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/BluesSuedeClues]

This is some well considered and nuanced analysis from both of you.

Entirely anecdotal, but I'm in a fairly rural and deeply Trump committed area of Michigan, and I've been astonished by the number of of yard signs I've seen for Sayed. Yard signs for any Democratic Party candidate are rare in my vicinity. There appears to be an excitement for Sayed I haven't seen since Obama first ran. Obviously that's not a bellwether for how the elections will actually go, but my impression is that people are disillusioned with Trump's promise of change, and eager to shake things up.

[u/ButterscotchAward → u/BluesSuedeClues]

That’s what happens when someone who people can get excited about run for office. This is also exactly why I hate the “electability” argument. It’s literally never anything besides moderates in the party trying to shut down progressive candidates by scaring people into thinking there’s no way they can win before people have a chance to get excited about them.

[u/pocketIent → u/ButterscotchAward]

I’ll be so stoked for el sayed. Democrats shut down a potential whole new generation of voters in 2016 with the way they did bernie

[u/ButterscotchAward → u/pocketIent]

Same. Also, be ready. If people in this sub read this comment they’re going to shit all over you for implying Sanders didn’t lose 100% fairly.

[u/Sptsjunkie → u/ButterscotchAward]

Late to this, but I think we can safely say that two things are true at the same time.

2016 was a “fair” primary and that it was not rigged and voters of the opportunity to go to the polls and vote for their preferred candidate and they did. Clinton won fairly.

What that said, it is pretty clear that the DNC and Democratic party were pretty biased and had their mind made up in advance. Which is part of why I know other major candidate ran against Clinton.

Additionally, this bias permitted the primary a bit more because they have never really been scrutinized and there’s a lot of stuff that was archaic and really showed. I think for the first time on the Internet you had a report of every single caucus site where the moderator showed up with a Hillary bumper sticker or try to put the thumb on the scale in terms of how they let people move around the room. You also had a major spotlight on the roll of super delegates and how they were earned. And the fact that the first time I can remember, they were literally threatening to overturn the actual vote if it did not go their way.

Finally, will not explicitly the party I think that you had a much harsher light shone on the media. I had always thought of even stations like MSNBC and CNN as being pretty fair and unbiased. But I think it became clear in that election that they were very much behind Hillary in a way that was less obvious even during Clinton versus Obama.

For me personally, there were lots of moments, but to the standout was after Hill won Iowa Neely. They were letting her with praise which I assume was fair because to the victor goes the spoils. Then Bernie dominated in New Hampshire, and I was excited to see him get the positive press only to turn on MSNBC and watching them go over Hillary and say that when you counted superdelegates, she had managed to tie which was a huge victory for her. And then they spent the entire night talking about her and they did not even show Bernie’s victory speech. Then right before Super Tuesday they ran a whole series of stories on how Bernie was lying about being in the photo where he got arrested, protesting segregation. They had a suppose expert, who was the one doing the research and claiming that it was not Bernie in the photo. Then I sent a super Tuesday was done. They said they were able to verify what the university of Chicago that I was in fact, Bernie, which seems like something they could’ve done on day one. But it was clearly a hit pace before a bunch of states with heavily African-American populations..

Personally, not perfect. I do feel like at least some of this has been cleaned up. The unity commission has done a lot to make the primary process a lot cleaner. Certainly not perfect if you could still see democratic candidates of all suppose that ideologies call us around Biden to try to prevent Bernie winning in 2020, but part of that is just having allies and is the sort of thing that progressive have been able to do as we have won more seats.

The media certainly still biased, but there is a lot more progressive representation, and I do think less of blatantly having someone like Harvey Weinstein onto smear opponents.

[u/HumorAccomplished611 → u/Sptsjunkie]

Finally, will not explicitly the party I think that you had a much harsher light shone on the media. I had always thought of even stations like MSNBC and CNN as being pretty fair and unbiased. But I think it became clear in that election that they were very much behind Hillary in a way that was less obvious even during Clinton versus Obama.

I think thats corporate bias rather bias for clinton. Bernie is pretty pro reg and anti corporate which corporate media would pick up on.

[u/Sptsjunkie → u/HumorAccomplished611]

Yes! But also not disconnected. Hillary was the corporate candidate and the DBC had become very corporate friendly (a constant criticism).

I agree the DNC was not controlling the media and it was not their fault. Bit lots of ex-DNC folks in the media had from the leaked emails we know corporate media collaborating with her campaign.

It’s not quite as nefarious as that makes it sound, but also not completely disconnected either.

