Haley Stevens has rebounded since Mallory McMorrow dropped out. But polls of both the Michigan primary and the general election don't tell a consistent story.
If a thoughtful observer made a list of all the most important issues, problems, crises, facing the US, Israel-Palestine would come in about 18th. Granting everybody on all sides their bitter angst, it still comes in 18th. So why do idiotic Democrats always end up running on signifying rather than substantive issues? Once in a blue moon, the new senator from Michigan can vote for or against military aid for Israel. Great. Now about all those other 17 issues? Democrats need to get our feet on the ground, and push back against signifying divisions. Israel-Palestine is not the only one. Until Democrats learn to project a holistic vision of this country, on this continent, with this diverse population, they will remain the sclerotic losers they have become.
I think you make a very interesting point. Why DO Dems always run on weird issues that don't affect actual normal Americans? Trannies, for instance, even more strange than being against Israel. I think it's because they have litmus tests for who is obediently in the club --- they all have to pretend to believe in weird things: work on believing six impossible things before breakfast, then you can be in the club. Otherwise, they cancel you, sue you, punish you.
None of this is a way to get more votes, I'd guess.
No major Democratic candidate has their main campaign issues as trans rights. They barely talked about it. It's the Republicans who can't shut up about the trans people. The Democratic position is to let them live their lives in peace and leave them alone. The fact that the Dems refuse to demonize the trans community is used as a cudgel by the MAGAs stirring up their base with a non-issue.
If anything, the conservative hyperfocus on Transgender politics is more likely going to backfire this election season.
I say that given how the Libertarian voters who play spoilers in a few key purple states may have felt the Dems went too far in 2023-2024... *are a little upset that the conservatives charged twice as far in the other direction, started a war with iran that they are losing, and are giving the thumbs up to seizing land for data centers.*
We're not losing this war yet --- you have to give it a few years! What, did you believe that talk about winning in 4 to 6 weeks??? So did Trump, poor guy. But wars nearly always take years, about 5 as a rule. Unless we are losing, as usual, when it takes 15 or 20 before our troops run for the helicopter or plane. I suggest we don't lose. Again.
Are you aware we were losing WWII until 1943? 1940 and 1942 were the pits. It all takes time.
There was no planning, logistics, or anything more than 'We kill one guy, we win!' thinking.
It was a spoiled brats visions of the Quick Painless War which led to the traditional folly of those obsessed with war of thinking that wars will always go the way you want.
We can outmuscle the opponent easy enough, but we cannot bring that muscle to leverage Iran easily, and worse off we can only do so by exposing assets that are functionally non-replaceable and barely repairable into the line of fire.
To correct for that, we would need to batten down the hatches and shift into a war time economy. As part of this, luxury goods would have to be curtailed and unnecessary technologies would need to be paused. Corporations would go bankrupt over night.
To balance that out, the government would need to shift towards war taxation, which would mean that upper crust would have to be prepared to cover the cost of a mass retraining effort and the replacements, just as we had in WW2, which resulted in a *88%* tax rate.
The current investments in AI would need to be canned immediately, it's a resource hog with limited results. That would cause a depression right now, but if this war was going to be won in a traditional fashion logistics demand it.
Still, the shift to retraining for the work force could be a good thing, since suddenly we'd have people working long shifts at higher than average wages to rebuild the infrastructure. As long as it is properly monitored to make sure it doesn't turn into a corrupt mess like Russia...
*looks at the administration*
Yeah, no, we know how this one ends.
In summary, this war was stupid and the price for rebuilding even one leg of the logistics stool needed to actual win this war in a meaningful way would cause a world wide depression and mass revolt.
With how much is spent against them by AIPAC, left wing candidates kinda have to talk about Israel if they want a chance. Plus, it can be connected to more pressing issues about taxes, inequality, money in politics, cost of living, etc
This might have been true pre-Iran war, but skyrocketing oil prices affect every American household. It's not hard to place the blame on Netanyahu - both Democrats and Republicans (ie JD Vance) are pointing fingers at him. I would say our relationship to Israel has become intertwined with inflation, a top issue for the majority of Americans.
Michigan does have the largest Arab American vote in the country, but it also has a large moderate Jewish vote outside of Detroit. Those voters are traditional Democrats but I think many would crawl over glass to vote for Mike Rodgers against El Sayed. Feels like this race is going to be really tough no matter the outcome because it alienates parts of the Dem base no matter what.
