🔗 Share this article

Only two days prior to the New York race for mayor, political analyst Michael Lange made a significant forecast – going beyond who would win citywide, and precinct by precinct. The analyst, an expert in elections who grew up in New York City, devoted over a decade in left-leaning activism and emerged as a kind of well-known figure recently for his deep dives into city data and polling.

He released his highly detailed forecast map – which correctly forecast that Zohran Mamdani would win while failed to predict the independent candidate’s solid showing – on his Substack, the Narrative War. Lange possesses a talent 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 forecasted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would win by large leads, and the “capitalist corridor” on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. There, “the Free Press and financial newspapers surpass the New York Times” in readership and most voters favored the independent, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Election Night Patterns and Surprises

What was your night?

It was necessary since they were adding around 200,000 votes into the system every few minutes! I was actually somewhat anxious initially: The candidate was ahead the initial ballots by 12 points, but came large groups of votes that came in later and the advantage went from 12 to 8%. It was concerning.

Understand, there was a world in which election day turned out somewhat badly for him, in which the opponent would have basically doubling his votes from the earlier contest. However Mamdani added half a million supporters to his initial base, and this was critical why he succeeded. He campaigned and greatly broadened his support from the first round.

Coalition Building

Where did Mamdani gain those extra votes from?

He assembled the coalition that the left always wanted to build: it’s multiracial, it’s young, tenants and individuals facing cost pressures. He improved significantly with minority communities, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the earlier election. Plus he boosted his core of liberal progressives, youthful radicals, and immigrant groups. He couldn’t have won without making those significant inroads.

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

Additionally, there were some supporters of both candidates – is that a big trend?

It is a genuine phenomenon, limited to Hispanic laborers, south Asians and Islamic voters. Electors in ethnic enclaves that supported Trump previously went for the progressive now. But I wouldn’t say he was winning over Caucasian laborers and Trump loyalists.

Voter Participation and Effects

A major development of the election was the sky-high turnout. Who benefited?

Each candidate. Turnout was significantly higher than I had expected. I thought it could go over 2 million, but it’s closer to 2.3M – that is a huge number of participants. Existed a decent anti-Mamdani block, energized, but his supporters was also motivated, and that sufficed to secure victory.

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

Currently you would say he’s likely to surpass half. He’s at just over 50% but there’s still probably 200K ballots uncounted at that time. So it’s not it’s definitive, but I believe it’s likely, and I hope he achieves it so afterwards none can claim Sliwa was a disruptor.

Republican Collapse

Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, is the other big story. His support plummeted.

He lost a single precinct in any borough. Not even Tottenville in Staten Island, which is like an 88% Trump neighborhood. That truly surprised me. Cuomo kept Caucasian districts, affluent zones and very religiously Jewish areas, and plus gained all of these conservatives on Staten Island who had a high participation. I think there was a lot of tactical voting by the Republicans. This happened prior to the former president endorsed for the candidate, but it assisted. It could have even turned the tide if Mamdani’s coalition hadn’t grown.

The “Commie Corridor”

Regarding your much mentioned left-wing base – was support for the candidate overwhelming in those areas of the boroughs?

I think existed some weakening of the progressive zone in certain places like neighborhoods that have older Caucasian residents. In Astoria, instance, the property owners and residents supported the independent. Thus there was some opposition. But no, mostly the commie corridor is a key factor why Mamdani won – he scored between 77% and 83% in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Jewish Voters

Prior to the vote we reported on whether Mamdani was making inroads with Jewish New Yorkers. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?

There are neighborhoods with a lot of non-religious and left-inclined voters – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he did well. However in the wealthy Jewish communities such as the Upper East Side, his Middle East stance definitely mattered there. Likewise in the moderate communities like Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored Cuomo. And also, there are Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in southern Brooklyn, who were pretty staunchly supportive. So I don’t know if there were crazy narrative-busters on this one, but he did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the another locale with large leads.

Long-Term Significance

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

Absolutely, it’s no coincidence that key political leaders from the left hail from a few areas in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I’m sure that we’ll see more of that – candidates will emerge from these neighborhoods to be promoted to higher office.

But I think that each urban center in America can have similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the centers of leftwing power in America – because they’re young, people rent and they are places where individuals struggle by the disparities we face.