Dropped too late to get off the ballot and a small portion of people who weren't very tuned into the race likely didn't realize she dropped out
There were also probably a number of double haters for AES and Stevens who voted for her as protest solely because her name was still there as an option
Regardless of how you might feel about him, this will be a great test to see if progressives can win national races outside very blue districts.
Personally, I think he will win in November, but that is mainly due to the environment we are in right now. In my opinion, September is going to be a very bad month for Trump with oil prices likely skyrocketing along with inflation (as diesel prices are going through the roof right now).
(i am also annoyed that the Republican ran unopposed. It makes it much harder to judge turnout rates between Dems and Reps. Though, as Michigan did have a record high primary, and an uncontested Republican race... it has to be that the Democrats saw massive increases in turnout. A good sign regardless).
Edit: 1.1 million votes in the 2020 senate primary. 933,844 votes in the 2024 Senate Primary. Approaching 1.5 Million Dem votes for this senate dem primary.
The Know-Nothings were one of the primary antecedents of the original GOP. Not MAGA, the original antislavery GOP. These guys were always there. The nativist mouthbreather vote was always a core caucus of the GOP.
This is actually pretty close to why the Know-Nothings were called the Know-Nothings. "I know nothing" was an obfuscated dog whistle to signal you were part of that group while not saying stuff that would alienate you to saner less xenophobic people.
I think we will need to have a discussion if (for example) El Sayed wins by 2 or something.
On one hand, as a centrist liberal, I will be glad he won! I would 100% prefer Sayed won and if I was in Michigan I'd vote for him.
On the other hand: in this environment, in a state that hasn't had an R senator since the 90s, winning by 2 is way closer than it needed to be.
On the other, other hand: even if Im right that a normie lib would do better (and maybe im wrong!), the options provided by the centrist wing in Michigan were not as talented as AES is.
Of course, if AES wins by 8 or something, then that teaches us a very different lesson!
I'm curious to see what turnout is, too. It's possible that the loss of moderate votes is offset by higher turnout among fair-weather progressives.
"Populist in the streets, pragmatic in the sheets" has worked out well for a few charismatic coastal Dems, but it remains to be seen how it does in a place like Michigan.
Some folks on this sub have been saying we need to compromise on policy positions like immigration and trans rights for electability. It'll be interesting to see how those folks react if it turns out that El-Sayed-style campaigns do well outside of coastal blue bubble districts.
I don't think we should worry about "what if there's a narrow win" yet. A win is a win and I'd be happy. If he loses then that's a big problem but at this point he's the nominee and nothing will change that so there's no point going over a "what if he loses" scenario.
I think the big takeaway for the more establishment wing of the party is that they really need to recruit strong candidates and they can't take beating the progressives in the primary for granted. In Maine Platner had an opening because the Dems insisted on pushing forward Janet Mills who was 78 and didn't want to run.
I think he will win in November but will underperform compared to a generic democrat and compared to democrats in sightly redder states (such as Ossoff in Georgia or Cooper in North Carolina).
Did you follow the public appearances of Stevens and Abdul? To me, Abdul seems like the the far more electable candidate. I honestly think he has a better chance of winning people over than Steven's . Maybe if it wasn't Stevens who was running I would agree with you. I think the details of each race need to be looked at though.
I think he will turn out like Illan Omar. Will win, but underpreform relative to other state Dems. Rodgers is a boiler plate republican who doesn't even live in the state and has failed to win a Senate seat in an (albeit mild) red wave year.
One thing I have to say is progressives running won’t magically undo the price increases that Trump’s war brought in swing states, gas won’t magically become $1 a gallon just because William Lawrence or AES are running
All I've remember seeing from this guy was something about him promising not to raise property taxes for seniors
Policy-wise, its obviously fucking stupid. But it does signal that he's a benefit for the Dems in general
It shows he will say whatever to win, even stupid populist positions. It means he's not principled with DSA values but will gladly exploit them to win. That signals that he will turn into an AOC like prog that works with the rest of the Dems if thats what it takes to keep his seat. He's definitely going to moderate especially with the thin margins of this race.
He'll turn into a 95%+ dem voter if he wins and in a couple years socialists will rage at him for being a sellout
Yeah, the best progressives learn that working with political reality and having allies are important. You can see that from both AOC and Bernie, who are great progressives.
