🔗 Share this article

Just 48 hours before the NYC race for mayor, political analyst Michael Lange made a bold forecast – going beyond who would win overall, and precinct by precinct. Lange, a political analyst born and raised in New York City, has spent more than ten years in progressive politics and emerged as a kind of well-known figure this year for his deep dives into city data and polling.

He published his extremely precise forecast map – which correctly forecast that the progressive candidate would win although missing the independent candidate’s solid showing – on his Substack, his platform. He possesses a talent for clever terms. He highlighted, for instance, the split between the progressive stronghold, stretching from Park Slope to another area to Astoria, where he predicted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would triumph by large leads, and the conservative-leaning zone on affluent parts of Manhattan. There, certain media outlets and Wall Street Journal outrank the New York Times” in audience and the majority of electors leaned toward Cuomo, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Voting Day Trends and Unexpected Results

How was your night?

I had to do that because they were dropping around 200,000 ballots into the system frequently! I felt somewhat anxious initially: The candidate was ahead 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, it was possible in which election day turned out somewhat badly for him, in which Cuomo was going to end up essentially doubling his votes from the earlier contest. However the winner added 500,000 votes to his primary coalition, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He campaigned and massively expanded his base from the primary.

Coalition Building

Where did the mayor-elect gain additional support from?

He built the coalition that the left long aimed for: it’s multiracial, youthful, tenants and it’s people squeezed by affordability. He improved considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, compared to the primary. Additionally he further maximized his base of liberal progressives, youthful radicals, and immigrant groups. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

He created the alliance that the left long aimed for: multiracial, youthful, tenants and people squeezed by affordability

Additionally, there were a number of supporters of both candidates – is that a big trend?

It is a real thing, limited to working-class Latinos, Asian communities and Muslims. Electors in ethnic enclaves that supported the former president last year went for the progressive this year. But I wouldn’t say he was winning over white working-class voters and Trump loyalists.

Turnout and Effects

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

Each candidate. Participation was significantly higher than I had expected. I figured it could exceed 2 million, but it reached 2.3M – which is a huge number of participants. There was a substantial anti-Mamdani block, who were motivated, but the Mamdani base was also motivated, and that sufficed to secure victory.

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

Right now it appears he’s likely to get over half. He’s at 50.4% but remain probably 200K ballots left to report at that time. Thus I don’t think it’s definitive, but I think probable, and I hope he achieves it so then no one can say Sliwa was a disruptor.

GOP Decline

The GOP candidate, the Republican candidate, is the other big story. His vote completely collapsed.

He didn’t win a single precinct in any borough. Not even one neighborhood in Staten Island, which is like an 88% Trump area. That really surprised me. The independent kept Caucasian districts, very wealthy areas and devout communities, and plus gained all of these conservatives on the island who had a strong turnout. I believe there was a lot of tactical voting by GOP voters. This happened before Trump endorsed for Cuomo, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide if the winning alliance failed to expand.

Progressive Strongholds

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

In my view there was a little dilution of the commie corridor in certain places like neighborhoods that have more older white ethnic folks. In Astoria, for example, the property owners and residents all went for the independent. Thus there was a little resistance. But overall, largely the leftist base is another huge reason why Mamdani won – he was polling between 77% and 83% in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Jewish Voters

Prior to the vote we reported on whether Mamdani was gaining ground with the community. Is there any suggestion that he did?

There are neighborhoods with a lot of secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – like specific locales – where he performed strongly. But in the affluent districts like the Manhattan area, his position on Israel was influential in those places. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Queens neighborhoods, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they all leaned the independent. Plus, there are Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in southern Brooklyn, who were strongly supportive. Therefore it’s unclear if there were major surprises on this one, but he did hold left-leaning areas and including sections of the Upper West Side with large leads.

Political Impact

Did Mamdani redefine what New York represents in politics? Will the progressive base become a launch pad for progressive contenders?

Absolutely, it’s no coincidence that key political leaders from progressives come from a few areas in the boroughs. I believe that we’ll see additional examples – people will emerge from these areas to be promoted to higher office.

But I think that every city in America can have similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the epicenters of progressive influence in America – because youth reside there, people rent and they represent locales where people are crushed by the disparities exist.