🔗 Share this article

Just two days prior to the NYC mayoral election, Michael Lange issued a bold electoral prediction – going beyond who would win citywide, but precinct by precinct. The analyst, an expert in elections who grew up in the city, devoted more than ten years in progressive politics and has become a kind of local celebrity recently for his deep dives into municipal statistics and voter surveys.

He released his highly detailed forecast map – which correctly forecast that the progressive candidate would win while missing Andrew Cuomo’s solid showing – on his Substack, his platform. He possesses a talent for clever terms. He pointed out, as an example, the split between the “commie corridor”, stretching from one neighborhood to another area to a third locale, where he predicted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would triumph by huge margins, and the “capitalist corridor” on affluent parts of Manhattan. In those areas, “the Free Press and financial newspapers outrank the mainstream paper” in readership and the majority of electors favored the independent, campaigning as a moderate alternative.

Election Night Trends and Surprises

What was your night?

I had to do that because they were adding around 200,000 votes into the system every few minutes! I was actually a little nervous at the beginning: Mamdani led the early vote by a dozen percentage points, but came two big batches of votes that came in after that and his lead went from 12% to 8%. It was concerning.

Understand, there was a world in which election day went kind of poorly for Mamdani, in which Cuomo was going to end up basically increasing his support from the Democratic primary. But the winner gained half a million votes to his initial base, and this was critical why he succeeded. He campaigned and massively expanded his base from the first round.

Coalition Building

Where did the mayor-elect gain those extra votes from?

He built the coalition that the left long aimed for: diverse racially, it’s young, tenants and individuals facing cost pressures. He improved significantly with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, compared to the primary. Plus he further maximized his core of liberal progressives, young leftists, and immigrant groups. Victory required without expanding his appeal.

He created the coalition that progressives long aimed for: diverse, young, tenants and residents squeezed by affordability

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

It is a real thing, limited to working-class Latinos, south Asians and Islamic voters. Voters in ethnic enclaves that supported the former president last year went for Zohran now. However I wouldn’t say he was gaining Caucasian laborers and Trump loyalists.

Turnout and Impact

A major development of the night was the sky-high turnout. Who did that help?

Each candidate. Turnout was significantly higher than I had expected. I figured we might go over 2 million, but it reached 2.3M – which is a lot of darn voters. Existed a substantial opposition group, who were motivated, but his supporters was also motivated, and that was enough to win.

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

Currently it appears he’s likely to get over half. He has just over 50% but remain probably 200,000 votes uncounted as of Wednesday morning. Thus I don’t think it’s definitive, but I believe it’s likely, and I hope he achieves it so then none can claim Sliwa was a spoiler.

GOP Decline

The GOP candidate, the conservative contender, is the other big story. His vote completely collapsed.

He lost a single precinct in any area. Not even one neighborhood in the borough, similar to an 88% Trump neighborhood. That really surprised me. Cuomo kept very white areas, affluent zones and very religiously Jewish areas, and then added all of these Republicans on Staten Island with a high participation. I believe occurred significant tactical voting by GOP voters. They were doing it prior to the former president endorsed for the candidate, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide unless Mamdani’s coalition failed to expand.

The “Commie Corridor”

Regarding your often-discussed “commie corridor” – did backing 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 Greek landlords and homeowners supported the independent. Thus there existed some opposition. But no, mostly the leftist base is another huge reason why Zohran prevailed – he was polling between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.

Jewish Voters

Prior to the election we reported on whether the candidate was making inroads with Jewish New Yorkers. Is there any suggestion that he did?

Exist areas with many non-religious and left-inclined voters – such as Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he did well. However in the wealthy Jewish communities like the Manhattan area, his Middle East stance definitely mattered in those places. Similarly in the more middle-class Jewish areas including Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they all leaned Cuomo. And also, you have Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in the borough, they were strongly supportive. So I don’t know if there were major surprises on this one, but Mamdani did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the another locale with large leads.

Long-Term Significance

Did Mamdani redefine what the city means politically? Will the commie corridor become a launch pad for progressive contenders?

Yes, it’s no coincidence that some of the biggest figures from the left come from a few areas in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I believe that there will be additional examples – candidates will come from these neighborhoods to be elevated nationally.

However I think that each urban center in the US can have similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the centers of progressive influence in America – since they’re young, tenancy is common and they represent locales where individuals struggle by the disparities exist.