Just 48 hours prior to the New York mayoral election, political analyst Michael Lange made a significant electoral prediction – not just the winner overall, but precinct by precinct. Lange, an expert in elections born and raised in the city, has spent over a decade in progressive politics and has become something of a well-known figure this year for his deep dives into municipal statistics and polling.
He published his extremely precise prediction map – accurately predicting that the progressive candidate was victorious while failed to predict the independent candidate’s solid showing – on his newsletter, the Narrative War. Lange possesses a talent for witty coinages. He highlighted, for instance, the split between the progressive stronghold, running from one neighborhood to another area to a third locale, where he forecasted (correctly) that Mamdani would triumph by large leads, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. There, “the Free Press and financial newspapers outrank the mainstream paper” in readership and the majority of electors leaned toward Cuomo, campaigning as a conservative-courting independent.
What was your night?
It was necessary because they were adding around 200,000 votes into the system frequently! I was actually a little nervous at the beginning: Mamdani was ahead the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but there were two big batches of ballots that came in later and the advantage went from 12% to 8%. I was worried.
You know, there was a world in which election day turned out kind of poorly for him, where Cuomo would have essentially doubling his votes from the Democratic primary. But Mamdani added half a million votes to his initial base, and this was critical why he won. He went out and greatly broadened his base from the first round.
Where did the mayor-elect gain additional support from?
He assembled the coalition that progressives long aimed for: it’s multiracial, youthful, it’s renters and individuals facing cost pressures. He improved considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, working- and middle-class voters, relative to the earlier election. Plus he boosted his core of liberal progressives, youthful radicals, and Muslims and south Asians. He couldn’t have won without expanding his appeal.
He created the alliance that progressives long aimed for: diverse, young, tenants and residents struggling with costs
Additionally, there were a number of Trump/Mamdani voters – is this significant?
It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, confined to working-class Latinos, Asian communities and Muslims. Electors in ethnic enclaves that supported the former president last year backed Zohran this year. However I wouldn’t say he was gaining white working-class voters and Trump loyalists.
One of the big stories of the election was the sky-high participation. Who did that help?
Each candidate. Turnout was significantly higher than anticipated. I thought it could exceed two million, but it reached 2.3M – that is a lot of darn voters. There was a substantial opposition group, who were motivated, but his supporters was also motivated, and that was enough to secure victory.
You predicted he’d get over 50% of the vote. Is he on course for that?
Currently you would say he’s likely to surpass 50%. He has just over 50% but there’s still around 200,000 votes uncounted at that time. Thus it’s not certain, but I think it’s likely, and I wish he does so afterwards none can claim Sliwa was a disruptor.
Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, is the other big story. His support completely collapsed.
He didn’t win a single precinct in any area. Not even Tottenville in Staten Island, which is like an 88% Trump area. That truly was unexpected. Cuomo kept Caucasian districts, very wealthy areas and very religiously Jewish areas, and then added many Republicans on the island with a strong turnout. I believe occurred a lot of tactical voting by the Republicans. This happened prior to Trump endorsed for Cuomo, but it assisted. It could have even turned the tide unless the winning alliance hadn’t grown.
Regarding your much mentioned left-wing base – did backing for Mamdani dominant in those areas of Brooklyn and Queens?
I think existed some weakening of the progressive zone in certain places like Astoria or Greenpoint that have older Caucasian residents. There, instance, the property owners and homeowners supported the independent. So there was a little resistance. But no, largely the leftist base is a key factor why Mamdani won – he was polling between 77% and 83% in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.
In the lead-up to the election we reported on if the candidate was making inroads with Jewish New Yorkers. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?
Exist neighborhoods with many secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. But in the wealthy Jewish communities such as the Manhattan area, his Middle East stance definitely mattered there. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas including Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored the independent. Plus, there are newcomers from Eastern Europe in the borough, they were pretty staunchly Cuomo. Therefore it’s unclear if existed crazy narrative-busters here, but Mamdani did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the another locale by big margins.
Has Mamdani rewritten what the city means politically? Will the progressive base become a launch pad for progressive contenders?
Absolutely, it’s not accidental that some of the biggest political leaders from progressives hail from a few areas in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I’m sure that there will be more of that – candidates will come from these areas to be promoted to higher office.
However I believe that every city in America could develop their own commie corridor. Urban places are the centers of leftwing power in America – since youth reside there, people rent and they are places where people are crushed by the disparities we face.
A former casino floor manager turned slot analyst, Mikael shares data-driven insights to help players make smarter betting decisions.