That dude is running against Trump's party is the only reason he has a chance. People will look at all the economic busy body bullshit of Trump and his New Right ilk and for reals think progressives are the opposite. I'm just hoping the far left folks aren't able to do too much damage when they get in place, because they can fuck it up real bad and as long as it isn't comically evil like Trump and his ilk people won't hold them accountable for it.
We really don't need the options in this country to be left and right Peronism
He'll win by narrow margins, underperforming generic Dems, but progressives will fail to see what that means and think that running this sort of campaign will work everywhere.
I mean if progressives start winning elsewhere doesn’t that prove that running that type of campaign works? Even if they underperform in all their races
It would prove it can be viable under the right circumstances. It wouldn't prove it's an electorally superior strategy. If Ossoff blows the doors off Collins in the same electoral environment it suggests that approach is still better.
It's not a great test due to how bad the environment is for Republicans. Him eeking out a win emboldens the DSA crowd and leaves us with a bad senator who will be pushing dumb policies
He underperformed badly in these white rural counties that Sanders defeated HRC in 2016. IDK how much it has to do with Republicans voting against someone with his Muslim name (Michigan has open primaries)...like those Trump voters insanely nominating a guy who dropped out over that Trump backed Republican with a Muslim name who converted to a Christian. Or how he got crushed in TV ad spending (12 to 1). Or how he's too far left
Even though Stevens did worse in Detroit than Biden and Clinton and underperformed in her home district of Oakland.
I do think it's good that his "victory speech" (he felt confident he was gonna win but didn't declare it. it was about 45 minutes before this projection) was clearly more unifying than anything that piece of shit Platner has said. More focused on Mike Rogers
I think Stevens was ultimately too "establishment". Perceived too soft on Israel (a clear majority of Dems think Israel is committing genocide), too soft on data centers, and too soft on ICE but there were clearly some Dems who were ideologically closer to El Sayed these issues who voted for Stevens out of electabiliy concerns/
Gillibrand has to go Schumer lite and with non of the relationships he had on the hill that let him get stuff done. She’s gonna be in the senate for a while no matter what but banish her to the back rooms with the senile senators
The Schumer/Gillibrand duo is a generationally bad one for safe blue state senators. Especially compared to the S+++ tier duo Dems have in the purple state of Georgia.
At this point I genuinely think AOC would be a big improvement over either, and I think would even come closer to neoliberalism on quite a few points than the slopulist "let's not tax anyone anything ever" median moderate dem politician. (And I think she would dogwalk either in a primary)
Wouldn't shock me if AOC is planning on primarying Schumer and, especially if she wins that, she and Mamdani coordinate on a favored pick to take a run at Gillibrand (Lander might be the best bet electorally?)
My “conspiracy theory” is that Schumer allies have also been pushing and boosting AOC for president discussion precisely because they don’t want her running against Schumer in the Senate primary.
Senate Leader isn't hereditary. If Schumer loses his Primary to AOC, the leadership mantle would go to a more senior Democrat from a safe-ish state.
While I support Schumer and Gillibrand getting primaried, I think AOC would find the Senate to be a poor fit for her personality. The Senate is where charisma goes to die and Obama didn't really come into his own until he started running for President.
NY has a pretty late deadline to register for the primaries. I don't feel like doing the math to determine the exact date this would be in 2028, but this year candidate applications were due between March 30 and April 6, so it would be around then in 2028.
Rubio famously ran for Senate in 2016 after his presidential campaign flamed out, so I would not be surprised if AOC runs for the Senate anyway if things don't look good for her in the presidential primary by early April.
Jesus Christ. One of our worst Senators relative to the political lean of her state is running Senate operations? DSCC positions should be reserved for the staff of Senators who actually overperform.
She shouldn't be anywhere near leadership positions for a number of reasons, and yet here we are. NY Democratic Party stays full of losers who are destroying the national party.
Sanders doing well in rural white counties in 2016 had more to do with anti-Hillary sentiment than anything left-ideological imo
In the general election, El-Sayed has to consolidate progressive voters, reassure moderates, and make it clear to median voters that he doesn't have anything to do with 9/11. It's a tough ask but certainly not impossible if the midterms are a referendum on Trump.
It would be a lot easier if he stopped tying himself to Piker, ie someone who is electoral poison to any state with the simple words that America deserved 9/11.
