It looks like we are going to get a big test of some cardinal (possibly outdated) assumptions about American politics. I’m thinking first about the Michigan Senate race (though we might have something similar in the Wisconsin governor’s race). Several recent polls show Abdul El-Sayed holding a consistent, substantial lead over Rep. Haley Stevens. The primary is on August 4. This has been presented as a prototypical Democratic establishment vs Bernie progressive/insurgent race. And in key respects it is.
El-Sayed has all the Bernie/progressive positions. He’s run a campaign that places a heavy emphasis on the Israel-Palestine issue. And he’s centered AIPAC in his campaign in a way that even for many longtime critics and haters of AIPAC (including myself here) has a distinct whiff of antisemitic conspiracy theories. To wit, yes, AIPAC sucks. They’re a blight. They are functionally a Republican operation these days. But they are not the secret hand guiding things in the background every time there’s a bad news story or reverse of fortune for some progressive candidate, which is basically the role they’re playing in El-Sayed’s campaign.
Generally speaking, El-Sayed is the kind of candidate you’d expect to see running in a blue state or district. Michigan is not that. It’s a definitional swing state, a bit bluer than Wisconsin perhaps, maybe a touch redder than Pennsylvania. It also has an absolutely must-win Senate race. No room for error. You’ve got to win this seat (currently held by the retiring Democrat Gary Peters).
I’ve watched El-Sayed in a handful of podcast interviews. He’s really good. That’s the only way I can describe it. He has that basic mix of presence, charisma and directness which is the mark of a very strong candidate. I’ve been in contact with a number of TPM readers over the last couple months who I’d describe broadly as white, generally normie Michigan grandmothers who are … strong supporters of El-Sayed. In other words, they’re not at all what you’d expect as the stereotypical supporter of a left-wing, insurgent, Palestine-centric candidate. And the reason is always the same: his rhetoric and attitude fit the stakes of the national crisis and Stevens’ do not.
In many ways, this mirrors what I’ve been arguing for months. You need to pry apart the ideology and fight. You need candidates across the Democratic ideological spectrum operating in the fight lane. Candidates who are not in that lane strike far too many voters as wildly out of touch or irrelevant to the moment we’re living in — like an EMT arriving at the scene of a horrific auto accident with some aspirin, salves and maybe a pillow.
This may make a caricature of Stevens. But she’s been tepid on some key issues where Democrats have a big opening to demonstrate their fight bona fides — issues like ICE. This is revealing to me inasmuch as opposing ICE, wanting to dismantle ICE is not just the right position on the merits. It’s also a more or less free shot on goal for Democratic candidates. ICE’s brutal mass deportation campaign around the country is really, really unpopular. You can go full-bore on ICE and still support more restrictive border policies than many Democrats have been comfortable with. Indeed, this might be the balance of gravity for public opinion in 2026: Tighten the border; fuck ICE. Beyond the merits, it’s an open and fertile ground to demonstrate which lane they’re in. And Stevens hasn’t done that.
I would call myself highly worried about these developments. This isn’t because I’m so dead set against El-Sayed as a candidate. It’s because I’m skeptical his candidacy is viable in a swing state like Michigan. The progressive electability argument often amounts to: These establishment candidates you say are so electable lose about half the time. So how are they so electable? This isn’t a strong argument if you value logical reasoning. That said, I’m also eager to see my skepticism proven wrong. I practice what I preach about partisan elections. Every congressional election is a zero-sum proposition between the forces of Trumpism and the opposition to the same. Full stop. If he’s the nominee, it will be critical to prove my skepticism wrong. Because Democrats absolutely need to win that seat.
The reality is that we are in a very new, fluid and volatile political moment. You don’t need to be a DSA member or a progressive to think that. I’ve had conversations over the last six months with many politicos who would by any definition be classed as “establishment” Democrats who tell me they don’t recognize the electorate we’re seeing. That sometimes comes with an air of bitterness and resignation, cued up for an opinion piece in The Free Press. At other times, it’s one of bewildered open-mindedness. That said, political volatility and change isn’t a codeword for write your own adventure. Democrats don’t have to go further back than 2020 to know that rapid shifts in core political assumptions in Democrat World don’t necessarily export to the rest of the electorate. We are simply dealing with big unknowns and really everyone is projecting their hopes and fears on to a landscape that is pretty opaque.
The contrary argument here is that even if we assume that El-Sayed’s policies and persona are heavy lifts in a statewide Michigan race, the other side has pretty big problems too. GOP nominee-to-be Mike Rogers has to campaign on the wildly unpopular Iran War and as the supporter of a president who has approval numbers in the state from the mid-to low 30s. It’s a very rough environment for a candidate who has to carry all Trump’s baggage and unpopularity without actually being Trump or having him on the ballot.
The primary is next Tuesday. Look out for our coverage.