Just 48 hours before the New York mayoral election, political analyst Michael Lange made a bold electoral prediction – not just the winner overall, and block by block. Lange, a political analyst born and raised in the city, devoted more than ten years in progressive politics and emerged as a kind of well-known figure recently for his deep dives into city data and polling.
He released his extremely precise prediction map – which correctly forecast that Zohran Mamdani would win although missing the independent candidate’s solid showing – on his Substack, the Narrative War. Lange possesses a talent for clever terms. He pointed out, as an example, the divide between the progressive stronghold, stretching from Park Slope to Bushwick to Astoria, where he predicted (correctly) that Mamdani would triumph by huge margins, and the “capitalist corridor” on affluent parts of Manhattan. In those areas, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal surpass the mainstream paper” in audience and the majority of electors leaned toward Cuomo, campaigning as a conservative-courting independent.
How was your election night?
It was necessary since they were dropping approximately 200K votes into the tally every few minutes! I was actually somewhat anxious initially: The candidate led the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but came large groups of ballots that came in later and the advantage went from 12 to 8%. I was worried.
Understand, there was a world where yesterday went kind of poorly for him, where the opponent would have essentially doubling his votes from the earlier contest. But Mamdani gained 500,000 supporters to his initial base, and that’s a huge reason why he won. He went out and massively expanded his support from the primary.
Where did the mayor-elect gain those extra votes from?
He assembled the alliance that progressives long aimed for: diverse racially, it’s young, it’s renters and individuals squeezed by affordability. He improved considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, compared to the earlier election. Plus he further maximized his core of liberal progressives, youthful radicals, and Muslims and south Asians. Victory required without making those significant inroads.
He created the alliance that the left long aimed for: multiracial, young, renters and people struggling with costs
There were also a number of Trump/Mamdani voters – is this significant?
It is a genuine phenomenon, limited to working-class Latinos, south Asians and Islamic voters. Voters in ethnic enclaves that went for Trump last year went for the progressive now. But it’s not that he was winning over white working-class voters and Maga voters.
One of the big stories of the election was the sky-high turnout. Who did that help?
Each candidate. Participation was much greater than anticipated. I thought we might go over two million, but it reached 2.3 million – that is a lot of darn voters. There was a decent anti-Mamdani block, energized, but his supporters was equally driven, and that was enough to win.
You forecasted he’d exceed 50% of the vote. Is he on course for that?
Currently you would say he’s favored to surpass 50%. He’s at 50.4% but remain probably 200K ballots uncounted at that time. So it’s not certain, but I believe probable, and I hope he achieves it because afterwards none can claim the Republican was a spoiler.
The GOP candidate, the Republican candidate, is the other big story. His vote plummeted.
He didn’t win any district in any area. Not even Tottenville in Staten Island, which is like an 88% Trump area. That really was unexpected. The independent held very white areas, very wealthy areas and devout communities, and then added all of these conservatives on Staten Island with a high participation. I think there was significant tactical voting by the Republicans. This happened before Trump endorsed for Cuomo, but that definitely helped. It might have changed the outcome if Mamdani’s coalition failed to expand.
Regarding your often-discussed “commie corridor” – was support for the candidate overwhelming in those areas of the boroughs?
I think there was a little dilution of the progressive zone in certain places like Astoria or Greenpoint that have older Caucasian residents. There, for example, the property owners and residents supported the independent. So there was some opposition. But no, largely the commie corridor is another huge reason why Mamdani prevailed – he scored between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.
Prior to the vote we reported on if the candidate was gaining ground with Jewish New Yorkers. Is there any suggestion that he did?
There are neighborhoods with many secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – such as Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he did well. However in the affluent districts like the Upper East Side, his Middle East stance definitely mattered there. Similarly in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Queens neighborhoods, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored the independent. And also, there are Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe in the borough, who were strongly supportive. Therefore it’s unclear if there were major surprises here, but Mamdani did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and even parts of the Upper West Side with large leads.
Has Mamdani rewritten what the city means politically? Will progressive base 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 the boroughs. I’m sure that there will be more of that – people will emerge from these areas to be elevated nationally.
However I think that every city in the US can have their own commie corridor. Urban places are the centers of leftwing power in America – because youth reside there, tenancy is common and they are places where people are crushed by the disparities we face.
A tech enthusiast and gaming aficionado with over a decade of experience in digital media and content creation.
News