🔗 Share this article

Only 48 hours prior to the New York race for mayor, Michael Lange issued a significant electoral prediction – going beyond who would win citywide, and precinct by precinct. Lange, a political analyst who grew up in the city, has spent more than ten years in progressive politics and has become something of a local celebrity recently for his thorough analyses into municipal statistics and voter surveys.

He released his highly detailed forecast map – accurately predicting that the progressive candidate would win while failed to predict Andrew Cuomo’s solid showing – on his newsletter, his platform. He has a flair for clever terms. He highlighted, as an example, the split between the progressive stronghold, stretching from Park Slope to another area to a third locale, where he predicted (accurately) that Mamdani would triumph by large leads, and the “capitalist corridor” on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. There, certain media outlets and Wall Street Journal surpass the mainstream paper” in audience and most voters leaned toward Cuomo, who ran as a moderate alternative.

Voting Day Patterns and Surprises

What 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 there were large groups of ballots added later and his lead went from 12% to 8%. I was worried.

Understand, it was possible where election day turned out kind of poorly for Mamdani, where the opponent would have basically doubling his votes from the Democratic primary. However the winner added half a million supporters to his initial base, and this was critical why he succeeded. He campaigned and greatly broadened his base from the first round.

Coalition Building

How did Mamdani gain those extra votes from?

He assembled the alliance that the left always wanted to build: it’s multiracial, youthful, it’s renters and individuals facing cost pressures. He improved significantly with minority communities, working- and middle-class voters, compared to the primary. Plus he further maximized his base of left-leaning activists, youthful radicals, and Muslims and south Asians. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

He created the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: diverse, youthful, renters and residents struggling with costs

Additionally, there were some Trump/Mamdani voters – is this significant?

It’s definitely a real thing, limited to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Islamic voters. Electors in ethnic enclaves that supported Trump last year went for the progressive now. But I wouldn’t say he was winning over Caucasian laborers and Maga voters.

Voter Participation and Effects

One of the big stories of the night was the record participation. Who benefited?

Each candidate. Turnout was much greater than anticipated. I thought it could go over 2 million, but it’s closer to 2.3M – that is a huge number of participants. Existed a substantial anti-Mamdani block, 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?

Right now you would say he’s favored to surpass half. He has 50.4% but remain around 200,000 votes uncounted at that time. So it’s not certain, but I believe it’s likely, and I wish he achieves it because then no one can say Sliwa was a spoiler.

GOP Decline

Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, was another surprise. His support completely collapsed.

He didn’t win a single precinct in any borough. Not even one neighborhood in Staten Island, which is like an 88% Trump neighborhood. That truly surprised me. Cuomo held very white areas, affluent zones and very religiously Jewish areas, and then added all of these Republicans on Staten Island who had a strong turnout. I think occurred a lot of tactical voting by GOP voters. They were doing it prior to the former president tweeted his support for Cuomo, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide unless Mamdani’s coalition failed to expand.

Progressive Strongholds

Regarding your often-discussed “commie corridor” – did backing for the candidate 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 more older white ethnic folks. In Astoria, for example, the Greek landlords and homeowners all went for Cuomo. Thus there was a little resistance. However no, largely the leftist base is a key factor why Mamdani won – he was polling between 77% and 83% in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Jewish Voters

Prior to the vote we reported on if Mamdani was gaining ground with Jewish New Yorkers. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?

There are neighborhoods with many secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. But in the wealthy Jewish communities like the Manhattan area, his Middle East stance definitely mattered in those places. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas including Queens neighborhoods, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored the independent. Plus, there are Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe in the borough, who were pretty staunchly Cuomo. Therefore I don’t know if existed major surprises on this one, but Mamdani retained more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and even parts of the Upper West Side with large leads.

Political Impact

Did Mamdani redefine what the city means politically? Will progressive base serve as a springboard for progressive contenders?

Absolutely, it’s not accidental that some of the biggest figures from progressives come from a handful of neighborhoods in the boroughs. I’m sure that there will be additional examples – people will come from these neighborhoods to be elevated nationally.

However 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 they’re young, tenancy is common and they are places where people are crushed by the disparities we face.