🔗 Share this article

Only two days prior to the NYC mayoral election, political analyst Michael Lange issued a significant electoral prediction – not just who would win overall, and precinct by precinct. Lange, a political analyst born and raised in the city, has spent more than ten years in progressive politics and has become a kind of local celebrity this year for his deep dives into municipal statistics and voter surveys.

He released his extremely precise forecast map – which correctly forecast that Zohran Mamdani would win while failed to predict the independent candidate’s strong performance – on his newsletter, the Narrative War. Lange possesses a talent for witty coinages. He highlighted, as an example, the split between the “commie corridor”, running from one neighborhood to another area to Astoria, where he predicted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would win by large leads, and the conservative-leaning zone on affluent parts of Manhattan. In those areas, “the Free Press and financial newspapers outrank the mainstream paper” in readership and the majority of electors favored the independent, who ran as a moderate alternative.

Voting Day Patterns and Unexpected Results

How was your night?

I had to do that since they were adding around 200,000 ballots into the system frequently! I was actually a little nervous at the beginning: Mamdani led the early vote by a dozen percentage points, but came two big batches of votes added later and his lead dropped from 12% to 8%. I was worried.

You know, there was a world in which election day went somewhat badly for him, in which the opponent would have basically doubling his votes from the earlier contest. However the winner gained half a million supporters to his primary coalition, and this was critical why he succeeded. He went out and greatly broadened his support from the primary.

Expanding Support

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

He assembled the alliance that progressives always wanted to build: it’s multiracial, it’s young, tenants and individuals facing cost pressures. He gained considerably with minority communities, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the earlier election. Additionally he boosted his base of liberal progressives, youthful radicals, and Muslims and south Asians. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

He built the alliance that progressives always wanted to build: multiracial, youthful, renters and residents struggling with costs

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

It’s definitely a real thing, limited to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Islamic voters. Voters in immigrant strongholds that supported Trump previously went for Zohran now. However I wouldn’t say he was gaining white working-class voters and Maga voters.

Voter Participation and Impact

One of the big stories of the election was the sky-high turnout. Who benefited?

Both sides. Turnout was much greater than I had expected. I figured we might exceed 2 million, but it’s closer to 2.3M – which is a lot of darn voters. There was a substantial anti-Mamdani block, energized, but his supporters was also motivated, and that sufficed to secure victory.

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

Currently you would say he’s favored to get over half. He has just over 50% but remain probably 200K ballots uncounted at that time. So I don’t think certain, but I believe probable, and I wish he does because then none can claim the Republican was a spoiler.

Republican Collapse

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

He lost any district in any area. Including one neighborhood in Staten Island, similar to an 88% Trump neighborhood. That truly surprised me. Cuomo kept Caucasian districts, very wealthy areas and very religiously Jewish areas, and plus gained many conservatives on Staten Island with a high participation. I think there was a lot of tactical voting by GOP voters. This happened prior to Trump tweeted his support for the candidate, but it assisted. It could have even turned the tide unless the winning alliance failed to expand.

Progressive Strongholds

Regarding your much mentioned “commie corridor” – was support for Mamdani dominant in those areas of Brooklyn and Queens?

In my view there was some weakening of the commie corridor in some areas like neighborhoods that have more older white ethnic folks. There, for example, the property owners and residents supported the independent. So there was a little resistance. But overall, largely the commie corridor is another huge reason why Mamdani prevailed – he scored between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.

Community Support

In the lead-up to the election we reported on whether Mamdani was making inroads with Jewish New Yorkers. Any indication that he succeeded?

Exist areas with many secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – such as specific locales – where he performed strongly. But in the affluent districts such as the Upper East Side, his position on Israel was influential there. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they all leaned the independent. And also, you have newcomers from the former Soviet Union in the borough, who were pretty staunchly supportive. So I don’t know if there were major surprises on this one, but Mamdani retained more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and even parts of the Upper West Side by big margins.

Long-Term Significance

Did Mamdani redefine what New York means politically? Will commie corridor serve as a springboard for progressive contenders?

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

However I think that every city in America can have their own commie corridor. Cities are the centers of leftwing power in America – since youth reside there, people rent and they represent locales where individuals struggle by the disparities we face.