🔗 Share this article

Just two days prior to the NYC race for mayor, Michael Lange issued a significant forecast – not just who would win citywide, but precinct by precinct. Lange, an expert in elections born and raised in New York City, has spent more than ten years in progressive politics and has become a kind of well-known figure recently for his deep dives into municipal statistics and voter surveys.

He published his extremely precise prediction map – accurately predicting that the progressive candidate would win while failed to predict the independent candidate’s solid showing – on his newsletter, his platform. He has a flair for clever terms. He highlighted, for instance, the split between the “commie corridor”, running from Park Slope to another area to Astoria, where he predicted (accurately) that the left-wing candidate would triumph by large leads, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. In those areas, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal surpass the New York Times” in readership and the majority of electors leaned toward Cuomo, who ran as a moderate alternative.

Voting Day Trends and Unexpected Results

How was your election night?

It was necessary since they were dropping around 200,000 ballots into the tally every few minutes! I felt somewhat anxious at the beginning: The candidate led the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but came two big batches of votes that came in after that and the advantage went from 12 to 8%. It was concerning.

You know, there was a world where election day turned out kind of poorly for Mamdani, in which Cuomo was going to end up basically doubling his votes from the earlier contest. But Mamdani gained half a million supporters to his initial base, and this was critical why he succeeded. He went out and greatly broadened his support from the primary.

Expanding Support

Where did Mamdani gain additional support from?

He built the alliance that progressives long aimed for: diverse racially, youthful, it’s renters and individuals facing cost pressures. He improved considerably with minority communities, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the earlier election. Additionally he boosted his base of left-leaning activists, young leftists, and immigrant groups. He couldn’t have won without making those significant inroads.

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

Additionally, there were some Trump/Mamdani voters – is this significant?

It is a genuine phenomenon, limited to working-class Latinos, Asian communities and Islamic voters. Voters in ethnic enclaves that went for the former president previously went for Zohran now. But it’s not that he was gaining white working-class voters and Trump loyalists.

Voter Participation and Effects

A major development of the election was the sky-high turnout. Who did that help?

Each candidate. Turnout was much greater than anticipated. I thought we might go over two million, but it’s closer to 2.3M – that is a huge number of participants. There was a decent opposition group, who were motivated, but his supporters was equally driven, and that sufficed to secure victory.

You forecasted he’d exceed half the ballots. Is he likely for that?

Right now you would say he’s favored to surpass half. He’s at 50.4% but there’s still probably 200,000 votes uncounted at that time. So I don’t think it’s definitive, but I believe it’s likely, and I hope he does because then none can claim Sliwa was a disruptor.

Republican Collapse

Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, is the other big story. His vote plummeted.

He didn’t win any district in any borough. Not even Tottenville in Staten Island, which is like an highly conservative neighborhood. That really was unexpected. The independent held Caucasian districts, affluent zones and very religiously Jewish areas, and plus gained many conservatives on Staten Island who had a strong turnout. I believe there was a lot of tactical voting by GOP voters. This happened prior to Trump tweeted his support for the candidate, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide unless the winning alliance failed to expand.

The “Commie Corridor”

Regarding your much mentioned “commie corridor” – was support for the candidate overwhelming in those parts of the boroughs?

I think existed some weakening of the commie corridor in some areas like neighborhoods that have more older white ethnic folks. In Astoria, for example, the property owners and homeowners supported the independent. Thus there was a little resistance. However overall, mostly the leftist base is a key factor why Zohran prevailed – he was polling between 77% and 83% in specific neighborhoods.

Community Support

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

Exist neighborhoods with a lot of secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – such as Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. But in the wealthy Jewish communities such as the Manhattan area, his position on Israel definitely mattered there. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas including Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored Cuomo. Plus, there are newcomers from Eastern Europe in southern Brooklyn, who were pretty staunchly Cuomo. So it’s unclear if there were major surprises here, but Mamdani retained left-leaning areas and including sections of the Upper West Side with large leads.

Political Impact

Has Mamdani rewritten what the city means politically? Will the commie corridor become a launch pad for progressive contenders?

Absolutely, it’s not accidental that some of the biggest political leaders from the left come from a handful of neighborhoods in the boroughs. I’m sure that there will be additional examples – people will come from these areas 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 the nation – since they’re young, people rent and they represent locales where people are crushed by the disparities we face.