This is definitely my takeaway - this race is too complicated to be a referendum on the moderate vs progressive electability argument. I think the subtext of this article, that El-Sayed could underperform or overperform Stevens, rings true with me. He could get pilloried for being too far left; he could have a little bit of Mamdani level magic and spark in campaigning and drive up turnout with the base and be perceived as authentic for lower propensity voters and voters that have moved away from the Democrats recently. Either outcome seems perfectly plausible with me.
I wouldn’t necessarily say centrism and populism are at odds though — I’ve heard many people describe people like Jared Golden and Josh Turek as populist centrists.
"Michigan does have the largest Arab American vote in the country... large moderate Jewish vote outside of Detroit"
It's probably a wash since most census data says both Muslims and Jews make up 1% of the Michigan population. Then it's a matter of turnout. Are the Muslim voters more motivated to vote for El Sayed than the Jewish vote is against him, thus insuring a really Trumpy MAGA takes the senate seat?
The issue is that some percentage of Jewish Dem voters would vote for Rodgers instead since he is a normie Republican. Not sure how many Arab voters would vote for Rodgers over Stevens. They may stay home, but they likely wouldn’t flip.
Yeah, but almost no Muslim voters would turn out for Stevens, whereas most Jewish voters that would have voted for Stevens vote for will still vote for El Sayed. In a competition of turnout vs vote flipping, turnout almost always has the greater effect. This isn't a symmetric issue for both populations, American Muslims will as a group vote for these issues as they're more recent immigrants, first or second generation often, and American Jews usually vote for many different, usually domestic, issues, and differ in their views of Israel and Palestine, if it is even a strong opinion to begin with.
Idk that that’s true. I have family there who are all Dems but they are talking about not only voting, but organizing for Rodgers if El Sayed wins the primary. They are very upset that El Sayed had a hard time condemning the synagogue attack in West Bloomfield. It really has very little to do with Israel.
Thanks for sharing that insight. I can also share the same from family there and speaking to people at their mosque. They were really rubbed the wrong way by Stevens' comments. Even though local leadership almost always suggests people vote for the democratic candidates, people are not following that advice anymore as most of the community skipped the 2024 election and a plurality of those that did voted for Trump in 2024. That was the first time since 2000 Bush that the community went for a Republican nationwide candidate, and I'm concerned it'll happen again.
As for my comments about American Jewish voters, it's anecdotal and probably tinged by the fact that my friends are mostly liberal or liberal leaning, so your input is helpful context for me.
You said that, between turnout and vote flipping, turnout almost always has the greater effect. But flipping a voter is twice as valuable as turning one out because it both adds a vote to your column and subtracts one from your opponent's—a net gain of two votes, compared with a net gain of just one vote from turning out someone who otherwise wouldn't have voted.
Actually, there is no evidence that turnout is more important than flipping, especially in a midterm, where Dem turnout is going to naturally be stronger.
Yes the question is whether the vibe upheaval currently surrounding the Dems in light of more populist / radical progressive insurgents is real or just an internet moment. Same can be said for the Republicans in anticipation of next election
It was a slogan that never meant the dictionary definition that you are referencing. It was a movement to “de-police” certain aspects of public safety and to not blindly sign checks to fund local police forces. That’s it. It never meant anything about abolishing police departments (except to the extent that one geography could potentially be served by a larger neighboring geography). Typically, people know this basic fact, but I guess not in your case, unless this is a troll.
Nah, not a troll at all. I think the left has been very exacting about their terminology for quite some time. You can try to talk your way back, but we all remember (and continue to hear it to this day). You all said it so you own it.
You’re just now either flat-out lying or doubling down on misinformation. You’re a completely worthless troll or embarrassingly stupid in your genuineness:
This is complete nonsense. You are trying to say that your candidate did not want to deprive Michigan of all police forces and let warlords run wild, might makes their power, the worst criminals take all. But, he did. He's a villain and out of his mind and an Arab. Do I repeat myself? Uh-oh.
"My candidate?" I am not supporting him - I actually have no opinion about the Michigan Congressional race at this time. However, I do know what the "defund the police" movement was in general and it was mostly about getting mental health professionals to be the first contacts instead of police for numerous typologies of 911 calls. It had nothing at all to do with the wholesale elimination of police forces.
The last line is why politics in America is SO DUMB. “If he loses by 0.1%, it’s proof that the left sucks, if he wins by 0.1%, it’s proof the establishment sucks.” No one race is one of these things. When a lot of the DSA folks cruise to a general win in New York in D+20 districts, it will prove absolutely nothing - except that politics in uncompetitive districts is much different than politics in competitive ones - but it will be used to “show” that the America wants the DSA and a large chunk of people will believe it.
