🔗 Share this article

Just 48 hours before the New York mayoral election, political analyst Michael Lange issued a bold forecast – not just the winner overall, but precinct by precinct. The analyst, a political analyst born and raised in the city, has spent over a decade in left-leaning activism and has become a kind of local celebrity this year for his thorough analyses 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. He possesses a talent for witty coinages. He pointed out, for instance, the divide between the progressive stronghold, running from Park Slope to Bushwick to a third locale, where he predicted (correctly) 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 New York Times” in audience and most voters leaned toward Cuomo, campaigning as a conservative-courting independent.

Election Night Trends and Unexpected Results

What was your election night?

It was necessary since they were dropping approximately 200K ballots into the system frequently! I felt somewhat anxious at the beginning: Mamdani was ahead the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but there were two big batches of ballots that came in later and the advantage dropped from 12% to 8%. I was worried.

You know, it was possible where yesterday turned out somewhat badly for him, in which the opponent was going to end up essentially doubling his votes from the earlier contest. But Mamdani gained 500,000 supporters to his initial base, and that’s a huge reason why he won. He went out and massively expanded his base from the first round.

Expanding Support

How did the mayor-elect gain those extra votes from?

He assembled the alliance that the left always wanted to build: diverse racially, it’s young, it’s renters and it’s people facing cost pressures. He gained considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, working- and middle-class voters, relative to the earlier election. Additionally he boosted his core of left-leaning activists, young leftists, and Muslims and south Asians. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

He built the coalition that progressives long aimed for: diverse, youthful, tenants and residents struggling with costs

There were also a number of supporters of both candidates – is this significant?

It’s definitely a real thing, limited to working-class Latinos, south Asians and Muslims. Voters in ethnic enclaves that went for the former president previously backed Zohran now. However it’s not that he was gaining white working-class voters and Maga voters.

Turnout and Impact

One of the big stories of the night was the sky-high participation. Who benefited?

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

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

Currently it appears he’s favored to get over 50%. He’s at 50.4% but there’s still probably 200K ballots left to report as of Wednesday morning. Thus it’s not it’s definitive, but I think it’s likely, and I wish he does so then none can claim Sliwa was a disruptor.

Republican Collapse

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

He didn’t win a single precinct in any borough. Not even one neighborhood in the borough, which is like an 88% Trump area. That really was unexpected. The independent held very white areas, affluent zones and very religiously Jewish areas, and then added many conservatives on Staten Island who had a strong turnout. I believe there was a lot of tactical voting by GOP voters. This happened prior to Trump tweeted his support for Cuomo, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide unless the winning alliance hadn’t grown.

Progressive Strongholds

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

In my view there was a little dilution of the commie corridor in some areas like neighborhoods that have more older white ethnic folks. In Astoria, instance, the property owners and homeowners supported Cuomo. Thus there existed a little resistance. However no, largely the leftist base is a key factor why Mamdani prevailed – he was polling between high percentages in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Jewish Voters

Prior to the election we reported on if the candidate was making inroads with Jewish New Yorkers. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?

Exist neighborhoods with many secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – such as specific locales – where he performed strongly. But in the wealthy Jewish communities such as the Upper East Side, his Middle East stance was influential in those places. Likewise in the moderate communities including Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they all leaned the independent. And also, you have Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe in the borough, who were strongly supportive. Therefore I don’t know if there were crazy narrative-busters here, but he retained left-leaning areas and even parts of the Upper West Side by big margins.

Long-Term Significance

Has Mamdani rewritten what New York represents in politics? Will the progressive base become a launch pad for progressive contenders?

Yes, it’s not accidental that some of the biggest figures from the left come from a few areas in the boroughs. I believe that there will be more of that – people will come from these neighborhoods to be elevated nationally.

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