🔗 Share this article

Just 48 hours prior to the NYC race for mayor, Michael Lange made a bold electoral prediction – going beyond the winner overall, and precinct by precinct. The analyst, an expert in elections who grew up in the city, devoted over a decade in left-leaning activism and emerged as something of a local celebrity recently for his deep dives into city data and voter surveys.

He published his extremely precise prediction map – accurately predicting that Zohran Mamdani was victorious although missing the independent candidate’s solid showing – on his newsletter, his platform. He has a flair for clever terms. He highlighted, as an example, the divide between the progressive stronghold, stretching from one neighborhood to another area to a third locale, where he predicted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would triumph by large leads, and the conservative-leaning zone on affluent parts of Manhattan. In those areas, “the Free Press and financial newspapers outrank the New York Times” in readership and the majority of electors leaned toward Cuomo, campaigning as a conservative-courting independent.

Election Night Patterns and Unexpected Results

What was your night?

I had to do that since they were dropping around 200,000 ballots into the tally frequently! I felt somewhat anxious at the beginning: The candidate was ahead the initial ballots by 12 points, but there were large groups of votes that came in later and the advantage went from 12% to 8%. It was concerning.

You know, it was possible where yesterday went kind of poorly for Mamdani, in which the opponent was going to end up basically increasing his support from the Democratic primary. But Mamdani added half a million votes to his primary coalition, and that’s a huge reason why he won. He campaigned and greatly broadened his support from the primary.

Coalition Building

Where did the mayor-elect get additional support from?

He assembled the coalition that progressives long aimed for: it’s multiracial, it’s young, tenants and it’s people squeezed by affordability. He improved significantly with minority communities, working- and middle-class voters, compared to the primary. Additionally he boosted his core of liberal progressives, young leftists, and Muslims and south Asians. Victory required without expanding his appeal.

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

Additionally, there were some Trump/Mamdani voters – is that a big trend?

It is a genuine phenomenon, confined to working-class Latinos, south Asians and Islamic voters. Electors in ethnic enclaves that went for Trump last year went for the progressive this year. But it’s not that he was gaining Caucasian laborers and Trump loyalists.

Turnout and Impact

A major development of the election was the sky-high participation. Who did that help?

Both sides. Participation was significantly higher than anticipated. I figured it could exceed 2 million, but it reached 2.3M – which is a huge number of participants. There was a decent anti-Mamdani block, energized, but his supporters was also motivated, and that sufficed to win.

You forecasted he’d exceed 50% of the vote. Is he on course for that?

Right now it appears he’s favored to get over 50%. He has 50.4% but remain probably 200K ballots left to report at that time. So it’s not certain, but I think it’s likely, and I hope he does because afterwards no one can say the Republican was a disruptor.

Republican Collapse

The GOP candidate, the conservative contender, is the other big story. His support completely collapsed.

He didn’t win any district in any area. Not even one neighborhood in the borough, which is like an 88% Trump area. That really was unexpected. The independent kept Caucasian districts, very wealthy areas and very religiously Jewish areas, and plus gained all of these Republicans on the island who had a high participation. I believe there was significant tactical voting by the Republicans. They were doing it before Trump tweeted his support for Cuomo, but it assisted. It could have even turned the tide if the winning alliance failed to expand.

Progressive Strongholds

What about your much mentioned left-wing base – did backing for Mamdani dominant in those parts of the boroughs?

I think there was a little dilution of the progressive zone in certain places like Astoria or Greenpoint that have more older white ethnic folks. In Astoria, instance, the property owners and residents all went for Cuomo. So there was some opposition. However no, largely the leftist base is a key factor why Zohran prevailed – he scored between 77% and 83% in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Jewish Voters

Prior to the election there was coverage on if Mamdani was gaining ground with the community. Any indication that he did?

Exist areas with many non-religious and left-inclined voters – like specific locales – where he performed strongly. However in the wealthy Jewish communities like the Upper East Side, his position on Israel was influential in those places. Similarly in the moderate communities like Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Bronx areas – they all leaned the independent. Plus, there are newcomers from Eastern Europe in the borough, they were pretty staunchly Cuomo. So it’s unclear if there were major surprises here, but Mamdani did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the another locale by big margins.

Political Impact

Has Mamdani rewritten what the city means politically? Will progressive base become a launch pad for leftwing candidates?

Yes, it’s no coincidence that some of the biggest figures from progressives come from a handful of neighborhoods in the boroughs. I’m sure that we’ll see additional examples – candidates will emerge from these areas to be promoted to higher office.

But I believe that every city in America can have similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the epicenters of progressive influence in America – because they’re young, tenancy is common and they represent locales where individuals struggle by the disparities we face.