Note: I’m not anti DSA, just an example off of the top of my head. America may be ready for more DSA like candidates I dunno, I won’t mind, but my point is those wins won’t meant any of the things its backers will claim it does.
DSA / "new tea party" election analysis is so off based and beltway centric; the voters are anti candidates who are: 70+ years old and/or been in office 20+ years and/or are pro sending dollars/weapons/troops to the middle east; they will vote for any credible candidate outside of those 3 strikes
I lived in Grand Rapids in the 2010s. I struggle to see El-Sayed winning the moderate Dutch CRC voters who may vote Democrat occasionally. Biased sample, but the Israel thing (and him being a Muslim frankly) cuts against him.
I don't think progressives supporting these candidates realize how much of the country has a real problem with electing someone from outside the Judeo-Christian framework. Religion is important to a lot of people.
Religion!!? The guy who said the United States deserved 9/11 has a bigger problem than "just" religion. He's plainly an enemy of the nation ----- and he's running for Senate? Ouch. He's even worse than that Omar woman, and that is saying something.
While that is true, I personally think that campaigning with Hasan Piker disqualifies El-Sayed.
However, if he wins the primary I will probably hold my nose and vote for him in the general. Curbing Trumps power via D senate majority is important enough to quash my distaste for Piker and people who associate with him.
Im really worried that if Stevens wins, young people just wont show up for her. Im pretty young and progressive but even pretty moderate young people I know seem to just hate her, and I really think that could swing not only the senate race but many house races too (Tom Barret's swing district, for example, is centered on Lansing, right beside MSU, a major university!)
You could say the same thing about Black voters if El-Sayed gets the nomination. Glengariff poll had Stevens up 75.0% against Rogers, with El-Sayed only up 61.7%
It's hilarious: Donald Trump alienates all of our allies in western Europe (with which we have long shared a broad cultural and political heritage, and strategic interests) and all but breaks the US from NATO, but when some Democrats suggest that near-complete allegiance to the tiny, newly-formed theocracy of Israel isn't great foreign policy... THIS is what Republicans maniacally consider to be a dealbreaker.
Normally I would be one of those more moderate democrats. But let’s be real here, Israel is bribing and running our country. It’s a bigger lobby than the NRA.
It’s a great system for them. Send a few bribes, get billions of dollars in aid from America.
At this point, I’m willing to defund the police in order to get money out of politics and Israel out of pocketbooks. Probably stands to reason, the average voter has been pushed the same way since the start of the Iran war.
We don’t need one more talking head shouting “WHY WONT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA VILIFY THIS GUY” the quota for both a) the media vilifying candidates on all sides of the spectrum and b) people asking WHY DOESN’T ANYONE VILIFY THIS GUY has been met. It’s a saturated market. We come here to understand the probability of one outcome affecting another.
Me personally, I think a more effective question if we want to see real change is “how did we let things in this country get so bad, that people are so desperate and angry, that they’ll vote for people who say things that ten years ago would have had them blacklisted from politics altogether” and yes that too is on both sides of the aisle. Trump, Platner, aoc, mamdami, whoever it is you hate (and someone else loves) are symptoms. The actual illness is widespread despair and desperation. We either treat that bacteria or we keep popping political pimples until our face explodes.
People are sick of Israel dragging us into war, decades of genocide, and and leeching billions of our tax dollars every year. Even a flawed candidate will win if they campaign on not sending money to a genocidal regime. It's a really popular position, believe it or not.
I honestly don’t care if Abdul El-Sayed treats patients. He’s an MD/PhD, and I actually know quite a few MD/PhDs who did not complete residencies, opting instead to focus on research. Many have made extremely important contributions to medical science. Abdul’s research has been on public health and in health delivery and outcome. He understands medicine and our health care system. He has a realistic plan for introducing a single-payer public health system in this country. He’s written books about this. He’s articulate, quick on his feet and principled. He’s a progressive. That’s not a dirty word. He wants to challenge the stranglehold corporations and the ultra-wealthy have on our political system through their ability to pump unlimited funds into our electoral system. What’s wrong with that? His stance on Israel is based on the destructive power Israel under Netanyahu has unleashed on its neighbors, funded largely by our tax dollars. I believe he understands the complexity of the situation, and he is not anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic. Even aside from the horrors of the Trump administration, the status quo in this country is just not tenable. Abdul El-Sayed is willing to engage anyone in debate and to challenge the electorate in all parts of Michigan. I believe he honestly cares about people, that’s kind of at the core of what public health is all about, after all.
