🔗 Share this article

Just two days prior to the New York race for mayor, political analyst Michael Lange made a significant electoral prediction – going beyond the winner citywide, and precinct by precinct. The analyst, an expert in elections born and raised in New York City, has spent over a decade in progressive politics and emerged as a kind of well-known figure this year for his deep dives into municipal statistics and polling.

He published his extremely precise prediction map – which correctly forecast that Zohran Mamdani was victorious although missing Andrew Cuomo’s strong performance – on his newsletter, the Narrative War. Lange possesses a talent for clever terms. He highlighted, for instance, the split between the progressive stronghold, stretching from Park Slope to another area to a third locale, where he predicted (accurately) that the left-wing candidate would win by huge margins, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. In those areas, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal outrank the mainstream paper” in readership and most voters leaned toward the independent, campaigning as a conservative-courting independent.

Election Night Trends and Unexpected Results

How was your election night?

I had to do that since they were dropping approximately 200K votes into the system frequently! I was actually a little nervous initially: The candidate was ahead the initial ballots by 12 points, but there were two big batches of ballots that came in after that and his lead dropped from 12% to 8%. I was worried.

Understand, there was a world in which election day turned out somewhat badly for Mamdani, in which Cuomo was going to end up basically doubling his votes from the Democratic primary. But Mamdani gained 500,000 supporters to his primary coalition, and this was critical why he succeeded. He campaigned and greatly broadened his base from the first round.

Coalition Building

How did Mamdani get additional support from?

He built the alliance that progressives long aimed for: diverse racially, it’s young, it’s renters and it’s people facing cost pressures. He gained considerably with minority communities, everyday New Yorkers, compared to the earlier election. Plus he further maximized his core of liberal progressives, young leftists, and Muslims and south Asians. Victory required without expanding his appeal.

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

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

It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, confined to working-class Latinos, Asian communities and Muslims. Electors in immigrant strongholds that supported the former president last year went for the progressive now. However I wouldn’t say he was winning over white working-class voters and Maga voters.

Turnout and Effects

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

Each candidate. Participation was much greater than anticipated. I figured it could go over two million, but it reached 2.3M – that is a lot of darn voters. There was a decent anti-Mamdani block, who were motivated, but the Mamdani base was equally driven, and that sufficed to secure victory.

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

Currently you would say he’s favored to surpass half. He has 50.4% but remain around 200,000 votes uncounted as of Wednesday morning. Thus I don’t think certain, but I believe it’s likely, and I wish he does so then no one can say Sliwa was a spoiler.

GOP Decline

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

He lost a single precinct in any borough. Not even one neighborhood in Staten Island, similar to an 88% Trump neighborhood. That really surprised me. The independent held Caucasian districts, affluent zones and devout communities, and plus gained many Republicans on the island with a strong turnout. I think there was significant tactical voting by GOP voters. This happened before the former president tweeted his support for the candidate, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide unless Mamdani’s coalition hadn’t grown.

The “Commie Corridor”

What about your much mentioned left-wing base – was support for Mamdani overwhelming in those parts of Brooklyn and Queens?

I think existed a little dilution of the progressive zone in some areas like Astoria or Greenpoint that have older Caucasian residents. In Astoria, for example, the property owners and homeowners supported the independent. Thus there existed a little resistance. But overall, mostly the leftist base is a key factor why Mamdani prevailed – he scored between high percentages in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Community Support

In the lead-up to the vote we reported on whether Mamdani was making inroads with the community. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?

There are areas with a lot of non-religious and left-inclined voters – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he did well. But in the wealthy Jewish communities like the Upper East Side, his Middle East stance was influential in those places. Similarly in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Queens neighborhoods, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored Cuomo. Plus, you have Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe in southern Brooklyn, they were pretty staunchly Cuomo. So it’s unclear if existed crazy narrative-busters here, but he did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and even parts of the another locale by big margins.

Long-Term Significance

Has Mamdani rewritten what the city means politically? Will progressive base become a launch pad for progressive contenders?

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

But I think that every city in America could develop similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the epicenters of progressive influence in America – because youth reside there, tenancy is common and they are places where individuals struggle by the inequalities we face.