Only 48 hours prior to the New York race for mayor, Michael Lange made a significant electoral prediction – not just the winner overall, and block by block. The analyst, a political analyst born and raised in New York City, has spent over a decade in left-leaning activism and emerged as a kind of local celebrity recently for his deep dives into city data and voter surveys.
He published his highly detailed prediction map – which correctly forecast that the progressive candidate would win although missing Andrew Cuomo’s solid showing – on his newsletter, his platform. Lange has a flair for witty coinages. He pointed out, for instance, the divide between the “commie corridor”, stretching from one neighborhood to another area to a third locale, where he predicted (accurately) that the left-wing candidate would win by large leads, and the “capitalist corridor” on affluent parts of Manhattan. There, certain media outlets and Wall Street Journal surpass the mainstream paper” in readership and most voters leaned toward Cuomo, who ran as a moderate alternative.
How was your election night?
It was necessary since they were dropping around 200,000 ballots into the tally every few minutes! I felt a little nervous initially: The candidate was ahead the initial ballots by 12 points, but there were two big batches of votes that came in after that and the advantage dropped from 12 to 8%. It was concerning.
You know, there was a world where yesterday went kind of poorly for him, where Cuomo would have basically increasing his support from the Democratic primary. But the winner added half a million supporters to his primary coalition, and this was critical why he succeeded. He went out and greatly broadened his support from the primary.
How did the mayor-elect gain additional support from?
He built the alliance that progressives always wanted to build: it’s multiracial, it’s young, it’s renters and individuals squeezed by affordability. He improved significantly with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, compared to the primary. Plus he boosted his base of liberal progressives, youthful radicals, and Muslims and south Asians. He couldn’t have won without making those significant inroads.
He built the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: multiracial, young, renters and residents squeezed by affordability
Additionally, there were some supporters of both candidates – is this significant?
It’s definitely a real thing, limited to Hispanic laborers, south Asians and Muslims. Voters in ethnic enclaves that supported Trump previously backed Zohran now. However it’s not that he was winning over white working-class voters and Trump loyalists.
A major development of the election was the sky-high participation. Who did that help?
Each candidate. Turnout was much greater than anticipated. I figured it could go over two million, but it reached 2.3 million – that is a huge number of participants. There was a substantial anti-Mamdani block, who were motivated, but his supporters was equally driven, and that was enough to win.
You forecasted he’d get over 50% of the vote. Is he on course for that?
Currently you would say he’s favored to surpass half. He’s at 50.4% but remain around 200K ballots uncounted as of Wednesday morning. So it’s not it’s definitive, but I think probable, and I wish he does so then no one can say the Republican was a disruptor.
Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, is the other big story. His support plummeted.
He didn’t win a single precinct in any area. Not even one neighborhood in the borough, similar to an highly conservative area. That really was unexpected. The independent kept very white areas, affluent zones and devout communities, and then added many conservatives on the island who had a high participation. I believe occurred significant tactical voting by the Republicans. They were doing it prior to Trump tweeted his support for the candidate, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide unless the winning alliance failed to expand.
What about your much mentioned left-wing base – was support for Mamdani overwhelming in those parts of Brooklyn and Queens?
I think there was some weakening of the progressive zone in some areas like Astoria or Greenpoint that have older Caucasian residents. There, for example, the property owners and homeowners supported the independent. So there existed a little resistance. But overall, largely the commie corridor is another huge reason why Zohran won – he scored between high percentages in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.
In the lead-up to the vote we reported on whether the candidate was making inroads with Jewish New Yorkers. Any indication that he did?
There are neighborhoods with a lot of secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he did well. But in the affluent districts like the Upper East Side, his position on Israel was influential in those places. Similarly in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored the independent. Plus, you have newcomers from Eastern Europe in the borough, they were pretty staunchly Cuomo. Therefore I don’t know if there were crazy narrative-busters on this one, but he did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and even parts of the another locale with large leads.
Did Mamdani redefine what New York represents in politics? Will the commie corridor serve as a springboard for progressive contenders?
Yes, it’s not accidental that key political leaders from the left hail from a few areas in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I’m sure that we’ll see more of that – people will come from these areas to be promoted to higher office.
However I think that each urban center in the US could develop their own commie corridor. Cities are the centers of progressive influence in the nation – because youth reside there, people rent and they represent locales where people are crushed by the disparities we face.
A seasoned casino enthusiast and gaming analyst with over a decade of experience in slot machine mechanics and strategies.
