Just two days prior to the NYC race for mayor, Michael Lange made a significant forecast – not just the winner overall, but precinct by precinct. Lange, an expert in elections who grew up in New York City, devoted more than ten years in left-leaning activism and emerged as a kind of local celebrity recently for his thorough analyses into municipal statistics and polling.
He released his highly detailed forecast map – accurately predicting that Zohran Mamdani was victorious while missing Andrew Cuomo’s strong performance – on his Substack, the Narrative War. Lange has a flair for witty coinages. He pointed out, for instance, the split between the “commie corridor”, running from Park Slope to Bushwick to a third locale, where he forecasted (correctly) that Mamdani would triumph by huge margins, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. There, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal surpass the New York Times” in readership and most voters favored Cuomo, campaigning as a conservative-courting independent.
What was your night?
It was necessary since they were adding around 200,000 ballots into the tally every few minutes! I was actually somewhat anxious at the beginning: Mamdani was ahead the early vote by 12 points, but there were two big batches of votes that came in after that and the advantage dropped from 12 to 8%. I was worried.
Understand, there was a world in which yesterday went kind of poorly for him, where the opponent was going to end up basically doubling his votes from the Democratic primary. But Mamdani added half a million supporters to his initial base, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He went out and massively expanded his support from the primary.
Where did Mamdani gain additional support from?
He built the coalition that the left always wanted to build: diverse racially, youthful, it’s renters and individuals facing cost pressures. He improved significantly with Black and Hispanic voters, working- and middle-class voters, relative to the earlier election. Plus he boosted his base of left-leaning activists, youthful radicals, and immigrant groups. Victory required without expanding his appeal.
He built the alliance that the left always wanted to build: multiracial, youthful, tenants and people squeezed by affordability
There were also a number of supporters of both candidates – is that a big trend?
It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, limited to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Islamic voters. Voters in immigrant strongholds that supported the former president last year backed Zohran now. However I wouldn’t say he was winning over white working-class voters and Trump loyalists.
One of the big stories of the night was the record participation. Who did that help?
Both sides. Turnout was much greater than I had expected. I thought we might go over two million, but it’s closer to 2.3 million – which is a huge number of participants. There was a decent opposition group, energized, but the Mamdani base was equally driven, and that sufficed to secure victory.
You forecasted he’d get over 50% of the vote. Is he on course for that?
Currently you would say he’s likely to get over 50%. He’s at 50.4% but there’s still probably 200K ballots left to report at that time. So I don’t think certain, but I believe probable, and I hope he achieves it so afterwards none can claim Sliwa was a disruptor.
Curtis Sliwa, the conservative contender, was another surprise. His vote completely collapsed.
He didn’t win any district in any area. Including one neighborhood in Staten Island, which is like an 88% Trump area. That really was unexpected. The independent kept very white areas, very wealthy areas and very religiously Jewish areas, and then added all of these Republicans on Staten Island with a strong turnout. I believe occurred a lot of strategic balloting by GOP voters. They were doing it before the former president tweeted his support for the candidate, but it assisted. It might have changed the outcome unless the winning alliance failed to expand.
Regarding your much mentioned left-wing base – did backing for Mamdani dominant in those parts of Brooklyn and Queens?
In my view there was a little dilution of the commie corridor in some areas like neighborhoods that have older Caucasian residents. There, for example, the Greek landlords and residents all went for the independent. So there existed a little resistance. But no, mostly the commie corridor is a key factor why Zohran prevailed – he scored between 77% and 83% in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.
Prior to the election we reported on if the candidate was making inroads with the community. Is there any suggestion that he did?
There are neighborhoods with many secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – such as specific locales – where he performed strongly. But in the affluent districts like the Manhattan area, his position on Israel was influential there. Likewise in the moderate communities like Queens neighborhoods, or Bronx areas – they all leaned Cuomo. Plus, there are Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in the borough, they were pretty staunchly supportive. So it’s unclear if there were major surprises here, but Mamdani retained left-leaning areas and even parts of the another locale by big margins.
Did Mamdani redefine what New York means politically? Will the progressive base become a launch pad for progressive contenders?
Yes, it’s not accidental that key political leaders from the left come from a few areas in the boroughs. I believe that we’ll see additional examples – people will come from these neighborhoods to be elevated nationally.
But I think that every city in America can have their own commie corridor. Urban places are the epicenters of progressive influence in America – since they’re young, people rent and they are places where people are crushed by the disparities we face.
A financial strategist with over a decade of experience in wealth management and investment planning, dedicated to empowering others.