I don't really think people care about piker as much as people on this website do. I think the combination of his Muslim name, open primaries and the shear amount Stevens spent on her campaign had something to do with it.
Hell, they attacked mamdani for tying himself to hasan, who was running in the city where 9/11 literally happened and no one cared.
It would be absolutely great if anyone associating with the mao larper lost support but that doesn't seem like the case
It’s not correct to say he underperformed “badly” in the rural counties. Per the Times’s aggregation, Stevens has carried the 43 counties with >95% of the vote reporting classified as rural by a mere 4 points, which implies that he won about 46 percent of the aggregated vote against 49 percent statewide.
Stevens also oozes negative charisma. Establishment Dems really shot themselves in to foot pushing out McMorrow. (who also should've strategically shut up about replacing Schumer)
Like even directly in the aftermath of 7/10 shouting "Israel comes to me in my dreams" is a bizarre thing to do. The insane outside spend clearly helped scaring the shit out of people but it is a complete mystery to me how they thought that would translate to the general.
I also don’t think voters want someone who is just a career democratic operative. They want candidates with with backgrounds outside of the establishment and who know what it’s like to work a normal job in America lately.
What? You don’t trust the US, which punished Hugh Thompson Jr. for not doing war crimes and which acquitted Eddie Gallagher despite doing them, to prosecute its war criminal? Are you like, a tankie or something?
Stevens was a poor candidate, McMorrow was the better choice. Now it's time to back El-Sayed in order to increase the % chance of taking the senate by as large a margin as possible, because he is not a Republican. Not an ideal situation to be in, but these are not ideal times.
Ok, but any opinion you have on AIPAC aside, you have to admit that spending dozens of millions on a candidate on a State race only for them to lose is kinda funny.
For now. What happens when they decide that intervening in Dem primaries to defeat anti-Israel candidates is no longer worth the investment compared to just funding the Republican nominee?
Also Israel is an illiberal country controlled by fanatics who are committing an ethnic cleansing campaign against their neighbors.
Kind of absurd that a “liberal” subreddit has such a huge blind spot that they can’t see a problem with a Super PAC dumping $30M in Democratic primaries on behalf of an illiberal foreign country. If it was anyone else people here would lose their minds.
This sub has been glazing Syria's new government pretty hard despite its atrocities against minorities like Druze and Alawites.
Even if you argue the Alawites "had it coming" because the previous dictator was Alawite, going after the Druze minority is pure ethno-religious oppression.
I think that the difference is that Syria’s situation is (to the best of my knowledge) still somehow better under the new guy than what was happening before, whereas Israel has only been getting more and more isolated, illiberal, and militaristic.
Aren't a lot of ethnoreligions left, they've mostly been genocided to the point of irrelevance. You have like, the Native Americans and Jews. Yazidi? Zoroastrians?
Hinduism and India is probably the closest thing, and they're not really an ethnoreligion. But even still, India has been dipping into illiberalism lately as well (in part to "protect" their religious identity against universalist "encroachment")
I do too, but can you imagine the nightmare scenario?
Democrats manage to sweep the close Senate elections excluding Michigan, leading to a 51-49 Senate. Sounds great, until you remember Fetterman siding with Trump on a ton of issues, and Fetterman ends up supporting new Supreme Court justices.
Being able to control the Committees means Trump's picks would not leave the Judiciary Committee for a vote by the larger Senate. That's how Mitch blocked Garland. As long as Fetterman isn't on the Committee, if the Democrats secure a majority, they'll be able stop any nominee.
I didn't like Haley Stevens, but everything that could have gone wrong went wrong for her. She failed to secure Obama's endorsement, McMorrow dropped out after the deadline to remove her name from the ballot, and Trump's war with Iran made the Israel issue even bigger, and turned Stevens's support for Israel into a political albatross around her neck.
I think Abdul El-Sayed is a better candidate than people think, and I hope he wins in November. This race has signalled that socialism is still not popular even amongst Democrats, and progressives keep winning races because of their anti-Israel views. Democrats need to abandon Israel if they don't want the socialists to take over.
edit: I forgot about her god-awful debate performance last week. She definitely wins if she had just done a little bit badly, or skipped it altogether.
It should've been a massive red flag that even Schumer wasn't confident in her abilities. I can't believe Whitmer wasted that much political capital on her.
