🔗 Share this article

Only 48 hours before the NYC mayoral election, political analyst Michael Lange issued a bold electoral prediction – going beyond who would win citywide, but block by block. The analyst, a political analyst born and raised in the city, devoted more than ten years in progressive politics and has become a kind of well-known figure recently for his thorough analyses into municipal statistics and voter surveys.

He published his extremely precise prediction map – accurately predicting that Zohran Mamdani was victorious although failed to predict the independent candidate’s solid showing – on his newsletter, the Narrative War. He has a flair for witty coinages. He highlighted, as an example, the divide between the progressive stronghold, running from Park Slope to Bushwick to Astoria, where he predicted (accurately) that the left-wing candidate would triumph by large leads, and the conservative-leaning zone on affluent parts of Manhattan. There, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal surpass the New York Times” in audience and the majority of electors leaned toward the independent, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Voting Day Trends and Unexpected Results

What was your election night?

I had to do that since they were dropping around 200,000 ballots into the system frequently! I felt a little nervous at the beginning: The candidate led the early vote by 12 points, but there were large groups of votes added later and the advantage dropped from 12 to 8%. It was concerning.

You know, there was a world in which yesterday went somewhat badly for him, where Cuomo would have basically doubling his votes from the Democratic primary. However Mamdani added 500,000 votes to his initial base, and this was critical why he won. He went out and massively expanded his base from the primary.

Expanding Support

Where did Mamdani get additional support from?

He built the alliance that progressives long aimed for: diverse racially, youthful, it’s renters and it’s people squeezed by affordability. He gained significantly with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the earlier election. Additionally he boosted his core of left-leaning activists, youthful radicals, and immigrant groups. Victory required without expanding his appeal.

He built the coalition that progressives long aimed for: multiracial, young, renters and residents squeezed by affordability

There were also a number of Trump/Mamdani voters – is this significant?

It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, confined to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Islamic voters. Electors in ethnic enclaves that went for the former president previously backed the progressive this year. However I wouldn’t say he was gaining Caucasian laborers and Maga voters.

Voter Participation and Effects

One of the big stories of the election was the record turnout. Who did that help?

Each candidate. Participation was significantly higher than I had expected. I thought we might exceed 2 million, but it’s closer to 2.3M – which is a lot of darn voters. There was a substantial opposition group, who were motivated, but the Mamdani base was equally driven, and that was enough to win.

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

Right now it appears he’s likely to surpass 50%. He has 50.4% but there’s still around 200,000 votes left to report as of Wednesday morning. Thus it’s not certain, but I think probable, and I hope he does so then no one can say the Republican was a disruptor.

GOP Decline

Curtis Sliwa, the conservative contender, is the other big story. His vote plummeted.

He didn’t win any district in any area. Not even one neighborhood in the borough, similar to an highly conservative neighborhood. That really surprised me. The independent kept very white areas, very wealthy areas and very religiously Jewish areas, and then added many Republicans on the island with a strong turnout. I believe occurred significant strategic balloting by GOP voters. They were doing it prior to Trump tweeted his support for the candidate, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide if Mamdani’s coalition failed to expand.

Progressive Strongholds

What about your much mentioned “commie corridor” – did backing for Mamdani overwhelming in those parts of the boroughs?

In my view existed a little dilution of the progressive zone in some areas like Astoria or Greenpoint that have older Caucasian residents. There, for example, the Greek landlords and residents supported the independent. So there existed a little resistance. However overall, mostly the commie corridor is another huge reason why Zohran won – he scored between 77% and 83% in specific neighborhoods.

Jewish Voters

In the lead-up to the vote there was coverage on whether Mamdani was gaining ground with the community. Any indication that he did?

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 Manhattan area, his Middle East stance definitely mattered in those places. Likewise in the moderate communities including Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Bronx areas – they all leaned Cuomo. And also, you have Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe in southern Brooklyn, they were pretty staunchly Cuomo. Therefore I don’t know if there were crazy narrative-busters on this one, but Mamdani retained left-leaning areas and even parts of the another locale with large leads.

Political Impact

Has Mamdani rewritten what the city represents in politics? Will the progressive base serve as a springboard for leftwing candidates?

Absolutely, it’s no coincidence that some of the biggest political leaders from the left come from a handful of neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I’m sure that there will be additional examples – people will come from these neighborhoods to be elevated nationally.

However I think that each urban center in the US can have similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the centers of progressive influence in America – because they’re young, tenancy is common and they are places where individuals struggle by the disparities exist.