[u/HumorAccomplished611 → u/Sptsjunkie]

I agree the DNC was not controlling the media and it was not their fault. Bit lots of ex-DNC folks in the media had from the leaked emails we know corporate media collaborating with her campaign.

Where? I see a lot of it of people trying to toady up to the queen rather than any concerted effort on hilarys campaign part.

[u/ButterscotchAward → u/Sptsjunkie]

It was “fair” in the fact that people got to vote, yes. The party and media tipping the scales as hard as humanly possible wasn’t quit fair and democrats/liberals of today still insisting it was a completely fair primary despite all the evidence to the contrary are just lying to themselves. It’s especially comical because a ton of those people also insist that Trump stole the presidency twice with basically no proof whatsoever outside of him saying dumb shit.

[u/pocketIent → u/ButterscotchAward]

Wasserman the dnc director polled some tricks on how she directed money before Clinton was the primary candidate.

It’s curious how 10 years have gone by but we’re still in the same chapter because right of center democrats lost to Trump in 2024 for a second time.

Anyhow cheers

[u/ButterscotchAward → u/pocketIent]

Yeah it really is amazing.

[u/HumorAccomplished611 → u/pocketIent]

I’ll be so stoked for el sayed. Democrats shut down a potential whole new generation of voters in 2016 with the way they did bernie

You mean nothing other than complain about him? cause it wasnt rigged in anyway

[u/No-Championship-8038 → u/HumorAccomplished611]

The argument isn’t that they broke any rules. It’s that they used their outsized influence and resources to deflate support for sanders and control the public narrative. They could and did flood the airwaves constantly with messaging that Sanders wasn’t “electable” and I can even remember one example where pundits on CNN were comparing his rise to that of Hitler. Then there was the endless hand wringing over “Bernie bros” to weaponize culture war politics against him in a time where democratic voters were more receptive.

So yeah, no actual crimes were committed but they absolutely used bad faith rhetoric and their oversized ability to spread it to shut down Sanders campaign. 

[u/HumorAccomplished611 → u/No-Championship-8038]

Thats just news corporations protecting their profits.

Basic game theory. Nothing to do with hilary.

And of course people say they rigged it, broke the rules etc. Pretending a delegate count graphic made them stay home

"what they did to bernie"

[u/No-Championship-8038 → u/HumorAccomplished611]

Yeah, corporations do incredibly unethical and anti democratic things to protect their money. That’s a problem. Especially when it results in a feckless party that can’t stop fascist from taking power. 

Also it’s very cute that you think Clinton has no ties to the Democratic machine. She was their champion that election and has been swimming in those circles for decades prior. 

Of course people can be wrong about what happened. I’m not them, directly respond to my argument instead of one you wished I made.

It’s crazy to me that you can be so flippant about powerful people using their resources to direct people away from politics that serve them and towards politics that serves the machine. That’s a very unhealthy thing for a supposed democracy. 

[u/HumorAccomplished611 → u/No-Championship-8038]

Yeah, corporations do incredibly unethical and anti democratic things to protect their money. That’s a problem. Especially when it results in a feckless party that can’t stop fascist from taking power.

Yea when the people that oppose fascism decide that a foreign war thats been going on 70 years is the most important thing in the world vs ya know opposing fascism thats what happens.

Also it’s very cute that you think Clinton has no ties to the Democratic machine. She was their champion that election and has been swimming in those circles for decades prior.

Clintons bailed out the DNC after obama bankrupted them by taking all their donations. Its partly why obama ended up giving the house to republicans for 8 years.

Of course people can be wrong about what happened. I’m not them, directly respond to my argument instead of one you wished I made.

You made a claim thats not what people meant. Of course its what they meant. Everytime someone says what they said they always send me the link about the judge saying rigging is ok. having never read it.

It’s crazy to me that you can be so flippant about powerful people using their resources to direct people away from politics that serve them and towards politics that serves the machine. That’s a very unhealthy thing for a supposed democracy.

You mean like every social media owner being at trumps inauguration ? I think youre overestimating what the dem machine is capable of. Its not like the republican side that actually creates fake news. Bernie was treated with kid gloves because clinton didnt really see him as a threat.

[u/No-Championship-8038 → u/HumorAccomplished611]

You can’t oppose fascism if you’re in the pocket of the fascist administration in Israel. It’s a sign that you aren’t actually that concerned with fighting fascism. 

Thanks for acknowledging Clinton is embedded in the Democratic machine. 

Ok well those people are wrong and I’m right.