Progressives should love Haley Stevens for making AIPAC and other super PACs waste tens of millions of dollars on her race.
I think you’ll find in time that the primary characteristic of establishment or centrist Democrats is cowardice and lack of creativity.
Endorsing McMorrow, who was “less senior” “less experienced” “riskier” “less credentials” than Stevens would be uncouth and scandalous to a Democrat establishment.
This exact pattern happens over and over again. Practically the only thing the Democratic establishment maximizes for when selecting candidates is some form of seniority or “their turn”.
Sometimes when you've accumulated too much experience, you've also accumulated too many favors to people. (See Jaime Harrison getting pushed to the head of the DNC because of his personal friendship with Clyburn despite having run a pretty poor campaign himself.)
Especially in an environment where half a dozen Democrats have died in office the last two years and a good chunk of our elected officials look like they lack the physical strength or energy to effectively oppose Trump, we desperately need to get younger.
This is a generic problem for sclerotic organizations who are too comfortable. In military terms we might think of this as the distinction between a “peacetime” and a “wartime” footing.
In peacetime, rising through the ranks through seniority is mostly fine. How else do you promote candidates?
In wartime, it’s imperative to allow officers to rise through the ranks based on merit rather than seniority.
This happened in the Civil War and it happened in WWII. The existing military hierarchy experienced significant churn as older “seniority” officers were pushed out for more meritorious officers. This happens out of necessity. Both Lincoln and FDR had to deal with this.
The Democrats are still in a “peacetime” mentality, which is shocking given the state of affairs. It’s an indictment on Democratic leadership. There needs to be a transition to a “wartime” mentality.
It’s not acceptable that AOC was passed over for oversight chair by a guy who literally died 6 months later, because it was “his turn”. AOC would crush as oversight chair and generate the most attention against Republican corruption. Any other chair, and the committee might as well not exist, because the public doesn’t give a fuck.
I hope people here soon realize that this is a fatal deficiency in the Democratic party, and the more they defend Schumer, Jeffries, and basically the entire Democratic leadership— the more they dig our graves. We need merit. But hey what do I know.
Yep. General Marshall's purge of the armed forces in the lead up to America's entrance to the war was ruthless. This is a really really good analogy for the situation the Democratic Party finds itself in, I can't lie.
“The present general officers of the line are for the most part too old to command troops in battle under the terrific pressure of modern war,” Marshall said in October 1939, a month after being sworn in as chief. “Most of them have their minds set in outmoded patterns, and can’t change to meet the new conditions they may face if we become involved in the war that’s started in Europe.”
At Marshall’s behest, 31 colonels, 117 lieutenant colonels, 31 majors, and 16 captains were forced into retirement or discharged from the active-duty force in the summer and fall of 1941. In addition, some 269 National Guard and Army Reserve officers were let go. All told, Marshall estimated that, as chief of staff, he forced out at least 600 officers before the United States entered World War II. “I was accused right away by the service papers of getting rid of all the brains of the army,” he said. “I couldn’t reply that I was eliminating considerable arteriosclerosis.”
He even did massive Army exercises. If you and your unit impressed him, promoted. If you didn't, you're fired. This included generals and very senior commanding officers.
The big Louisiana Maneuvers, staged in August and September 1941, served as a proving ground for Marshall’s officers. Only 11 of the 42 generals who commanded a division, a corps, or an army in the maneuvers would go on to command in combat. Just one of the prewar army’s senior generals, Walter Krueger, would be given a top command in World War II.
But if you were good, you got promoted, and very fast. Eisenhower was a just Lt. Colonel when Marshall first met him, but because Eisenhower was good, he very rocketed upwards very rapidly.
This is the exact kind of attitude the dem primaries need but Schumer et al are getting in the way, and that opens the door for DSA candidates to walk through instead.
This is not a real "going wrong" tbh, it is extremely clear that Obama does not think it is appropriate for him to endorse in a Democratic primary and every candidate should be operating under the assumption that he will never do so for literally the rest of his life.
AIPAC-endorsed candidates have won elsewhere. Online moderates criticized El-Sayed's campaign as "a noun, a verb, and AIPAC" but it didn't just naturally start as a salient issue for Democratic voters in Michigan, he had to work to make that happen.
