Only two days prior to the New York mayoral election, Michael Lange made a bold forecast – not just the winner citywide, and precinct by precinct. The analyst, an expert in elections born and raised in New York City, has spent more than ten years in left-leaning activism and emerged as something of a well-known figure this year for his deep dives into municipal statistics and polling.
He published 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 Substack, his platform. He possesses a talent for clever terms. He highlighted, as an example, the split between the “commie corridor”, running from one neighborhood to another area to Astoria, where he forecasted (accurately) that Mamdani would win by large leads, and the “capitalist corridor” on affluent parts of Manhattan. In those areas, certain media outlets and Wall Street Journal outrank the New York Times” in readership and most voters favored the independent, who ran as a moderate alternative.
What was your night?
It was necessary since they were dropping approximately 200K ballots into the tally every few minutes! I felt somewhat anxious initially: Mamdani led the early vote by 12 points, but came large groups of votes that came in after that and his lead went from 12 to 8%. It was concerning.
You know, it was possible where election day turned out kind of poorly for him, in which Cuomo was going to end up essentially increasing his support from the Democratic primary. But Mamdani gained 500,000 votes to his initial base, and this was critical why he succeeded. He went out and greatly broadened his base from the first round.
How did the mayor-elect get those extra votes from?
He assembled the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: diverse racially, youthful, tenants and it’s people squeezed by affordability. He gained considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the primary. Plus he boosted his core of liberal progressives, young leftists, and immigrant groups. He couldn’t have won without making those significant inroads.
He created the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: diverse, young, tenants and residents struggling with costs
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 Zohran this year. However I wouldn’t say he was winning over Caucasian laborers and Trump loyalists.
One of the big stories of the night was the sky-high participation. Who benefited?
Each candidate. Turnout was much greater than anticipated. I thought we might go over 2 million, but it reached 2.3M – that is a huge number of participants. There was a decent anti-Mamdani block, who were motivated, but the Mamdani base was equally driven, and that was enough to win.
You predicted he’d exceed half the ballots. Is he likely for that?
Currently it appears he’s likely to get over half. He has 50.4% but there’s still probably 200K ballots uncounted at that time. So it’s not it’s definitive, but I think it’s likely, and I wish he achieves it so afterwards no one can say the Republican was a spoiler.
Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, was another surprise. His vote plummeted.
He didn’t win a single precinct in any area. Not even Tottenville in Staten Island, which is like an 88% Trump neighborhood. That really was unexpected. The independent kept Caucasian districts, affluent zones and devout communities, and plus gained all of these Republicans on Staten Island with a strong turnout. I believe there was significant strategic balloting 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.
Regarding your often-discussed left-wing base – did backing for the candidate dominant in those parts of Brooklyn and Queens?
In my view there was some weakening of the progressive zone in certain places like neighborhoods that have older Caucasian residents. In Astoria, instance, the property owners and homeowners all went for Cuomo. So there was some opposition. However no, largely the leftist base is another huge reason why Mamdani won – he scored between high percentages in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.
In the lead-up to the election we reported on if Mamdani was gaining ground with the community. Any indication that he did?
Exist areas with many non-religious and left-inclined voters – such as specific locales – where he did well. But in the affluent districts such as the Upper East Side, his position on Israel was influential in those places. Similarly in the moderate communities including Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Bronx areas – they all leaned Cuomo. Plus, there are Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in southern Brooklyn, who were strongly Cuomo. So it’s unclear if there were major surprises here, but Mamdani did hold left-leaning areas and including sections of the another locale with large leads.
Has Mamdani rewritten what the city means politically? Will progressive base serve as a springboard for leftwing candidates?
Absolutely, it’s not accidental that key figures from the left come from a handful of neighborhoods in the boroughs. I believe that there will be more of that – people will emerge from these areas to be elevated nationally.
However I believe that every city in America could develop their own commie corridor. Cities are the centers of progressive influence in America – since they’re young, people rent and they represent locales where people are crushed by the disparities exist.
A travel writer and cultural enthusiast with over a decade of experience exploring global destinations and sharing unique stories.