🔗 Share this article

Just two days prior to the New York race for mayor, Michael Lange made a significant forecast – going beyond who would win overall, but block by block. Lange, a political analyst born and raised in New York City, devoted more than ten years in left-leaning activism and has become a kind of local celebrity this year for his thorough analyses into city data and voter surveys.

He released his extremely precise forecast map – accurately predicting that Zohran Mamdani was victorious while failed to predict the independent candidate’s solid showing – on his Substack, the Narrative War. Lange possesses a talent for clever terms. He highlighted, as an example, the split between the progressive stronghold, running from Park Slope to Bushwick to a third locale, where he predicted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would win by huge margins, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. In those areas, certain media outlets and financial newspapers outrank the New York Times” in readership and the majority of electors leaned toward Cuomo, campaigning as a moderate alternative.

Election Night Trends and Surprises

What was your election night?

It was necessary since they were dropping around 200,000 votes into the tally frequently! I felt a little nervous initially: The candidate led the early vote by a dozen percentage points, but there were large groups of ballots that came in later and his lead dropped from 12% to 8%. It was concerning.

Understand, there was a world in which yesterday turned out kind of poorly for Mamdani, in which Cuomo was going to end up essentially increasing his support from the earlier contest. But the winner gained half a million supporters 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 get additional support from?

He assembled the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: it’s multiracial, youthful, tenants and individuals facing cost pressures. He improved considerably with minority communities, working- and middle-class voters, relative to the primary. Additionally he further maximized his base of liberal progressives, young leftists, and immigrant groups. He couldn’t have won without making those significant inroads.

He created the coalition that the left always wanted to build: diverse, youthful, tenants and residents squeezed by affordability

Additionally, there were a number of supporters of both candidates – is this significant?

It’s definitely a real thing, confined to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Muslims. Electors in immigrant strongholds that went for Trump previously went for Zohran this year. However it’s not that he was winning over white working-class voters and Trump loyalists.

Turnout and Effects

One of the big stories of the election was the record participation. Who benefited?

Both sides. Participation was significantly higher than I had expected. I thought we might go over two million, but it’s closer to 2.3M – that is a lot of darn voters. There was a substantial anti-Mamdani block, energized, but the Mamdani base was equally driven, and that sufficed to win.

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

Currently you would say he’s likely to surpass 50%. He has 50.4% but there’s still around 200,000 votes uncounted as of Wednesday morning. So I don’t think it’s definitive, but I think it’s likely, and I hope he achieves it so afterwards none can claim the Republican was a disruptor.

GOP Decline

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

He lost any district in any borough. Not even one neighborhood in Staten Island, which is like an 88% Trump area. That really was unexpected. The independent kept very white areas, affluent zones and devout communities, and then added many conservatives on Staten Island with a high participation. I believe occurred significant tactical voting by GOP voters. This happened prior to Trump endorsed for Cuomo, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide if Mamdani’s coalition hadn’t grown.

Progressive Strongholds

What about your often-discussed left-wing base – was support for Mamdani dominant in those areas of the boroughs?

In my view existed a little dilution of the commie corridor in some areas like Astoria or Greenpoint that have older Caucasian residents. In Astoria, for example, the property owners and homeowners supported the independent. So there existed a little resistance. However overall, mostly the leftist base is a key factor why Zohran prevailed – he scored between 77% and 83% in specific neighborhoods.

Community Support

In the lead-up to the vote we reported on whether Mamdani was gaining ground with Jewish New Yorkers. Any indication that he succeeded?

There are neighborhoods with many secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – such as specific locales – where he did well. However in the affluent districts like the Manhattan area, his Middle East stance definitely mattered in those places. Similarly in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Queens neighborhoods, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored the independent. Plus, there are newcomers from the former Soviet Union in the borough, they were strongly supportive. So it’s unclear if there were crazy narrative-busters here, but he retained more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and even parts of the Upper West Side with large leads.

Political Impact

Has Mamdani rewritten what the city means politically? Will the progressive base serve as a springboard for progressive contenders?

Absolutely, it’s not accidental that key political leaders from progressives come from a few areas in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I believe that there will be more of that – candidates will emerge from these areas to be elevated nationally.

However I think that each urban center in the US can have similar progressive hubs. Cities are the centers of progressive influence in America – because they’re young, people rent and they are places where individuals struggle by the inequalities we face.