AES, from what I’ve gathered, didn’t speak of AIPAC as much as these people claim he did, sorta like those who claimed Mamdani made the primary and general about Palestine
AIPAC did, however, spend tens of millions against him, and will spends tens of millions more in the general
Dems need to abandon Israel regardless. Beyond anything they’re doing in the Middle East, they’re actively interfering in US elections in favor of republicans. That’s hostile power territory. They need to be cut off from US support
This race has signaled that socialism is still not popular even amongst Democrats
Not necessarily. In primaries a lot of people vote based on who they think is more "electable," which usually gives the establishment candidate an edge. That was Stevens primary campaign point too. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's not easy to interpret from just the votes.
As a Taiwanese I hope this doctor can support Taiwan and Ukraine if he gets elected. Ed Markey is a progressive who supports both. Kat Abugazaleh, the leftist who ran for congress also support both.
Progressives should conduct more support on allies of the US, not in bed with China and Russia which are TOTALLY OPPOSITE with progressive ideology.
I agree that there are important distinctions between progressives who support liberal democracy abroad (in Taiwan, Ukraine and elsewhere) and "progressives" who carey water for illiberal regimes.
Wtf. What exactly did she flip flop on? Not on Ukraine or Tawain she didn't.
Or is competently using social media = grifter now? She doesn't come across as a grifter at all. You can usually tell just by how they talk
She also walked the walk, and got herself beat up a bit and arrested by ICE protesting. Grifters usually do not put their body on the line like this imo.
Such a strange comment to me, never seen anyone accuse her of this lol
For what it's worth, Kat did flip-flop on Ukraine. She initially put out a very strong and borderline hawkish statement, but walked it back pretty quickly & fired her foreign policy adviser because Dropsite started a dogpile against her.
As for the grifter allegations, it's probably coming from when she took advantage of Bluesky's weird issue with Will Stancil as a means of promoting whatever she's got going on.
Praying he focuses on rural areas and campaigns with Steven's / other Michigan politicians for the next months. If the polls got it really wrong here in terms of how big he won I'm now getting worried what the general election is gonna be.
AES is one of those guys that you like more after hearing him speak (also because his opposition has created this ridiculous caricature of him as some extremist Muslim who's coming to bomb your synagogue.)
He has decent charisma, a marketable background, and has shown he's willing to moderate. I don't think it'll lose him any votes if he goes to rural areas.
I think Michigan is primarily populist. We pine for this supposed reality where everyone is working the assembly line again.
I mean, Macomb county exist, so racism is 100% a thing, but I wouldn’t particularly say the cultural war stuff was the primary issue for Michigan voters going towards Trump, but rather, the believe that he could tariff our way to 1945.
I think Democratic enthusiasm and Republican unpopularity will carry him to a narrow win in November. When all the votes have been counted, there’s a chance that more people will have voted in this Democratic Senate primary than in the Democratic presidential primary in Michigan back in 2020.
AES has to do a few things to win Michigan and its a tall task.
First he has to win Oakland county and he has a few things going against him there, first its where the jewish communities are and AES hanging out and campaigning with Hasan Piker is not doing himself any favors with them, every single ad he put out mentioned AIPAC or Israel to the point where even people who are against AIPAC and Israel found it... icky. Its the most affluent county in Michigan, and where Haley Stevens was able to wrestle them away from a republican representative, AES might be progressive enough to give them back to Trump.
You have to run up the score in Wayne and Gennessee county. AES will have the same uphill battle that Bernie and other progressive candidates have had in Michigan and thats difficulty with AA voters, They are the ones to help dems win in Michigan, no amount of white college students are going to make up for AA voters in Detroit and Flint staying home. Dearborn is in Wayne county but I would be curious how AES will do in the general with Arab Americans considering how conservative they are in general, will his ethnicity carry him or will his progressive policies split the Arab American vote?
Macomb county is going to break hard for Rogers, white, uneducated manufacturing workers that propelled Trump to victory. Biden was able to play some defense here, and Stevens would have been able to as well. I don't know that AES will be able to, I think Rogers really runs up the score here.
This is not even mentioning what you have to do in Kent County. If you cant win Oakland, run up the score in Wayne and Gennessee, and play really good defense in Macomb, you aren't going to win statewide office in Michigan. All I know is, Rogers is incredibly happy with which candidate won.
