Just two days prior to the NYC mayoral election, Michael Lange issued a significant electoral prediction – going beyond the winner overall, and block by block. The analyst, an expert in elections who grew up in the city, devoted over a decade in left-leaning activism and has become something of a local celebrity recently for his deep dives into city data and voter surveys.
He released his highly detailed forecast map – which correctly forecast that the progressive candidate would win although missing Andrew Cuomo’s strong performance – on his Substack, his platform. Lange possesses a talent for witty coinages. He pointed out, as an example, the divide between the “commie corridor”, stretching from one neighborhood to another area to Astoria, where he predicted (accurately) that Mamdani would triumph by huge margins, and the “capitalist corridor” on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. In those areas, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal surpass the mainstream paper” in readership and most voters favored Cuomo, campaigning as a moderate alternative.
What was your election night?
It was necessary since they were dropping approximately 200K votes into the tally every few minutes! I felt a little nervous initially: Mamdani led the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but came large groups of ballots that came in later and the advantage dropped from 12% to 8%. It was concerning.
Understand, there was a world where election day turned out somewhat badly for Mamdani, in which Cuomo was going to end up basically increasing his support from the Democratic primary. However Mamdani gained half a million votes to his initial base, and this was critical why he succeeded. He campaigned and massively expanded his support from the primary.
How did the mayor-elect gain additional support from?
He built the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: diverse racially, youthful, tenants and individuals squeezed by affordability. He improved considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, compared to the earlier election. Plus he further maximized his base of liberal progressives, young leftists, and Muslims and south Asians. He couldn’t have won without making those significant inroads.
He built the alliance that the left always wanted to build: multiracial, youthful, renters and residents struggling with costs
There were also a number of supporters of both candidates – is this significant?
It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, limited to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Muslims. Voters in immigrant strongholds that went for the former president last year went for the progressive now. But I wouldn’t say he was winning over white working-class voters and Maga voters.
One of the big stories of the night was the record participation. Who benefited?
Each candidate. Turnout was much greater than anticipated. I figured it could exceed two million, but it reached 2.3 million – that is a huge number of participants. Existed a substantial opposition group, energized, but his supporters was also motivated, and that sufficed to secure victory.
You predicted he’d exceed half the ballots. Is he likely for that?
Right now you would say he’s favored to surpass half. He has just over 50% but remain probably 200,000 votes uncounted at that time. So I don’t think certain, but I believe probable, and I hope he achieves it so then no one can say the Republican was a spoiler.
The GOP candidate, the Republican candidate, was another surprise. His vote plummeted.
He lost any district in any borough. Including Tottenville in Staten Island, which is like an 88% Trump neighborhood. That truly surprised me. The independent held Caucasian districts, affluent zones and devout communities, and plus gained all of these Republicans on the island who had a high participation. I believe there was a lot of tactical voting by the Republicans. They were doing it before the former president endorsed for the candidate, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide unless Mamdani’s coalition hadn’t grown.
Regarding your much mentioned “commie corridor” – was support for Mamdani dominant in those areas of the boroughs?
In my view existed some weakening of the commie corridor in some areas like Astoria or Greenpoint that have older Caucasian residents. There, instance, the Greek landlords and homeowners all went for the independent. So there was some opposition. However no, largely the leftist base is another huge reason why Mamdani won – he was polling between high percentages in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.
Prior to the election we reported on if Mamdani was making inroads with the community. Is there any suggestion that he did?
Exist neighborhoods with many secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he did well. However in the wealthy Jewish communities such as the Manhattan area, his Middle East stance definitely mattered in those places. Likewise in the moderate communities like Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Bronx areas – they favored Cuomo. Plus, you have newcomers from Eastern Europe in southern Brooklyn, who were strongly Cuomo. Therefore I don’t know if existed crazy narrative-busters here, but he did hold left-leaning areas and even parts of the another locale by big margins.
Has Mamdani rewritten what New York represents in politics? Will commie corridor become a launch pad for progressive contenders?
Yes, it’s not accidental that some of the biggest figures from progressives hail from a handful of neighborhoods in the boroughs. I’m sure that we’ll see more of that – people will come from these neighborhoods to be elevated nationally.
But I think that each urban center in America can have their own commie corridor. Cities are the centers of progressive influence in America – because they’re young, people rent and they represent locales where people are crushed by the disparities exist.
A seasoned casino analyst with over a decade of experience in gaming strategies and industry trends.