As a center rightist (going well for me, no doubt), it's hard for me to care about the health of either party right now. That said, if Dems nominate El-Sayed, he's either losing in 2026 or in 2032. My guess would be 2026, and yeah I think he easily runs 6% under "normie Dem" (Mike Rogers would be a Senator today if he hadn't faced "normie Dem" in 2024).
And if El-Sayed becomes a Senator this year, maybe Republicans will be a bit saner come 2032, and I will actually enjoy El-Sayed's loss come then.
Change comes hard for many of us. Terms, language and ideas are hard to release and clutter our brains. A “moderate vs. progressive contest”, really? Can’t we move beyond the labels and focus on ideas, values and the future we want? Dem “moderates” are really just the same worn out status quo candidates that voters just don’t show up to vote for because we hate them. We just had a primary last month in which about 32 percent of registered votes voted…a “stunning record turnout” not seen for 20 years…even with crappy candidates. We had to vote for someone while holding our noses.
Consider polling that asks what voters what in the hell they value and want for a better future. Good grief…
Incidentally, I live in the Sacramento area in a Congressional district between two others who the Dems have picked to run: each 80 years old and obviously tired and worn out. This is not America it’s a nation run by old rich assholes. Another fun fact: Dems have had a super majority in California since 2012…and things are worsening…
Honestly it'd be nice to have a high quality NY Times poll for this race for both the primary and how they both stack up in the general election. It feels like there's been alot of polling in this race but very little from high quality pollsters where we can get an accurate picture.
Good, appropriately humble analysis. With polling this thin and contradictory, "it comes down to your priors." It's like watching two novices play a hand preflop, putting one on suited broadway and the other on a mid pair, and quoting an expected value from the pre-flop pot and those hands' equity at the river. The reads are guesses, the equity calculation assumes the reads, and novices won't play the hand the way the model says anyway. Muddy race, muddy data — precise-looking numbers built on stacked guesses.
The general-election D+6.1 cushion is the guessed preflop national-average, generic-ballot equity, not a hard figure. Asking whether El Sayed's underperformance will exceed it ignores cushion expected regression closer to zero, state-level divergence from national and--most important--the uncertainty about El Sayed's candidate effect. A better frame is the Democratic cushion that puts the Senate dead even and asking how likely El Sayed could break the tie in the Republicans favor.
The 23% base rate for over/underperformance greater than 6 points is computed on the wrong sample. Candidates who would badly underperform in a general tend to lose their primaries, so they never show up in the Split Ticket database. The observed distribution is censored on the tail that matters for El-Sayed — a first-time general-election candidate positioned well left of the state's median voter. Footnote 2 says this in a different way, "insurgents' track record for not crashing and burning post-primary is less stellar." But the 23% figure ignores it.
The conditional probability for candidates like El-Sayed is surely higher, but a little or a lot higher is hard to guess.
The three post-dropout polls span a 20-point range on the margin — roughly three standard errors between Glengariff and Data for Progress. That's not sampling noise; it's house effects, likely-voter screens, and turnout models swamping the signal. Averaging doesn't fix systematic variance. And the ~4-point sponsor-bias adjustment can't reconcile DFP with the others; it's off by a factor of five.
Worth remembering that sponsor bias is mostly publication bias. PACs release their best result. I'd read its result as a demonstration of how far the top of the range is from the median rather than either as extreme partisan methodology or some undiscovered aspect of the race.
If a thoughtful observer made a list of all the most important issues, problems, crises, facing the US, Israel-Palestine would come in about 18th. Granting everybody on all sides their bitter angst, it still comes in 18th. So why do idiotic Democrats always end up running on signifying rather than substantive issues? Once in a blue moon, the new senator from Michigan can vote for or against military aid for Israel. Great. Now about all those other 17 issues? Democrats need to get our feet on the ground, and push back against signifying divisions. Israel-Palestine is not the only one. Until Democrats learn to project a holistic vision of this country, on this continent, with this diverse population, they will remain the sclerotic losers they have become.
I think you make a very interesting point. Why DO Dems always run on weird issues that don't affect actual normal Americans? Trannies, for instance, even more strange than being against Israel. I think it's because they have litmus tests for who is obediently in the club --- they all have to pretend to believe in weird things: work on believing six impossible things before breakfast, then you can be in the club. Otherwise, they cancel you, sue you, punish you.
