🔗 Share this article

Only two days prior to the New York race for mayor, political analyst Michael Lange made a bold forecast – going beyond who would win citywide, and precinct by precinct. Lange, an expert in elections born and raised in New York City, has spent over a decade in progressive politics and has become something of a local celebrity recently for his deep dives into municipal statistics and voter surveys.

He released his extremely precise forecast map – which correctly forecast that the progressive candidate was victorious although missing Andrew Cuomo’s strong performance – on his Substack, his platform. 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 a third locale, where he forecasted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would win by huge margins, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. There, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal outrank the mainstream paper” in audience and most voters favored Cuomo, who ran as a moderate alternative.

Voting Day Patterns and Unexpected Results

How was your night?

It was necessary since they were dropping approximately 200K ballots into the tally frequently! I was actually a little nervous initially: The candidate led the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but there were two big batches of votes added later and his lead went from 12% to 8%. It was concerning.

Understand, there was a world in which election day turned out kind of poorly for him, where the opponent was going to end up basically increasing his support from the earlier contest. However the winner gained 500,000 supporters to his initial base, and this was critical why he won. He campaigned and greatly broadened his support from the first round.

Expanding Support

Where did the mayor-elect get additional support from?

He built the alliance that the left always wanted to build: it’s multiracial, it’s young, tenants and individuals squeezed by affordability. He gained significantly with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the primary. Additionally he further maximized his base of liberal progressives, youthful radicals, and immigrant groups. Victory required without expanding his appeal.

He built the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: diverse, youthful, renters and people squeezed by affordability

There were also a number of supporters of both candidates – is that a big trend?

It is a genuine phenomenon, confined to Hispanic laborers, south Asians and Muslims. Electors in immigrant strongholds that went for Trump last year backed the progressive now. But I wouldn’t say he was winning over Caucasian laborers and Trump loyalists.

Voter Participation and Effects

One of the big stories of the election was the record turnout. Who did that help?

Both sides. Participation was much greater than I had expected. I figured it could exceed two million, but it reached 2.3M – that is a lot of darn voters. There was a decent opposition group, energized, but his supporters was equally driven, and that sufficed to win.

You predicted he’d exceed half the ballots. Is he on course for that?

Right now you would say he’s favored to get over half. He has 50.4% but remain around 200K ballots left to report at that time. So I don’t think certain, but I believe probable, and I hope he achieves it because afterwards no one can say Sliwa was a disruptor.

GOP Decline

Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, was another surprise. His vote plummeted.

He lost any district in any borough. Including one neighborhood in Staten Island, similar to an highly conservative neighborhood. That truly was unexpected. The independent held very white areas, affluent zones and devout communities, and plus gained all of these conservatives on Staten Island who had a strong turnout. I believe there was significant tactical voting by GOP voters. They were doing it prior to Trump endorsed for Cuomo, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide if the winning alliance failed to expand.

Progressive Strongholds

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

I think existed a little dilution of the commie corridor in certain places like Astoria or Greenpoint that have more older white ethnic folks. In Astoria, instance, the property owners and residents supported the independent. Thus there was a little resistance. However overall, mostly the commie corridor is a key factor why Zohran won – he scored between 77% and 83% in specific neighborhoods.

Jewish Voters

In the lead-up to the vote we reported on if the candidate was making inroads with the community. Is there any suggestion that he did?

There are neighborhoods with a lot of non-religious and left-inclined voters – such as Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he did well. But in the wealthy Jewish communities such as the Upper East Side, his Middle East stance was influential there. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas including Queens neighborhoods, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored Cuomo. Plus, you have newcomers from the former Soviet Union in southern Brooklyn, they were strongly Cuomo. Therefore it’s unclear if existed major surprises here, but Mamdani did hold left-leaning areas and even parts of the Upper West Side with large leads.

Long-Term Significance

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

Yes, it’s no coincidence that some of the biggest political leaders from the left come from a handful of neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I believe that there will be more of that – people will emerge from these areas to be promoted to higher office.

However I believe that every city in the US can have their own commie corridor. Urban places are the centers of progressive influence in America – because they’re young, people rent and they represent locales where people are crushed by the inequalities we face.