🔗 Share this article

Just 48 hours before the NYC mayoral election, political analyst Michael Lange issued a significant electoral prediction – not just who would win overall, and precinct by precinct. The analyst, an expert in elections born and raised in the city, devoted more than ten years in left-leaning activism and has become a kind of well-known figure recently for his thorough analyses into city data and polling.

He published his highly detailed prediction map – accurately predicting that Zohran Mamdani would win while missing the independent candidate’s solid showing – on his newsletter, the Narrative War. Lange has a flair for witty coinages. 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 forecasted (accurately) that the left-wing candidate would win by huge margins, and the conservative-leaning zone on affluent parts of Manhattan. There, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal surpass the New York Times” in audience and the majority of electors favored the independent, campaigning as a moderate alternative.

Election Night Trends and Surprises

What was your night?

It was necessary since they were dropping around 200,000 votes into the system frequently! I felt a little nervous at the beginning: The candidate was ahead the initial ballots by 12 points, but there were large groups of ballots that came in later and the advantage dropped from 12 to 8%. I was worried.

Understand, there was a world in which election day turned out somewhat badly for Mamdani, where the opponent would have essentially increasing his support from the earlier contest. But the winner added half a million votes to his initial base, and this was critical why he won. He campaigned and greatly broadened his support from the primary.

Expanding Support

Where did Mamdani get additional support from?

He built the coalition that progressives long aimed for: it’s multiracial, youthful, tenants and it’s people facing cost pressures. He improved considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, working- and middle-class voters, relative to the primary. Additionally he boosted his base of liberal progressives, young leftists, and Muslims and south Asians. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

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

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

It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, confined to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Muslims. Electors in ethnic enclaves that supported the former president previously backed the progressive this year. However it’s not that he was winning over white working-class voters and Trump loyalists.

Voter Participation and Effects

A major development of the election was the record participation. Who benefited?

Each candidate. Participation was significantly higher than I had expected. I thought it could go over two million, but it reached 2.3M – which is a lot of darn voters. Existed a substantial opposition group, energized, but the Mamdani base was also motivated, and that sufficed to win.

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

Currently it appears he’s likely to get over 50%. He has 50.4% but there’s still probably 200K ballots left to report at that time. So I don’t think it’s definitive, but I believe it’s likely, and I wish he achieves it because then none can claim Sliwa was a spoiler.

GOP Decline

The GOP candidate, the Republican candidate, is the other big story. His vote plummeted.

He didn’t win any district in any borough. Including one neighborhood in the borough, which is like an 88% Trump neighborhood. That truly was unexpected. The independent kept very white areas, very wealthy areas and very religiously Jewish areas, and then added all of these conservatives on Staten Island who had a strong turnout. I think there was a lot of strategic balloting by GOP voters. This happened prior to the former president endorsed for Cuomo, but that definitely helped. It might have changed the outcome unless Mamdani’s coalition hadn’t grown.

Progressive Strongholds

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

In my view existed a little dilution of the progressive zone in some areas like Astoria or Greenpoint that have more older white ethnic folks. In Astoria, instance, the property owners and homeowners supported the independent. So there was a little resistance. But no, mostly the leftist base is a key factor why Zohran prevailed – he was polling between high percentages in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Community Support

Prior to the vote there was coverage on if the candidate was making inroads with the community. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?

There are areas with many non-religious and left-inclined voters – such as Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. But in the affluent districts like the Upper East Side, his position on Israel was influential there. Similarly in the moderate communities like Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Bronx areas – they all leaned the independent. Plus, there are Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe in the borough, they were strongly Cuomo. So I don’t know if there were crazy narrative-busters here, but he did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the Upper West Side by big margins.

Political Impact

Has Mamdani rewritten what New York means politically? Will the commie corridor become a launch pad for leftwing candidates?

Yes, it’s no coincidence that some of the biggest figures from the left hail from a handful of neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I believe that we’ll see additional examples – candidates will emerge from these areas to be promoted to higher office.

But I think that every city in the US could develop similar progressive hubs. Cities are the epicenters of leftwing power in America – because they’re young, people rent and they are places where individuals struggle by the disparities exist.