None of this is a way to get more votes, I'd guess.
No major Democratic candidate has their main campaign issues as trans rights. They barely talked about it. It's the Republicans who can't shut up about the trans people. The Democratic position is to let them live their lives in peace and leave them alone. The fact that the Dems refuse to demonize the trans community is used as a cudgel by the MAGAs stirring up their base with a non-issue.
Pretty much right on.
If anything, the conservative hyperfocus on Transgender politics is more likely going to backfire this election season.
I say that given how the Libertarian voters who play spoilers in a few key purple states may have felt the Dems went too far in 2023-2024... *are a little upset that the conservatives charged twice as far in the other direction, started a war with iran that they are losing, and are giving the thumbs up to seizing land for data centers.*
We're not losing this war yet --- you have to give it a few years! What, did you believe that talk about winning in 4 to 6 weeks??? So did Trump, poor guy. But wars nearly always take years, about 5 as a rule. Unless we are losing, as usual, when it takes 15 or 20 before our troops run for the helicopter or plane. I suggest we don't lose. Again.
Are you aware we were losing WWII until 1943? 1940 and 1942 were the pits. It all takes time.
Trump has zero idea what he is doing. Hegseth is even dumber.
There was no planning, logistics, or anything more than 'We kill one guy, we win!' thinking.
It was a spoiled brats visions of the Quick Painless War which led to the traditional folly of those obsessed with war of thinking that wars will always go the way you want.
We can outmuscle the opponent easy enough, but we cannot bring that muscle to leverage Iran easily, and worse off we can only do so by exposing assets that are functionally non-replaceable and barely repairable into the line of fire.
To correct for that, we would need to batten down the hatches and shift into a war time economy. As part of this, luxury goods would have to be curtailed and unnecessary technologies would need to be paused. Corporations would go bankrupt over night.
To balance that out, the government would need to shift towards war taxation, which would mean that upper crust would have to be prepared to cover the cost of a mass retraining effort and the replacements, just as we had in WW2, which resulted in a *88%* tax rate.
The current investments in AI would need to be canned immediately, it's a resource hog with limited results. That would cause a depression right now, but if this war was going to be won in a traditional fashion logistics demand it.
Still, the shift to retraining for the work force could be a good thing, since suddenly we'd have people working long shifts at higher than average wages to rebuild the infrastructure. As long as it is properly monitored to make sure it doesn't turn into a corrupt mess like Russia...
*looks at the administration*
Yeah, no, we know how this one ends.
In summary, this war was stupid and the price for rebuilding even one leg of the logistics stool needed to actual win this war in a meaningful way would cause a world wide depression and mass revolt.
With how much is spent against them by AIPAC, left wing candidates kinda have to talk about Israel if they want a chance. Plus, it can be connected to more pressing issues about taxes, inequality, money in politics, cost of living, etc
I dunno dude, a trillion dollar war would disagree
This might have been true pre-Iran war, but skyrocketing oil prices affect every American household. It's not hard to place the blame on Netanyahu - both Democrats and Republicans (ie JD Vance) are pointing fingers at him. I would say our relationship to Israel has become intertwined with inflation, a top issue for the majority of Americans.
Unfortunately, as far as funding is concerned, it's the most important.
Michigan does have the largest Arab American vote in the country, but it also has a large moderate Jewish vote outside of Detroit. Those voters are traditional Democrats but I think many would crawl over glass to vote for Mike Rodgers against El Sayed. Feels like this race is going to be really tough no matter the outcome because it alienates parts of the Dem base no matter what.
This is definitely my takeaway - this race is too complicated to be a referendum on the moderate vs progressive electability argument. I think the subtext of this article, that El-Sayed could underperform or overperform Stevens, rings true with me. He could get pilloried for being too far left; he could have a little bit of Mamdani level magic and spark in campaigning and drive up turnout with the base and be perceived as authentic for lower propensity voters and voters that have moved away from the Democrats recently. Either outcome seems perfectly plausible with me.
It's not progressive vs moderate, it's centrist vs. populist.
I wouldn’t necessarily say centrism and populism are at odds though — I’ve heard many people describe people like Jared Golden and Josh Turek as populist centrists.
Trump too, so populism can span the ideological spectrum.
