For the past six months, Democratic primary voters have overwhelmingly selected one “normie” Democrat after another. On Tuesday, voters in Michigan went in a different direction.
With Abdul El-Sayed’s victory over Rep. Haley Stevens in the Michigan Senate Democratic primary, the state’s voters rejected the more moderate, establishment and electable option. El-Sayed’s margin of around a percentage point was far narrower than the pre-election polls suggested. But it is the most surprising result in a Democratic primary this year.
Democrats have largely been immune to such self-destructive behavior, but in Michigan they have embraced the unknown.
To be clear, there have been notable exceptions at the House and local level. In New York City and Colorado, three sitting members of Congress were defeated by leftist primary challengers. At the Senate level, Graham Platner’s insurgent campaign in Maine beat back a half-hearted campaign from the state’s governor, Janet Mills, only to crash and burn after allegations surfaced that he’d sexually assaulted a former girlfriend.
But with the exception of Maine, these other elections were in safe blue districts where the risks of choosing a left-wing candidate are rather minor. This Senate primary was a clear clash between a progressive and a moderate candidate. And in statewide primaries in red and purple states, Democratic voters had generally gone with the safer option.
In Texas, Democratic voters chose state Sen. James Talarico over Rep. Jasmine Crockett. In Iowa, they gave a double-digit victory to the establishment-backed Josh Turek over Zach Wahls. Perhaps even more telling, establishment candidates such as Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Roy Cooper in North Carolina and Mary Peltola in Alaska — many of them handpicked by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer — have faced little more than token opposition.
Contrast those results with what happened to Republicans in 2010, amid the rise of the far-right, anti-establishment Tea Party. Senate GOP incumbents in Alaska and Utah lost party primaries. In eight other states, Tea Party-backed candidates, many of whom were political outsiders and had never held election office, knocked off establishment favorites. In Colorado, Nevada and Delaware, Republicans arguably threw away winnable Senate races with weak nominees.
Democrats have largely been immune to such self-destructive behavior, but in Michigan, they have embraced the unknown – and chose a candidate who is more likely to struggle in a general election campaign.
El-Sayed has focused a good part of his campaign attacking fellow Democrats and criticizing AIPAC and Israel. He’s precisely the type of candidate that can succeed in a safe blue district, but fail with a more ideologically diverse general electorate. Multiple recent polls currently show El-Sayed trailing GOP nominee Mike Rogers in a state that, while it voted for Donald Trump twice (in 2016 and 2024), has not elected a Republican to statewide office in a decade.
Stevens, though she’s won tough elections in the past, was probably the second or third choice for Michigan Democrats.
Regardless of which Democrat won Tuesday, national Republicans might have invested heavily in the state’s Senate race. But with El-Sayed as the nominee, they’re likely to spend tens of millions in negative attack ads — which might just succeed in pushing Rogers over the top. It bears noting that El-Sayed’s failure to match his pre-election polling will only further encourage Republicans to view him as a weak opponent and one who can be defeated.
As to what drove enough Michigan Democrats to elect El-Sayed over Stevens, there’s a multitude of possible factors. Surely among young voters there’s been a shift to the left that is giving candidates like El-Sayed a major boost. Certainly El-Sayed, even though he’s been dramatically outspent, has run a strong race. Ironically, the tens of millions of dollars in outside money spent by AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, on Stevens’ behalf may have helped fuel his anti-AIPAC, anti-Israel rhetoric and his decision to campaign with streamer Hasan Piker, who has a history of antisemitic statements.
Stevens, though she’s won tough elections in the past, was probably the second or third choice for Michigan Democrats. Stronger candidates like Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel chose not to run. Also, the presence of a third candidate, Mallory McMorrow, in the race — who dropped out in July — made it more difficult for Stevens to differentiate herself.
But none of this fully explains why close to half of Michigan’s Democrats embraced the far left when, elsewhere, the majority of Democratic voters looked for a safer option?
Perhaps more and more Democratic voters reached a breaking point with the party establishment — and the dam is beginning its break in Michigan. Perhaps the intraparty tumult we’ve seen in primarily safe blue districts and seats has spread to normie Democrats in swing states. If that’s the case, then Tuesday’s results in Michigan are also a possible sign of what’s to come for the party as it begins the process of choosing a presidential nominee in 2028.
We’ll have to wait and see if that happens. But for now, we can say that much of what we think we knew about Democratic politics — and the voting patterns of rank-and-file party members — seems to have been upended by the results in Michigan. Many Democrats there have voted with their hearts and not their heads. And, if past experience is any indication, in politics, that’s usually not a winning choice.
The post Abdul El-Sayed’s Michigan win wasn’t a landslide. But it was still surprising. appeared first on MS NOW.
Author: Source Author
From MS Now.
Leave a Reply