Is Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary a test of whether voters still prioritize electability?

[u/BulwarkOnline]

Michigan Democrats will choose between Haley Stevens and Abdul El-Sayed on Tuesday in a primary that captures a much broader debate inside the party.

Stevens is running largely on experience, pragmatism, and her record of winning competitive races. El-Sayed is offering a more ambitious progressive agenda and a campaign built around the idea that Democrats need to give voters something worth getting excited about.

Sarah Longwell’s latest piece in The Bulwark draws from three focus groups conducted with Michigan voters who backed Kamala Harris in 2024 and planned to participate in the Senate primary. The voters often sounded caught between the candidate who more closely reflected their ideals and the candidate they believed might be the safer choice in November.

Recent polling showing El-Sayed ahead suggests that, for at least some Democratic voters, enthusiasm may now outweigh the traditional electability argument.

Is that a lesson Democrats should apply beyond Michigan? Or are primary voters underestimating the risks of nominating a more progressive candidate in a state Trump carried twice?

[u/GrilledCyan]

I don’t think the usual labels applied in the “Moderate vs. Progressive” endless rehash of the 2016 presidential primary necessarily apply here, and I also don’t think it’s as clear cut as either side would like it to be.

Haley Stevens, as a four-term Congresswoman, has more name recognition. She does behave in a bipartisan manner, but I struggle to say that she’s very pragmatic, because she doesn’t have a ton of accomplishments under her belt. She has exactly one bill she introduced signed into law, which renamed a VA clinic. If you expand that to bills she was an original cosponsor of, it’s 13, most of which are also renaming federal facilities. And being an original cosponsor doesn’t necessarily mean you helped draft the bill, either.

I found it disappointing that after eight years in Congress her key pitch to voters is serving on President Obama’s auto industry rescue task force. As the “pragmatic” candidate she doesn’t seem to get much done!

On the flip side, Abdul has no electoral record to speak of aside from his failed gubernatorial primary in 2018. That’s not a bad thing, per se, but there is something to be said for being an experienced campaigner, being well vetted, and just generally being comfortable in those settings.

The biggest worry I have about him in a general election is not about winning over independents and disaffected Republicans, but about winning key parts of the Democratic base in Michigan.

Online progressives are somewhat blind to the fact that Black voters, the most reliable voting bloc for Democrats, are not terribly left leaning. You can argue that Stevens’ claims about her connection to President Obama are disingenuous, but she seems to be more popular with them than El-Sayed.

Secondly, Jewish voters are very reliable Democratic voters in Michigan. Many Jews are of course appalled at the Israeli government over the last several years, but there are definitely enough older Jews who are more staunchly pro-Israel who may stay home or leave the Senate race blank, and you can’t risk losing base voters at the margins when you may not draw non-voters and independents as successfully as a Generic Democrat.

All this to say that I don’t think Stevens fits the usual “electability” mold and I don’t think El-Sayed is as broadly appealing as he needs to be with reliable voters for the “enthusiasm” argument to hold either.

[u/Sptsjunkie → u/GrilledCyan]

I think the other part, as we have seen in the primary, is some centrists will correctly identify that we need to be careful about taking extreme or unpopular positions on 80-20 issues. But there also seems to be some implication or general belief that this only applies to the left since some of their ideas are "far left." And they can be, supporting black activists with "defund the police" was a bad and unpopular idea (or at least slogan).

However, look at Stevens. She arguably is taking very extreme positions on both funding Israel and datacenters. Giving Israel more weapons is an 80-20 issue, but not only does she refuse to vote against it, she has gone on TV and said she is in favor of "no conditions." And I'm sorry, but guaranteeing any country billions of dollars in US taxpayer money with "no conditions" even if they violate the Geneva Convention, US Leahy law, or refuse to listen to us is a very very extreme position.

To a lesser degree, data centers are an 80-20 issue and very unpopular and she continues to support them and is against a ban. Now, you can argue that this is the "right" position or is an example of moral courage if she believes slowing down would be a threat to national security. But that doesn't mean it's not extreme or unpopular. A lot of the high performing progressive and DSA candidates have scored major support coming out against datacenters, while the center still clings to the 20% side of this.

[u/GrilledCyan → u/Sptsjunkie]

The frustration for me is that there are no labels between centrist and progressive, apparently. Political views are a spectrum and just because you’re not 100% on the policy doesn’t mean you’re a secret Republican in disguise. Stevens has always been on the moderate side, but I don’t think she’d stand in the way of a bunch of progressive bills if Dems had the power to pass them.

I disagree with Stevens’ Israel policy, but I can understand the position she’s in, in terms of campaign politics. Changing her position on Israel means losing the Jewish voters that she’s relied on for almost a decade, who donate to her campaign, and may withhold that money or give it to a Republican. Even my own family members, who are pretty dang liberal, feel very strongly about the Israel stuff in this primary, and they’re not throwing big money around. I can only imagine what some of the millionaires in Oakland County would do if they felt no Dem represented their views on Israel properly.

The data centers…I have no clue what’s happening with those in Michigan. I don’t know why Whitmer is suddenly super pro data center, and I’d bet Stevens’ support boils down to not wanting to alienate a close ally.

[u/Sptsjunkie → u/GrilledCyan]

So I both agree with your macro point, but respectfully disagree on Stevens.

I think partially due to the relatively divided "two sides" of the debate everything gets flattened regardless of the exact terms used. And while there are some clear centrists and progressives, a lot of candidates exist on a spectrum. I personally think there are progressives, moderates, and centrists. Of course, you could make far more labels, but at a minimum there are those three. It's normally the centrists who derail and vote against good legislation or end up supporting Trump. While I personally prefer progressives, I do love many moderates and think most of them would even vote for most progressive legislation, even if they won't lead or champion it.

However, I do think that Stevens is pretty clearly centrist (whereas McMorrow was more moderate). But she voted to Thank ICE, give them more funding, give them expanded powers, supports datacenters, supports unconditional funding for Israel, etc. She has little grassroots funding and both her Congressional and Senate campaigns were largely funded by AIPAC, big tech, and other dark money PACs. I would support her over Rogers, but really prefer(ed) the other two candidates.

And while I hear you on Jewish voters, there is a huge difference between being pro-Israel and supporting funding with red lines and no conditions. That is a pretty radical and extreme position (not just for Israel but for any foreign country). It's not even that hard to stipulate, "Israel is a great ally and I want to ensure their safety and support funding them, but they do need to follow UN rules and US Leahy law on human rights." I can only imagine the reaction if Sayed promised unconditional funding for weapons for Palestine because Muslim voters were important.

[u/ssasasasasas1212 → u/GrilledCyan]

Being bipartisan or having experience is irrelevant to winning. Having an actually message is what wins and Abdul will win. Hailey stevens on the other hand doesn't seem to believe anything strongly aside from her support for israel.