"Michigan does have the largest Arab American vote in the country... large moderate Jewish vote outside of Detroit"
It's probably a wash since most census data says both Muslims and Jews make up 1% of the Michigan population. Then it's a matter of turnout. Are the Muslim voters more motivated to vote for El Sayed than the Jewish vote is against him, thus insuring a really Trumpy MAGA takes the senate seat?
The issue is that some percentage of Jewish Dem voters would vote for Rodgers instead since he is a normie Republican. Not sure how many Arab voters would vote for Rodgers over Stevens. They may stay home, but they likely wouldn’t flip.
Yeah, but almost no Muslim voters would turn out for Stevens, whereas most Jewish voters that would have voted for Stevens vote for will still vote for El Sayed. In a competition of turnout vs vote flipping, turnout almost always has the greater effect. This isn't a symmetric issue for both populations, American Muslims will as a group vote for these issues as they're more recent immigrants, first or second generation often, and American Jews usually vote for many different, usually domestic, issues, and differ in their views of Israel and Palestine, if it is even a strong opinion to begin with.
Idk that that’s true. I have family there who are all Dems but they are talking about not only voting, but organizing for Rodgers if El Sayed wins the primary. They are very upset that El Sayed had a hard time condemning the synagogue attack in West Bloomfield. It really has very little to do with Israel.
Thanks for sharing that insight. I can also share the same from family there and speaking to people at their mosque. They were really rubbed the wrong way by Stevens' comments. Even though local leadership almost always suggests people vote for the democratic candidates, people are not following that advice anymore as most of the community skipped the 2024 election and a plurality of those that did voted for Trump in 2024. That was the first time since 2000 Bush that the community went for a Republican nationwide candidate, and I'm concerned it'll happen again.
As for my comments about American Jewish voters, it's anecdotal and probably tinged by the fact that my friends are mostly liberal or liberal leaning, so your input is helpful context for me.
You said that, between turnout and vote flipping, turnout almost always has the greater effect. But flipping a voter is twice as valuable as turning one out because it both adds a vote to your column and subtracts one from your opponent's—a net gain of two votes, compared with a net gain of just one vote from turning out someone who otherwise wouldn't have voted.
Actually, there is no evidence that turnout is more important than flipping, especially in a midterm, where Dem turnout is going to naturally be stronger.
Yes the question is whether the vibe upheaval currently surrounding the Dems in light of more populist / radical progressive insurgents is real or just an internet moment. Same can be said for the Republicans in anticipation of next election
No. Defund. Candidates. Ever.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Right. People who say there should be no police (or borders or government) are out of their minds and certainly shouldn't be voted for.
You understand that "Defund the police" did not actually mean giving no funding to police departments... right?
Defund: To stop the flow of funds to; to cancel funding for
It was a slogan that never meant the dictionary definition that you are referencing. It was a movement to “de-police” certain aspects of public safety and to not blindly sign checks to fund local police forces. That’s it. It never meant anything about abolishing police departments (except to the extent that one geography could potentially be served by a larger neighboring geography). Typically, people know this basic fact, but I guess not in your case, unless this is a troll.
Nah, not a troll at all. I think the left has been very exacting about their terminology for quite some time. You can try to talk your way back, but we all remember (and continue to hear it to this day). You all said it so you own it.
You’re just now either flat-out lying or doubling down on misinformation. You’re a completely worthless troll or embarrassingly stupid in your genuineness:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police
This is complete nonsense. You are trying to say that your candidate did not want to deprive Michigan of all police forces and let warlords run wild, might makes their power, the worst criminals take all. But, he did. He's a villain and out of his mind and an Arab. Do I repeat myself? Uh-oh.
"My candidate?" I am not supporting him - I actually have no opinion about the Michigan Congressional race at this time. However, I do know what the "defund the police" movement was in general and it was mostly about getting mental health professionals to be the first contacts instead of police for numerous typologies of 911 calls. It had nothing at all to do with the wholesale elimination of police forces.
I would say this is a retrofitted explanation. At the time - in the midst of the BLM mania - it meant what it said.
The last line is why politics in America is SO DUMB. “If he loses by 0.1%, it’s proof that the left sucks, if he wins by 0.1%, it’s proof the establishment sucks.” No one race is one of these things. When a lot of the DSA folks cruise to a general win in New York in D+20 districts, it will prove absolutely nothing - except that politics in uncompetitive districts is much different than politics in competitive ones - but it will be used to “show” that the America wants the DSA and a large chunk of people will believe it.
Note: I’m not anti DSA, just an example off of the top of my head. America may be ready for more DSA like candidates I dunno, I won’t mind, but my point is those wins won’t meant any of the things its backers will claim it does.
