🔗 Share this article

Only two days before the New York race for mayor, Michael Lange made a significant forecast – not just who would win overall, and precinct by precinct. Lange, a political analyst who grew up in New York City, devoted more than ten years in progressive politics and has become a kind of well-known figure this year for his deep dives into city data and voter surveys.

He released his highly detailed forecast map – which correctly forecast that the progressive candidate would win while missing Andrew Cuomo’s strong performance – on his Substack, his platform. Lange has a flair for clever terms. He highlighted, as an example, the divide between the “commie corridor”, stretching from Park Slope to another area to a third locale, where he predicted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would triumph by large leads, and the conservative-leaning zone on affluent parts of Manhattan. In those areas, certain media outlets and financial newspapers surpass the mainstream paper” in audience and most voters leaned toward Cuomo, who ran as a moderate alternative.

Voting Day Trends and Unexpected Results

How was your night?

It was necessary since they were adding around 200,000 votes into the tally every few minutes! I felt a little nervous initially: The candidate led the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but came large groups of votes that came in after that and his lead dropped from 12% to 8%. It was concerning.

You know, it was possible where election day turned out somewhat badly for him, in which Cuomo was going to end up essentially doubling his votes from the Democratic primary. However the winner added 500,000 votes to his primary coalition, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He campaigned and greatly broadened his base from the first round.

Expanding Support

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

He built the alliance that the left always wanted to build: it’s multiracial, it’s young, it’s renters and individuals facing cost pressures. He improved significantly with Black and Hispanic voters, working- and middle-class voters, compared to the primary. Plus he boosted his core of left-leaning activists, young leftists, and Muslims and south Asians. Victory required without expanding his appeal.

He created the coalition that the left always wanted to build: diverse, young, tenants and residents struggling with costs

Additionally, there were a number of supporters of both candidates – is this significant?

It is a real thing, confined to Hispanic laborers, south Asians and Islamic voters. Electors in immigrant strongholds that went for the former president previously backed the progressive now. However it’s not that he was gaining white working-class voters and Trump loyalists.

Turnout and Impact

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

Each candidate. Participation was much greater than anticipated. I figured it could go over 2 million, but it’s closer to 2.3 million – which is a huge number of participants. Existed a substantial anti-Mamdani block, who were motivated, but his supporters was also motivated, and that was enough to secure victory.

You predicted he’d get over 50% of the vote. Is he likely for that?

Right now it appears he’s likely to get over half. He has 50.4% but there’s still probably 200K ballots left to report as of Wednesday morning. Thus I don’t think it’s definitive, but I think probable, and I wish he does because afterwards none can claim the Republican was a disruptor.

GOP Decline

Curtis Sliwa, the conservative contender, was another surprise. His vote completely collapsed.

He lost any district in any borough. Not even Tottenville in Staten Island, similar to an highly conservative neighborhood. That really was unexpected. The independent kept very white areas, affluent zones and very religiously Jewish areas, and plus gained many conservatives on Staten Island with a strong turnout. I think there was significant tactical voting by GOP voters. They were doing it before the former president endorsed for Cuomo, but it assisted. It might have changed the outcome if Mamdani’s coalition hadn’t grown.

Progressive Strongholds

What about your often-discussed “commie corridor” – did backing for the candidate dominant in those parts of Brooklyn and Queens?

I think existed a little dilution of the commie corridor in certain places like neighborhoods that have more older white ethnic folks. In Astoria, for example, the Greek landlords and homeowners supported Cuomo. Thus there existed a little resistance. However no, mostly the commie corridor is another huge reason why Zohran prevailed – he scored between 77% and 83% in specific neighborhoods.

Community Support

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

There are neighborhoods with many non-religious and left-inclined voters – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. But in the wealthy Jewish communities such as the Manhattan area, his position on Israel definitely mattered there. Similarly in the more middle-class Jewish areas including Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored Cuomo. Plus, there are newcomers from the former Soviet Union in the borough, they were pretty staunchly supportive. Therefore it’s unclear if existed crazy narrative-busters here, but Mamdani retained left-leaning areas and even parts of the Upper West Side with large leads.

Political Impact

Did Mamdani redefine what the city represents in politics? Will commie corridor serve as a springboard 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.

However I believe that each urban center in America can have similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the centers of progressive influence in the nation – since youth reside there, tenancy is common and they represent locales where people are crushed by the inequalities we face.