🔗 Share this article

Just 48 hours before the New York mayoral election, political analyst Michael Lange made a bold forecast – going beyond who would win overall, but block by block. The analyst, a political analyst who grew up in New York City, devoted more than ten years in left-leaning activism and has become something of a local celebrity this year for his deep dives into city data and voter surveys.

He published his extremely precise forecast map – accurately predicting that Zohran Mamdani was victorious although missing the independent candidate’s solid showing – on his Substack, his platform. He has a flair for witty coinages. He pointed out, as an example, the divide between the progressive stronghold, running from Park Slope 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. There, “the Free Press and financial newspapers surpass the mainstream paper” in audience and most voters favored the independent, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Voting Day Patterns and Surprises

How was your election night?

I had to do that since they were adding approximately 200K votes into the tally every few minutes! I was actually a little nervous at the beginning: Mamdani was ahead the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but came large groups of ballots added later and the advantage dropped from 12 to 8%. It was concerning.

You know, it was possible where yesterday turned out somewhat badly for him, in which Cuomo was going to end up essentially doubling his votes from the Democratic primary. However the winner gained 500,000 supporters to his initial base, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He went out and massively expanded his support from the first round.

Expanding Support

Where did the mayor-elect get additional support from?

He assembled the coalition that the left always wanted to build: it’s multiracial, youthful, it’s renters and it’s people facing cost pressures. He gained considerably with minority communities, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the earlier election. Additionally he boosted his core of liberal progressives, young leftists, and Muslims and south Asians. Victory required without expanding his appeal.

He built the alliance that the left long aimed for: diverse, youthful, tenants and residents squeezed by affordability

There were also some Trump/Mamdani voters – is that a big trend?

It is a genuine phenomenon, confined to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Islamic voters. Electors in immigrant strongholds that went for Trump last year backed Zohran this year. But it’s not that he was gaining Caucasian laborers and Maga voters.

Voter Participation and Impact

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

Each candidate. Turnout was significantly higher than I had expected. I figured we might go over 2 million, but it reached 2.3 million – that is a lot of darn voters. Existed a substantial anti-Mamdani block, energized, but his supporters was equally driven, and that was enough to secure victory.

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

Currently you would say he’s favored to surpass half. He’s at 50.4% but remain around 200K ballots left to report at that time. Thus I don’t think it’s definitive, but I think it’s likely, and I wish he achieves it because afterwards none can claim Sliwa was a disruptor.

Republican Collapse

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

He didn’t win a single precinct in any area. Including one neighborhood in the borough, similar to an 88% Trump neighborhood. That truly surprised me. The independent kept Caucasian districts, very wealthy areas and very religiously Jewish areas, and then added many Republicans on the island with a high participation. I believe there was significant tactical voting by GOP voters. They were doing it prior to Trump endorsed for the candidate, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide unless the winning alliance hadn’t grown.

The “Commie Corridor”

Regarding your much mentioned left-wing base – was support for the candidate overwhelming in those parts of the boroughs?

I think existed some weakening of the progressive zone in certain places like neighborhoods that have more older white ethnic folks. There, for example, the property owners and homeowners all went for the independent. Thus there was a little resistance. But no, largely the leftist base is a key factor why Zohran won – he scored between 77% and 83% in specific neighborhoods.

Community Support

In the lead-up to the vote there was coverage on if 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 did well. However in the wealthy Jewish communities like the Upper East Side, his position on Israel definitely mattered in those places. Similarly in the moderate communities including Queens neighborhoods, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored Cuomo. And also, there are Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in southern Brooklyn, who were pretty staunchly Cuomo. So it’s unclear if there were major surprises on this one, but Mamdani did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the another locale with large leads.

Political Impact

Did Mamdani redefine what New York means politically? Will the progressive base become a launch pad for progressive contenders?

Absolutely, it’s not accidental that key political leaders from the left come from a handful of neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I believe that we’ll see more of that – people will come from these neighborhoods to be elevated nationally.

But I believe that each urban center in the US could develop similar progressive hubs. Cities are the epicenters of leftwing power in America – since youth reside there, tenancy is common and they represent locales where individuals struggle by the inequalities we face.