DSA / "new tea party" election analysis is so off based and beltway centric; the voters are anti candidates who are: 70+ years old and/or been in office 20+ years and/or are pro sending dollars/weapons/troops to the middle east; they will vote for any credible candidate outside of those 3 strikes
2nd place is just first loser. :)
I lived in Grand Rapids in the 2010s. I struggle to see El-Sayed winning the moderate Dutch CRC voters who may vote Democrat occasionally. Biased sample, but the Israel thing (and him being a Muslim frankly) cuts against him.
I don't think progressives supporting these candidates realize how much of the country has a real problem with electing someone from outside the Judeo-Christian framework. Religion is important to a lot of people.
Religion!!? The guy who said the United States deserved 9/11 has a bigger problem than "just" religion. He's plainly an enemy of the nation ----- and he's running for Senate? Ouch. He's even worse than that Omar woman, and that is saying something.
That was Hasan who said that, not El-Sayed
Some people have very poor reading comprehension skills. That's not the case here; she's aware it's false and is attempting to spread misinformation.
Hasan Piker is not running for senate lol. That's not a quote from El-Sayed, it's a quote from someone he campaigned with.
While that is true, I personally think that campaigning with Hasan Piker disqualifies El-Sayed.
However, if he wins the primary I will probably hold my nose and vote for him in the general. Curbing Trumps power via D senate majority is important enough to quash my distaste for Piker and people who associate with him.
Valid, I can't say I'm a fan of campaigning with Piker either. Just wanted to make sure the record was straight on who said what.
Im really worried that if Stevens wins, young people just wont show up for her. Im pretty young and progressive but even pretty moderate young people I know seem to just hate her, and I really think that could swing not only the senate race but many house races too (Tom Barret's swing district, for example, is centered on Lansing, right beside MSU, a major university!)
You could say the same thing about Black voters if El-Sayed gets the nomination. Glengariff poll had Stevens up 75.0% against Rogers, with El-Sayed only up 61.7%
It's hilarious: Donald Trump alienates all of our allies in western Europe (with which we have long shared a broad cultural and political heritage, and strategic interests) and all but breaks the US from NATO, but when some Democrats suggest that near-complete allegiance to the tiny, newly-formed theocracy of Israel isn't great foreign policy... THIS is what Republicans maniacally consider to be a dealbreaker.
Normally I would be one of those more moderate democrats. But let’s be real here, Israel is bribing and running our country. It’s a bigger lobby than the NRA.
It’s a great system for them. Send a few bribes, get billions of dollars in aid from America.
At this point, I’m willing to defund the police in order to get money out of politics and Israel out of pocketbooks. Probably stands to reason, the average voter has been pushed the same way since the start of the Iran war.
How sick are Michigan Democrats to even consider voting for a rabid anti-Semite and wealth confiscator?
But almost as puzzling is why does the Silver Bulletin not ask the question how the mainstream media does not expose and vilfy this candidate?
Or is the mainstream media just as leftist?
We don’t need one more talking head shouting “WHY WONT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA VILIFY THIS GUY” the quota for both a) the media vilifying candidates on all sides of the spectrum and b) people asking WHY DOESN’T ANYONE VILIFY THIS GUY has been met. It’s a saturated market. We come here to understand the probability of one outcome affecting another.
Me personally, I think a more effective question if we want to see real change is “how did we let things in this country get so bad, that people are so desperate and angry, that they’ll vote for people who say things that ten years ago would have had them blacklisted from politics altogether” and yes that too is on both sides of the aisle. Trump, Platner, aoc, mamdami, whoever it is you hate (and someone else loves) are symptoms. The actual illness is widespread despair and desperation. We either treat that bacteria or we keep popping political pimples until our face explodes.
People are sick of Israel dragging us into war, decades of genocide, and and leeching billions of our tax dollars every year. Even a flawed candidate will win if they campaign on not sending money to a genocidal regime. It's a really popular position, believe it or not.
The genocidal regime is Hamas: they are the ones who want to kill out an entire populace.
There's no reason in principle that it can't be both. A pox on _all_ their houses.
Yep. They're both equally as bad. Let them destroy each other, but not another US dollar should go toward any one side.
