🔗 Share this article

Just two days prior to the NYC race for mayor, political analyst Michael Lange made a significant electoral prediction – going beyond the winner overall, but block by block. The analyst, a political analyst born and raised in the city, devoted more than ten years in left-leaning activism and emerged as something of a well-known figure recently for his deep dives into city data and polling.

He published his highly detailed prediction map – which correctly forecast that the progressive candidate was victorious although failed to predict the independent candidate’s solid showing – on his Substack, the Narrative War. Lange has a flair for witty coinages. He highlighted, for instance, the divide between the progressive stronghold, stretching from Park Slope to another area to Astoria, where he forecasted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would triumph by large leads, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. In those areas, “the Free Press and financial newspapers surpass the New York Times” in audience and most voters favored the independent, campaigning as a moderate alternative.

Voting Day Trends and Unexpected Results

What was your election night?

I had to do that since they were adding around 200,000 ballots into the tally every few minutes! I was actually somewhat anxious at the beginning: The candidate led the early vote by 12 points, but there were large groups of ballots added later and the advantage went from 12% to 8%. It was concerning.

You know, there was a world where election day went kind of poorly for him, where Cuomo was going to end up basically doubling his votes from the Democratic primary. But Mamdani gained 500,000 supporters to his primary coalition, and that’s a huge reason why he won. He campaigned and massively expanded his support from the first round.

Coalition Building

Where did Mamdani get those extra votes from?

He assembled the coalition that progressives long aimed for: it’s multiracial, youthful, it’s renters and it’s people facing cost pressures. He improved significantly with minority communities, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the earlier election. Additionally he boosted his core of liberal progressives, young leftists, and immigrant groups. He couldn’t have won without making those significant inroads.

He created the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: multiracial, young, tenants and people squeezed by affordability

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

It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, confined to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Muslims. Voters in ethnic enclaves that supported the former president previously backed Zohran now. But it’s not that he was winning over Caucasian laborers and Maga voters.

Voter Participation and Impact

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

Each candidate. Participation was significantly higher than I had expected. I figured we might exceed 2 million, but it reached 2.3 million – that is a huge number of participants. There was a decent opposition group, energized, but his supporters was also motivated, and that sufficed to secure victory.

You forecasted he’d get over half the ballots. Is he on course for that?

Currently you would say he’s favored to surpass 50%. He has just over 50% but there’s still around 200K ballots left to report at that time. So I don’t think certain, but I think it’s likely, and I wish he does because afterwards none can claim Sliwa was a spoiler.

Republican Collapse

The GOP candidate, the conservative contender, is the other big story. His support plummeted.

He lost a single precinct in any area. Including Tottenville in the borough, which is like an 88% Trump area. That truly was unexpected. The independent kept very white areas, affluent zones and devout communities, and plus gained many conservatives on Staten Island with a high participation. I believe there was a lot of tactical voting by the Republicans. This happened before the former president tweeted his support for the candidate, but that definitely helped. It might have changed the outcome unless Mamdani’s coalition hadn’t grown.

The “Commie Corridor”

Regarding your often-discussed “commie corridor” – did backing for Mamdani dominant in those areas of the boroughs?

I think there was some weakening of the commie corridor in certain places like Astoria or Greenpoint that have older Caucasian residents. In Astoria, instance, the property owners and homeowners all went for Cuomo. Thus there was a little resistance. However overall, largely the commie corridor is a key factor why Mamdani won – he was polling between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.

Jewish Voters

In the lead-up to the election we reported on whether Mamdani was making inroads with the community. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?

There are neighborhoods with a lot of secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – like specific locales – where he did well. However in the wealthy Jewish communities such as the Upper East Side, his position on Israel definitely mattered in those places. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Queens neighborhoods, or Bronx areas – they all leaned Cuomo. Plus, you have Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in the borough, they were pretty staunchly Cuomo. Therefore I don’t know if existed crazy narrative-busters here, but he retained left-leaning areas and even parts of the another locale by big margins.

Long-Term Significance

Did Mamdani redefine what the city means politically? Will commie corridor serve as a springboard for leftwing candidates?

Absolutely, it’s no coincidence that some of the biggest figures from the left hail from a few areas in the boroughs. I believe that we’ll see additional examples – people will come from these neighborhoods to be elevated nationally.

However I believe that each urban center in the US can have their own commie corridor. Urban places are the epicenters of leftwing power in the nation – because youth reside there, tenancy is common and they are places where people are crushed by the inequalities exist.