🔗 Share this article

Only 48 hours before the New York race for mayor, Michael Lange issued a bold electoral prediction – going beyond the winner overall, and block by block. Lange, a political analyst who grew up in New York City, devoted over a decade in left-leaning activism and has become something of a local celebrity recently for his deep dives into municipal statistics and polling.

He published his highly detailed forecast map – accurately predicting that the progressive candidate would win although missing Andrew Cuomo’s solid showing – on his Substack, the Narrative War. He has a flair 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 forecasted (accurately) that the left-wing candidate would triumph by huge margins, and the “capitalist corridor” on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. In those areas, certain media outlets and Wall Street Journal surpass the New York Times” in readership and the majority of electors leaned toward Cuomo, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Election Night Trends and Surprises

What was your night?

It was necessary since they were dropping approximately 200K votes into the tally frequently! I was actually somewhat anxious at the beginning: The candidate led the early vote by 12 points, but came two big batches of ballots that came in after that and the advantage went from 12% to 8%. It was concerning.

Understand, there was a world in which election day turned out kind of poorly for Mamdani, in which the opponent was going to end up basically doubling his votes from the earlier contest. However the winner gained half a million supporters to his initial base, and this was critical why he won. He went out and greatly broadened his support from the first round.

Coalition Building

Where did Mamdani gain those extra votes from?

He built the alliance that progressives always wanted to build: diverse racially, it’s young, it’s renters and individuals facing cost pressures. He gained considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, working- and middle-class voters, compared to the primary. Plus he further maximized his core of left-leaning activists, youthful radicals, and Muslims and south Asians. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

He created the coalition that progressives long aimed for: multiracial, youthful, renters and people squeezed by affordability

There were also a number of supporters of both candidates – is that a big trend?

It is a genuine phenomenon, limited to working-class Latinos, south Asians and Muslims. Electors in immigrant strongholds that went for Trump last year backed the progressive this year. However it’s not that he was winning over Caucasian laborers and Maga voters.

Turnout and Effects

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

Both sides. Participation was much greater than anticipated. I figured it could go over 2 million, but it reached 2.3M – that is a huge number of participants. There was a substantial opposition group, energized, but the Mamdani base was also motivated, 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 likely to surpass 50%. He’s at just over 50% but there’s still around 200,000 votes left to report at that time. Thus it’s not certain, but I think it’s likely, and I wish he achieves it because afterwards no one can say Sliwa was a disruptor.

GOP Decline

Curtis Sliwa, the conservative contender, was another surprise. His vote plummeted.

He didn’t win a single precinct in any borough. Including Tottenville in Staten Island, similar to an highly conservative area. That truly surprised me. The independent held Caucasian districts, affluent zones and very religiously Jewish areas, and plus gained all of these Republicans on Staten Island with a high participation. I think there was significant tactical voting by GOP voters. They were doing it before Trump tweeted his support for the candidate, but that definitely helped. It might have changed the outcome if Mamdani’s coalition failed to expand.

The “Commie Corridor”

What about your often-discussed “commie corridor” – did backing for the candidate dominant in those areas of Brooklyn and Queens?

In my view there was a little dilution of the commie corridor in certain places like neighborhoods that have older Caucasian residents. In Astoria, instance, the property owners and residents supported the independent. Thus there existed some opposition. However no, largely the leftist base is another huge reason why Mamdani prevailed – he was polling between 77% and 83% in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Community Support

Prior to the election we reported on if the candidate was making inroads with the community. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?

There are neighborhoods with many secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – like specific locales – where he performed strongly. But in the wealthy Jewish communities like the Upper East Side, his position on Israel definitely mattered in those places. Likewise in the moderate communities like Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Bronx areas – they favored Cuomo. Plus, there are Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in the borough, they were pretty staunchly Cuomo. Therefore I don’t know if there were crazy narrative-busters on this one, but he retained more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and even parts of the another locale by big margins.

Long-Term Significance

Has Mamdani rewritten what New York represents in politics? Will the commie corridor serve as a springboard for progressive contenders?

Absolutely, it’s not accidental that some of the biggest figures from the left come from a few areas in the boroughs. I’m sure that we’ll see additional examples – candidates will come from these areas to be promoted to higher office.

But I think that each urban center in America can have their own commie corridor. Urban places are the centers of progressive influence in America – since youth reside there, tenancy is common and they are places where individuals struggle by the disparities exist.