I honestly don’t care if Abdul El-Sayed treats patients. He’s an MD/PhD, and I actually know quite a few MD/PhDs who did not complete residencies, opting instead to focus on research. Many have made extremely important contributions to medical science. Abdul’s research has been on public health and in health delivery and outcome. He understands medicine and our health care system. He has a realistic plan for introducing a single-payer public health system in this country. He’s written books about this. He’s articulate, quick on his feet and principled. He’s a progressive. That’s not a dirty word. He wants to challenge the stranglehold corporations and the ultra-wealthy have on our political system through their ability to pump unlimited funds into our electoral system. What’s wrong with that? His stance on Israel is based on the destructive power Israel under Netanyahu has unleashed on its neighbors, funded largely by our tax dollars. I believe he understands the complexity of the situation, and he is not anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic. Even aside from the horrors of the Trump administration, the status quo in this country is just not tenable. Abdul El-Sayed is willing to engage anyone in debate and to challenge the electorate in all parts of Michigan. I believe he honestly cares about people, that’s kind of at the core of what public health is all about, after all.
Hey Nate, El-Sayed and his DSA comrades are not “Israel Skeptical”. They are Jew haters, just say it as it is.
Bernie and his ilk are becoming almost as bad as Trump
As a center rightist (going well for me, no doubt), it's hard for me to care about the health of either party right now. That said, if Dems nominate El-Sayed, he's either losing in 2026 or in 2032. My guess would be 2026, and yeah I think he easily runs 6% under "normie Dem" (Mike Rogers would be a Senator today if he hadn't faced "normie Dem" in 2024).
And if El-Sayed becomes a Senator this year, maybe Republicans will be a bit saner come 2032, and I will actually enjoy El-Sayed's loss come then.
Sadly I think it works the opposite way - an El-Sayed victory will make Republicans even more populist.
Change comes hard for many of us. Terms, language and ideas are hard to release and clutter our brains. A “moderate vs. progressive contest”, really? Can’t we move beyond the labels and focus on ideas, values and the future we want? Dem “moderates” are really just the same worn out status quo candidates that voters just don’t show up to vote for because we hate them. We just had a primary last month in which about 32 percent of registered votes voted…a “stunning record turnout” not seen for 20 years…even with crappy candidates. We had to vote for someone while holding our noses.
Consider polling that asks what voters what in the hell they value and want for a better future. Good grief…
Incidentally, I live in the Sacramento area in a Congressional district between two others who the Dems have picked to run: each 80 years old and obviously tired and worn out. This is not America it’s a nation run by old rich assholes. Another fun fact: Dems have had a super majority in California since 2012…and things are worsening…
Honestly it'd be nice to have a high quality NY Times poll for this race for both the primary and how they both stack up in the general election. It feels like there's been alot of polling in this race but very little from high quality pollsters where we can get an accurate picture.
Good, appropriately humble analysis. With polling this thin and contradictory, "it comes down to your priors." It's like watching two novices play a hand preflop, putting one on suited broadway and the other on a mid pair, and quoting an expected value from the pre-flop pot and those hands' equity at the river. The reads are guesses, the equity calculation assumes the reads, and novices won't play the hand the way the model says anyway. Muddy race, muddy data — precise-looking numbers built on stacked guesses.
The general-election D+6.1 cushion is the guessed preflop national-average, generic-ballot equity, not a hard figure. Asking whether El Sayed's underperformance will exceed it ignores cushion expected regression closer to zero, state-level divergence from national and--most important--the uncertainty about El Sayed's candidate effect. A better frame is the Democratic cushion that puts the Senate dead even and asking how likely El Sayed could break the tie in the Republicans favor.
The 23% base rate for over/underperformance greater than 6 points is computed on the wrong sample. Candidates who would badly underperform in a general tend to lose their primaries, so they never show up in the Split Ticket database. The observed distribution is censored on the tail that matters for El-Sayed — a first-time general-election candidate positioned well left of the state's median voter. Footnote 2 says this in a different way, "insurgents' track record for not crashing and burning post-primary is less stellar." But the 23% figure ignores it.
The conditional probability for candidates like El-Sayed is surely higher, but a little or a lot higher is hard to guess.
The three post-dropout polls span a 20-point range on the margin — roughly three standard errors between Glengariff and Data for Progress. That's not sampling noise; it's house effects, likely-voter screens, and turnout models swamping the signal. Averaging doesn't fix systematic variance. And the ~4-point sponsor-bias adjustment can't reconcile DFP with the others; it's off by a factor of five.
Worth remembering that sponsor bias is mostly publication bias. PACs release their best result. I'd read its result as a demonstration of how far the top of the range is from the median rather than either as extreme partisan methodology or some undiscovered aspect of the race.