🔗 Share this article

Just two days before the New York race for mayor, Michael Lange made a significant electoral prediction – not just the winner citywide, but precinct by precinct. The analyst, an expert in elections who grew up in the city, has spent more than ten years in left-leaning activism and has become something of a well-known figure recently for his deep dives into municipal statistics and polling.

He released his extremely precise prediction map – accurately predicting that the progressive candidate would win while missing the independent candidate’s solid showing – on his Substack, the Narrative War. He has a flair for witty coinages. He pointed out, for instance, the split between the progressive stronghold, running from Park Slope to Bushwick to Astoria, where he predicted (accurately) that the left-wing candidate would win by large leads, and the “capitalist corridor” on affluent parts of Manhattan. In those areas, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal surpass the New York Times” in readership and most voters leaned toward the independent, campaigning as a moderate alternative.

Voting Day Patterns and Surprises

How was your night?

It was necessary since they were dropping around 200,000 votes into the system every few minutes! I was actually a little nervous initially: The candidate led the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but came large groups of ballots that came in after that and the advantage dropped from 12% to 8%. I was worried.

Understand, there was a world in which election day went kind of poorly for him, where Cuomo would have basically increasing his support from the Democratic primary. However Mamdani added half a million votes to his initial base, and this was critical why he won. He campaigned and massively expanded his base from the first round.

Expanding Support

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

He built the alliance that the left long aimed for: it’s multiracial, it’s young, tenants and it’s people facing cost pressures. He gained considerably with minority communities, working- and middle-class voters, relative to the primary. Plus he boosted his core of left-leaning activists, youthful radicals, and Muslims and south Asians. He couldn’t have won without expanding his appeal.

He built the alliance that the left long aimed for: diverse, youthful, renters and people struggling with costs

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

It is a genuine phenomenon, confined to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Islamic voters. Electors in ethnic enclaves that supported the former president last year backed the progressive now. But it’s not that he was gaining Caucasian laborers and Maga voters.

Turnout and Effects

A major development of the night was the record participation. Who did that help?

Each candidate. Turnout was significantly higher than anticipated. I figured it could go over 2 million, but it’s closer to 2.3 million – that is a huge number of participants. Existed a substantial opposition group, energized, but the Mamdani base was also motivated, and that sufficed to win.

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

Right now you would say he’s likely to get over half. He’s at 50.4% but remain probably 200K ballots left to report as of Wednesday morning. So I don’t think it’s definitive, but I think it’s likely, and I wish he does because afterwards no one can say Sliwa was a disruptor.

GOP Decline

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

He lost a single precinct in any borough. Including one neighborhood in the borough, similar to an highly conservative area. That truly surprised me. Cuomo held very white areas, very wealthy areas and very religiously Jewish areas, and plus gained all of these Republicans on the island with a strong turnout. I believe there was significant tactical voting by the Republicans. 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 hadn’t grown.

The “Commie Corridor”

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

I think there was some weakening of the progressive zone in some areas like Astoria or Greenpoint that have more older white ethnic folks. There, for example, the property owners and homeowners supported the independent. So there existed some opposition. However no, largely the commie corridor is a key factor why Mamdani won – he scored between 77% and 83% in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Community Support

In the lead-up to the election there was coverage on whether the candidate was gaining ground 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 performed strongly. However in the wealthy Jewish communities such as the Upper East Side, his Middle East stance was influential there. Likewise in the moderate communities like Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they all leaned Cuomo. And also, there are Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in the borough, who were pretty staunchly supportive. So I don’t know if there were major surprises here, but Mamdani did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the Upper West Side with large leads.

Political Impact

Has Mamdani rewritten what New York means politically? Will the commie corridor serve as a springboard for progressive contenders?

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

However I think that each urban center in America can have their own commie corridor. Urban places are the centers of leftwing power in America – because youth reside there, tenancy is common and they represent locales where people are crushed by the disparities exist.