🔗 Share this article

Only 48 hours prior to the NYC race for mayor, Michael Lange made a bold electoral prediction – going beyond the winner overall, and precinct by precinct. Lange, an expert in elections who grew up in New York City, has spent over a decade in progressive politics and has become a kind of local celebrity recently for his deep dives into city data and polling.

He published his highly detailed prediction map – accurately predicting that Zohran Mamdani would win although missing Andrew Cuomo’s solid showing – on his Substack, the Narrative War. He has a flair for clever terms. He highlighted, as an example, the divide between the progressive stronghold, running from Park Slope to another area to Astoria, 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 mainstream paper” in audience and most voters leaned toward the independent, who ran as a moderate alternative.

Voting Day Trends and Surprises

How was your night?

It was necessary because they were adding around 200,000 ballots into the tally frequently! I was actually a little nervous at the beginning: The candidate led the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but came large groups of ballots that came in after that and the advantage went from 12% to 8%. I was worried.

You know, it was possible in which election day went kind of poorly for Mamdani, where Cuomo was going to end up basically increasing his support from the Democratic primary. However the winner added half a million votes to his primary coalition, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He campaigned and massively expanded his support from the first round.

Expanding Support

Where did the mayor-elect gain additional support from?

He assembled the alliance that progressives always wanted to build: diverse racially, youthful, it’s renters and it’s people squeezed by affordability. He improved considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the primary. Plus he boosted his base of left-leaning activists, young leftists, and immigrant groups. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

He created the coalition that the left long aimed for: multiracial, youthful, tenants and people squeezed by affordability

Additionally, there were some Trump/Mamdani voters – is that a big trend?

It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, confined to working-class Latinos, Asian communities and Islamic voters. Electors in immigrant strongholds that went for Trump previously backed the progressive this year. However it’s not that he was winning over white working-class voters and Maga voters.

Voter Participation and Effects

A major development of the night was the record participation. Who did that help?

Each candidate. Turnout was much greater than anticipated. I figured it could go over 2 million, but it’s closer to 2.3 million – that is a lot of darn voters. There was a substantial opposition group, who were motivated, but his supporters was equally driven, and that was enough to win.

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

Currently you would say he’s likely to get over 50%. He’s at just over 50% but there’s still around 200K ballots left to report at that time. Thus I don’t think it’s definitive, but I think probable, 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 vote completely collapsed.

He lost a single precinct in any area. Not even one neighborhood in the borough, similar to an highly conservative neighborhood. That really was unexpected. The independent kept Caucasian districts, very wealthy areas and very religiously Jewish areas, and then added many conservatives on Staten Island who had a high participation. I think occurred a lot of tactical voting by the Republicans. They were doing it prior to the former president tweeted his support for the candidate, but it assisted. It might have changed the outcome if the winning alliance failed to expand.

The “Commie Corridor”

What about your often-discussed left-wing base – did backing for the candidate overwhelming in those parts of the boroughs?

I think there was some weakening of the progressive zone in certain places like neighborhoods that have more older white ethnic folks. There, for example, the property owners and homeowners supported Cuomo. Thus there was a little resistance. However overall, largely the commie corridor is a key factor why Zohran prevailed – he scored between 77% and 83% in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Jewish Voters

In the lead-up to the vote there was coverage on if the candidate was making inroads with Jewish New Yorkers. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?

There are areas 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 Middle East stance definitely mattered there. Similarly in the moderate communities including Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they all leaned the independent. Plus, you have newcomers from Eastern Europe in southern Brooklyn, they were pretty staunchly Cuomo. Therefore it’s unclear if there were crazy narrative-busters on this one, but he did hold left-leaning areas and even parts of the another locale with large leads.

Long-Term Significance

Did Mamdani redefine what the city represents in politics? Will progressive base 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’m sure that there will be more of that – people will come 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 leftwing power in America – since they’re young, tenancy is common and they are places where individuals struggle by the inequalities exist.