🔗 Share this article

Just two days prior to the NYC race for mayor, Michael Lange issued a bold forecast – going beyond who would win citywide, and block by block. Lange, an expert in elections born and raised in New York City, devoted more than ten years in progressive politics and emerged as a kind of well-known figure this year for his deep dives into municipal statistics and polling.

He published his highly detailed forecast map – accurately predicting that Zohran Mamdani would win although missing the independent candidate’s strong performance – on his newsletter, the Narrative War. He possesses a talent for witty coinages. He highlighted, as an example, the split between the progressive stronghold, stretching from one neighborhood to another area to Astoria, where he predicted (accurately) that the left-wing candidate would triumph 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 New York Times” in audience and most voters leaned toward Cuomo, campaigning as a conservative-courting independent.

Voting Day Patterns and Unexpected Results

What was your election night?

I had to do that since they were dropping approximately 200K ballots into the system every few minutes! I felt a little nervous initially: Mamdani was ahead the initial ballots by 12 points, but came large groups of votes that came in later and his lead went from 12 to 8%. It was concerning.

Understand, there was a world in which election day went kind of poorly for Mamdani, in which the opponent would have essentially increasing his support from the earlier contest. But Mamdani gained 500,000 votes to his primary coalition, and this was critical why he won. He went out and greatly broadened his support from the first round.

Coalition Building

Where did Mamdani get those extra votes from?

He assembled the coalition that the left always wanted to build: it’s multiracial, it’s young, tenants and it’s people squeezed by affordability. He improved considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, working- and middle-class voters, compared to the earlier election. Plus he boosted his core of liberal progressives, youthful radicals, and immigrant groups. Victory required without expanding his appeal.

He created the coalition that the left always wanted to build: diverse, young, tenants and people squeezed by affordability

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

It’s definitely a real thing, limited to working-class Latinos, Asian communities and Muslims. Electors in immigrant strongholds that supported Trump last year went for Zohran now. However I wouldn’t say he was winning over white working-class voters and Maga voters.

Voter Participation and Effects

A major development of the night was the record participation. Who did that help?

Both sides. Participation was significantly higher than I had expected. I thought it could go over 2 million, but it reached 2.3M – which is a huge number of participants. Existed a decent anti-Mamdani block, who were motivated, but his supporters was also motivated, and that was enough to secure victory.

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

Currently you would say he’s likely to surpass half. He has 50.4% but there’s still around 200,000 votes uncounted at that time. So I don’t think certain, but I think it’s likely, and I wish he achieves it because afterwards none can claim Sliwa was a spoiler.

Republican Collapse

The GOP candidate, the Republican candidate, is the other big story. His support completely collapsed.

He lost any district in any area. Including one neighborhood in Staten Island, similar to an 88% Trump neighborhood. That really was unexpected. The independent held Caucasian districts, very wealthy areas and devout communities, and then added all of these Republicans on Staten Island who had a strong turnout. I think occurred significant strategic balloting by GOP voters. This happened prior to the former president endorsed for the candidate, but it assisted. It might have changed the outcome unless the winning alliance failed to expand.

Progressive Strongholds

Regarding your often-discussed “commie corridor” – was support for Mamdani dominant in those parts of Brooklyn and Queens?

I think there was some weakening of the progressive zone in certain places like Astoria or Greenpoint that have older Caucasian residents. There, for example, the Greek landlords and homeowners all went for Cuomo. Thus there existed a little resistance. But overall, mostly the leftist base is another huge reason why Mamdani prevailed – he scored between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.

Community Support

Prior to the vote there was coverage on if the candidate was gaining ground with Jewish New Yorkers. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?

Exist neighborhoods with many non-religious and left-inclined voters – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he did well. But in the wealthy Jewish communities like the Manhattan area, his Middle East stance was influential there. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Queens neighborhoods, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they all leaned the independent. And also, there are Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe in the borough, they were strongly Cuomo. So it’s unclear if there were major surprises on this one, but Mamdani did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and even parts of the Upper West Side with large leads.

Long-Term Significance

Did Mamdani redefine what the city represents in politics? Will progressive base serve as a springboard for progressive contenders?

Yes, it’s no coincidence that key political leaders from the left hail from a few areas in the boroughs. I believe that we’ll see additional examples – candidates will come from these areas to be promoted to higher office.

However I believe that every city in America could develop similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the centers of leftwing power in America – because youth reside there, tenancy is common and they represent locales where people are crushed by the inequalities we face.