🔗 Share this article

Only two days prior to the New York race for mayor, political analyst Michael Lange made a significant electoral prediction – going beyond the winner overall, but precinct by precinct. The analyst, a political analyst who grew up in New York City, devoted over a decade in left-leaning activism and has become something of a local celebrity recently for his deep dives into municipal statistics and voter surveys.

He published his highly detailed prediction map – accurately predicting that Zohran Mamdani was victorious although missing the independent candidate’s strong performance – on his newsletter, the Narrative War. Lange has a flair for witty coinages. He pointed out, as an example, the split between the “commie corridor”, stretching from one neighborhood to another area to Astoria, where he forecasted (accurately) that Mamdani would win by huge margins, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. In those areas, “the Free Press and financial newspapers outrank the New York Times” in audience and most voters favored Cuomo, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Voting Day Trends and Surprises

What was your night?

I had to do that because they were dropping approximately 200K votes into the tally every few minutes! I was actually somewhat anxious initially: The candidate led the early vote by 12 points, but came two big batches of votes added later and his lead dropped from 12 to 8%. It was concerning.

You know, there was a world where yesterday turned out somewhat badly for him, where the opponent would have essentially increasing his support from the Democratic primary. However the winner gained half a million votes to his initial base, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He campaigned and greatly broadened his support from the first round.

Coalition Building

How did Mamdani get those extra votes from?

He assembled the alliance that the left always wanted to build: it’s multiracial, youthful, it’s renters and it’s people squeezed by affordability. He gained considerably with minority communities, working- and middle-class voters, relative to the primary. Plus he further maximized his core of left-leaning activists, youthful radicals, and Muslims and south Asians. Victory required without expanding his appeal.

He built the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: multiracial, youthful, renters and residents struggling with costs

There were also a number of Trump/Mamdani voters – is that a big trend?

It’s definitely a real thing, confined to working-class Latinos, south Asians and Islamic voters. Electors in immigrant strongholds that went for the former president last year went for Zohran this year. But it’s not that he was winning over Caucasian laborers and Trump loyalists.

Voter Participation and Effects

One of the big stories of the night was the sky-high turnout. Who benefited?

Each candidate. Turnout was much greater than I had expected. I figured we might go over 2 million, but it reached 2.3M – which is a huge number of participants. There was a substantial opposition group, energized, but his supporters was also motivated, and that was enough to win.

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

Currently you would say he’s likely to get over half. He’s at just over 50% but remain probably 200,000 votes left to report as of Wednesday morning. Thus 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 disruptor.

GOP Decline

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

He didn’t win a single precinct in any area. Including Tottenville in the borough, which is like an 88% Trump area. That truly was unexpected. Cuomo held Caucasian districts, very wealthy areas and very religiously Jewish areas, and plus gained all of these conservatives on Staten Island who had a strong turnout. I believe there was significant strategic balloting by the Republicans. They were doing it before Trump tweeted his support for Cuomo, but it assisted. It could have even turned the tide if the winning alliance failed to expand.

Progressive Strongholds

Regarding your much mentioned “commie corridor” – was support for the candidate overwhelming in those areas of Brooklyn and Queens?

In my view there was a little dilution of the commie corridor in some areas like neighborhoods that have more older white ethnic folks. In Astoria, for example, the property owners and residents all went for Cuomo. Thus there was some opposition. However no, largely the leftist base is another huge reason why Zohran prevailed – he scored between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.

Community Support

Prior to the election we reported on whether Mamdani was making inroads with Jewish New Yorkers. 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 affluent districts like the Manhattan area, his position on Israel was influential in those places. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas including Queens neighborhoods, or Bronx areas – they all leaned the independent. Plus, you have newcomers from Eastern Europe in southern Brooklyn, they were strongly supportive. So I don’t know if existed major surprises here, but he did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the Upper West Side with large leads.

Long-Term Significance

Did Mamdani redefine what New York represents in politics? Will commie corridor serve as a springboard for leftwing candidates?

Absolutely, it’s no coincidence that key political leaders from progressives come from a few areas in the boroughs. I believe that there will be additional examples – candidates will emerge from these neighborhoods to be promoted to higher office.

However I believe that every city in the US can have similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the epicenters of progressive influence in the nation – because youth reside there, tenancy is common and they represent locales where individuals struggle by the inequalities we face.