🔗 Share this article

Only 48 hours prior to the NYC mayoral election, Michael Lange issued a bold electoral prediction – not just who would win overall, 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 has become something of a local celebrity this year for his deep dives into city data and voter surveys.

He published his extremely precise prediction map – accurately predicting that the progressive candidate was victorious while missing Andrew Cuomo’s strong performance – on his newsletter, his platform. He has a flair for clever terms. He highlighted, as an example, the divide between the “commie corridor”, stretching from Park Slope to another area to Astoria, where he predicted (correctly) 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, certain media outlets and financial newspapers outrank the mainstream paper” in audience and the majority of electors favored Cuomo, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Voting Day Trends and Unexpected Results

What was your election night?

It was necessary since they were adding approximately 200K votes into the system frequently! I felt a little nervous initially: Mamdani was ahead the early vote by a dozen percentage points, but there were two big batches of ballots that came in later and his lead dropped from 12% to 8%. It was concerning.

You know, there was a world in which election day turned out somewhat badly for him, in which Cuomo was going to end up basically increasing his support from the Democratic primary. But Mamdani gained 500,000 votes to his initial base, and this was critical why he won. He campaigned and greatly broadened his support from the first round.

Expanding Support

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

He assembled the coalition that progressives long aimed for: it’s multiracial, it’s young, tenants and it’s people squeezed by affordability. He gained significantly with Black and Hispanic voters, working- and middle-class voters, relative to the earlier election. Plus he further maximized his core of left-leaning activists, young leftists, and Muslims and south Asians. He couldn’t have won without expanding his appeal.

He created the alliance that progressives long aimed for: diverse, young, renters and people squeezed by affordability

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

It’s definitely a real thing, confined to working-class Latinos, Asian communities and Muslims. Electors in immigrant strongholds that supported the former president last year backed Zohran this year. But it’s not that he was winning over white working-class voters and Trump loyalists.

Turnout and Effects

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

Both sides. Turnout was much greater than I had expected. I figured we might go over 2 million, but it’s closer to 2.3 million – which is a huge number of participants. There was a substantial opposition group, energized, but the Mamdani base was equally driven, and that sufficed to win.

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

Currently it appears he’s likely to surpass half. He has 50.4% but remain probably 200,000 votes left to report as of Wednesday morning. Thus it’s not certain, but I think it’s likely, and I wish he achieves it because then none can claim Sliwa was a disruptor.

Republican Collapse

Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, is the other big story. His vote plummeted.

He didn’t win any district in any borough. Including Tottenville in the borough, which is like an 88% Trump area. 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 believe there was a lot of tactical voting by GOP voters. This happened prior to Trump endorsed for the candidate, but it assisted. It might have changed the outcome unless Mamdani’s coalition failed to expand.

Progressive Strongholds

What about your often-discussed “commie corridor” – did backing for Mamdani dominant in those parts of the boroughs?

I think there was a little dilution of the progressive zone in some areas like neighborhoods that have older Caucasian residents. There, instance, the Greek landlords and residents all went for the independent. So there existed a little resistance. However no, largely the commie corridor is another huge reason why Mamdani prevailed – he was polling between high percentages in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Jewish Voters

In the lead-up to the vote we reported on whether Mamdani was making inroads with Jewish New Yorkers. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?

Exist areas with a lot of non-religious and left-inclined voters – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. But in the wealthy Jewish communities like the Upper East Side, his Middle East stance was influential there. Similarly in the moderate communities like Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored Cuomo. Plus, you have newcomers from Eastern Europe in the borough, they were pretty staunchly Cuomo. Therefore I don’t know if existed crazy narrative-busters on this one, but he did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and even parts of the another locale by big margins.

Long-Term Significance

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

Absolutely, it’s no coincidence that key figures from the left come from a handful of neighborhoods in the boroughs. I’m sure that there will be more of that – candidates will emerge from these neighborhoods to be elevated nationally.

However I think that each urban center in America can have similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the epicenters of progressive influence in America – because youth reside there, tenancy is common and they represent locales where people are crushed by the inequalities exist.