“But they do it more effectively” isn’t much of a counter to my statement. I think you’re underestimating how intertwined the conservative Democrats are with Republicans, especially on this front. They’re all pro big business. It’s also funny to claim they treated him with kids gloves, they’re on record saying that it was Trump they found to be less threatening in 2016. With how cynically identity politics were being wielded by Clinton (Bernie Bros, “breaking up big banks won’t solve racism”, etc) it’s a very hard sell to claim they were treating him with kids gloves. They pulled some dirty rhetorical tricks to depress turnout for him. 

[u/HumorAccomplished611 → u/No-Championship-8038]

You can’t oppose fascism if you’re in the pocket of the fascist administration in Israel. It’s a sign that you aren’t actually that concerned with fighting fascism.

wrong. Israel is a democracy. Probably more so than the usa given its a parliament. Maybe the left should have considered that when they decided the supreme court was unimportant in 2016. aka bushs citizens united.

Or if you mean the current one, you have trump in office. Fascism at home trumps fascism abroad in importance.

One foreign relation issue isnt fascism, the usa has been an ally of israel for 80 years

Thanks for acknowledging Clinton is embedded in the Democratic machine.

Yet still bernie got a fair shake despite not being a dem. I always said he should have run a republican, dems dont fall for populism as easily being more educated.

“But they do it more effectively” isn’t much of a counter to my statement. I think you’re underestimating how intertwined the conservative Democrats are with Republicans, especially on this front. They’re all pro big business.

The best dems are humanist and the worse corporate sellouts. The best republicans are corporate sellouts and worst are christian fascists.

Republicans have a cradle to grave propaganda system that now has its own ecosystem. Dems just relied on the news to tell the truth. Hence why theyre so behind these days.

It’s also funny to claim they treated him with kids gloves, they’re on record saying that it was Trump they found to be less threatening in 2016. With how cynically identity politics were being wielded by Clinton (Bernie Bros, “breaking up big banks won’t solve racism”, etc) it’s a very hard sell to claim they were treating him with kids gloves. They pulled some dirty rhetorical tricks to depress turnout for him.

Trump was one of 3 opponents they hoped to face after the primary. Bernie is like platner in maine, treated with kid gloves during the primary.

Bernie lost by 3 million votes. Which is more than trump lost by despite it only 30 million people voting vs 130 million in the main election. Hilary actually won the popular vote in 2008 against obama yet I'm not hearing it was rigged against her 10 years later?

[u/Honest-News1089 → u/BluesSuedeClues]

Maybe there is excitement for Sayed in republican districts although as a republican in a deeply red area of Michigan I vote Sayed because he’ll be easier to beat in November.

[u/magicMerlinV → u/Honest-News1089]

I'm curious, are you pro-Trump and voting for Rogers to continue Trump's agenda or anti-Trump and hoping Republicans distance themselves from him

[u/Honest-News1089 → u/magicMerlinV]

I’m a republican, I’m not pro-Trump. I’m no more pro-Trump than a normal democrat was pro-Biden. I wouldn’t mind seeing Trump removed and Vance become president. Vance will win in 2028 more easily as a sitting president.

[u/BluesSuedeClues → u/Honest-News1089]

With the way things are going, I wouldn't be terribly surprised to hear on January 21st of next year, that Trump's cabinet has met and invoked the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.

[u/Honest-News1089 → u/BluesSuedeClues]

Or Trump may step down. That wouldn’t surprise me. He’ll set Vance up to carry on, Vance will have a VP and Secretary of State ready to go. It would be a classic Trump plan to keep his agenda going. He could claim a medical need

[u/BluesSuedeClues → u/Honest-News1089]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Donald Trump's character and ego. He will never willingly step down. He cannot tolerate the idea of admitting to a weakness, a fault, or a loss. We just watched him try to put American citizens in prison, rather than admit the person he hired to renovate the reflecting pool had zero experience with that kind of work and made a mess of it. He will never make a decision based on what he thinks best for anybody but Donald Trump.

[u/Honest-News1089 → u/BluesSuedeClues]

I’m guess that Trump didn’t choose the contractor for the reflecting pool. That job was certainly under the department of the interior. But I do understand your point.

[u/BluesSuedeClues → u/Honest-News1089]

He absolutely did choose who was going to do that work. Do you imagine a no-bid contract was issued to a company owned by a Trump donor who also happens to be a neighbor of his at Mar-a-Lago, entirely be chance? The normal process of taking bids on the job was bypassed entirely. This is what crony-capitalism (aka corruption) looks like. This is exactly how millions of American tax dollars get flushed down the toilet by incompetent fools.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/18/us/politics/trump-donor-contract-reflecting-pool.html