🔗 Share this article

Only two days before the NYC race for mayor, Michael Lange made a significant forecast – not just who would win overall, but precinct by precinct. The analyst, a political analyst who grew up in the city, devoted over a decade in left-leaning activism and emerged as something of a local celebrity this year for his deep dives into city data and voter surveys.

He published his extremely precise forecast map – which correctly forecast that Zohran Mamdani would win while failed to predict the independent candidate’s strong performance – on his Substack, his platform. Lange has a flair for witty coinages. He highlighted, as an example, the divide between the “commie corridor”, running 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 conservative-leaning zone on affluent parts of Manhattan. In those areas, certain media outlets and Wall Street Journal surpass the New York Times” in readership and most voters leaned toward the independent, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Election Night Trends and Unexpected Results

How was your night?

It was necessary because they were adding around 200,000 ballots into the system every few minutes! I was actually a little nervous initially: Mamdani was ahead the initial ballots by 12 points, but came large groups of ballots that came in after that and the advantage dropped from 12 to 8%. It was concerning.

You know, it was possible where yesterday went somewhat badly for him, where the opponent was going to end up 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 won. He campaigned and greatly broadened his base from the primary.

Coalition Building

How did Mamdani get those extra votes from?

He assembled the coalition that the left always wanted to build: diverse racially, youthful, tenants and individuals facing cost pressures. He gained considerably with minority communities, working- and middle-class voters, compared to the earlier election. Plus he boosted his core of liberal progressives, youthful radicals, and immigrant groups. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

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. Voters in immigrant strongholds that supported the former president last year went for Zohran now. However I wouldn’t say he was winning over Caucasian laborers and Trump loyalists.

Turnout and Effects

A major development of the election was the sky-high participation. Who benefited?

Both sides. Participation was significantly higher than I had expected. I figured we might go over two million, but it reached 2.3 million – which is a lot of darn voters. There was a substantial anti-Mamdani block, who were motivated, but his supporters was also motivated, and that was enough to secure victory.

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

Currently it appears he’s likely to surpass half. He has 50.4% but remain probably 200K ballots left to report as of Wednesday morning. So it’s not it’s definitive, but I think it’s likely, and I wish he achieves it because then none can claim the Republican was a spoiler.

GOP Decline

Curtis Sliwa, the conservative contender, is the other big story. His support plummeted.

He didn’t win a single precinct in any area. Including Tottenville in Staten Island, which is like an 88% Trump area. That really surprised me. The independent kept Caucasian districts, affluent zones and devout communities, and plus gained all of these conservatives on Staten Island who had a high participation. I think occurred significant tactical voting by the Republicans. They were doing it before Trump endorsed for Cuomo, but that definitely helped. It might have changed the outcome unless Mamdani’s coalition hadn’t grown.

Progressive Strongholds

What about your much mentioned “commie corridor” – did backing for Mamdani dominant in those areas of the boroughs?

I think existed some weakening of the progressive zone in certain places like neighborhoods that have older Caucasian residents. In Astoria, for example, the property owners and residents supported the independent. Thus there was some opposition. But no, largely the commie corridor is a key factor why Mamdani prevailed – he scored between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.

Jewish Voters

In the lead-up to the vote there was coverage on whether the candidate was making inroads with the community. Any indication that he succeeded?

Exist areas with a lot of secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – such as Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he did well. But in the wealthy Jewish communities such as the Upper East Side, his position on Israel was influential there. Similarly in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Queens neighborhoods, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they all leaned the independent. And also, you have newcomers from the former Soviet Union in the borough, they were pretty staunchly Cuomo. Therefore it’s unclear if there were crazy narrative-busters on this one, but he retained left-leaning areas and even parts of the another locale with large leads.

Political Impact

Has Mamdani rewritten what the city represents in politics? Will commie corridor become a launch pad for progressive contenders?

Absolutely, it’s no coincidence that some of the biggest figures from the left come from a handful of neighborhoods in the boroughs. I believe that we’ll see more of that – candidates will emerge from these areas to be promoted to higher office.

But I believe that every city in the US could develop similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the centers of progressive influence in the nation – because youth reside there, people rent and they represent locales where people are crushed by the inequalities exist.