many conservatives on Staten Island who had a high participation. I think occurred a lot of tactical voting by GOP voters. They were doing it prior to the former president tweeted his support for the candidate, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide if the winning alliance hadn’t grown.

The “Commie Corridor”

Regarding your much mentioned “commie corridor” – did backing for the candidate dominant in those parts of the boroughs?

I think there was some weakening of the commie corridor in some areas like neighborhoods that have more older white ethnic folks. In Astoria, instance, the Greek landlords and residents all went for Cuomo. So there existed a little resistance. However overall, largely the leftist base is a key factor why Mamdani won – he scored between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.

Community Support

Prior to the vote there was coverage on whether Mamdani was making inroads with the community. Any indication that he did?

There are areas with many non-religious and left-inclined voters – like specific locales – where he did well. But in the wealthy Jewish communities such as the Manhattan area, his Middle East stance definitely mattered in those places. Similarly in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored the independent. And also, there are Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in southern Brooklyn, they were strongly supportive. So I don’t know if existed major surprises on this one, but he did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the Upper West Side by big margins.

Long-Term Significance

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

Yes, it’s no coincidence that key figures from the left come from a few areas in the boroughs. I’m sure that there will be more of that – people will come from these neighborhoods to be promoted to higher office.

However I think that every city in America could develop their own commie corridor. Urban places are the epicenters of leftwing power in America – since youth reside there, tenancy is common and they are places where people are crushed by the inequalities exist.