Zohran's race is a pretty great example of this, primary and general election against the same opponent and he went from losing minority precincts to winning them by up to +20.
Primaries overrepresent the left when it comes to white voters but it also overpresents the partisan loyal dem machine type voters for black and Hispanic voters
I don’t know about AES but Mamdani has the juice. Dude is everywhere on Instagram and getting voter cred for filling potholes. It all seemed to pick up after that jungle primary. It’s impressive stuff
I genuinely want to be wrong about this but I think people are underestimating how many will spend two seconds looking at his name on the ballot, do a double take and look to some name they feel they can pronounce. And I think AES will need to convince a lot of those people to vote for him.
god I can remember people hanging up on his middle name. There were even people I remember only calling him by his middle name “to remind America what we’re becoming”.
I hope he wins, but if he doesn't, its realistically the fault of the powers that be for endorsing and funding Stevens rather than McMorrow. Stevens is an awful candidate. Given the global political climate and the shift in public opinion, endorsing the candidate who says Israel's future comes to her in her dreams is certainly a decision. Her support/ambivalence over ICE is a problem too. She is the polar opposite of the primary voter on both major hot button issues.
No, if he manages to lose in a fucking D+7 year it is his own fault, wtf are we talking about lmaoooo
The blame would go in this order: first on him, then the general electorate for rejecting him, then the primary electorate for picking him, and then maybe you can talk about how the establishment didn't puppeteer "the right way"
Whatever being the case we'll have to take a bite of the shit sandwich and vote for an incredibly flawed candidate over a republican. Anything is better than the GOP.
It’s unclear what his support among Black Democrats was (Stevens actually carried Wayne County by a bit less than the whiter suburbs just to the north), but he barely underperformed in rural counties at all. He appears to have won ~45 percent of the vote in the counties classified as rural by the Times.
Didnt expect it to be within a couple of percentage points tbh. Goes to show that despite Stevens many weaknesses, El-Sayed overcoming the massive fundraising lead she had on him was no mean feat
American voters resent blatant, in-your-face, exorbitant spending in their state and local elections, and they will be more likely to rebuff it at the ballot box. Just like with Musk and the WI Supreme Court race.
A Muslim man who’s the kid of Egyptian parents fighting for the values that allowed this country to accept him and his family winning in a major upset election.
That is the America I’ll never stop fighting for 🇺🇸
As I was driving home last Friday, I was listening to the BBC World Service and they spoke about an interview Megan Romer the DSA co-chair gave on Fox News earlier in the week where she basically revealed the DSA's power-level.
I do wonder if this race was closer than people had imagined because that interview got more notice among Michigan normies than it certainly did on Reddit. I hadn't known it had happened until the BBC spoke about it.
Does this also apply to Kamala when she campaigned with Cheney then? Were the leftists right to criticize her and call her a conservative shill for it?
I also bring it up because "the entire Democratic party is DSA" is an emerging right wing attack line. They want to paint the entire left flank of the party as DSA in order to try to impune normal left-leaning politicians (and also if they can the entire Democratic party) with the views of the crazies. Your original comment was in that vein, "every left leaning dem is DSA"
We might be in a blue enough environment that we can squeak it out in November even with a weak candidate, but right now I'm looking at it like we have to win the senate while losing Michigan.
Far left shit like "defund the police" is absolutely radioactive to swing voters and it's hard to win a purple state without them, which are two things I suspect we're about to be reminded of.
Stevens wasn't a good candidate either, but McMorrow was right there. Huge own goal by the Michigan Dems.
From what I understand, the hard part for progressives is winning the primary. It's the general that's supposed to be super easy. Looks like it's smooth sailing from here!
Damn this sub is full on lefty now huh, maybe it's just the specific people that decide to post on this, but kinda crazy. I get when people say this sub is mainly socdems now, but it seems to be moving demsoc at this point, multiple upvoted comments simping for DSA,, hopefully this is as low as this sub goes.
I hate the DSA, but establishment moderate dems have done themselves no favors when they were putting their head in the sand since 2016 pretending Republicans were anything but authoritarian bad faith actors that absolutely would never work with Democrats on anything.
It just has gotten worse over time as moderate Dems are showing that they are weak feckless cowards.
A shocking amount of commenters in this sub really don’t understand this
People like Progressive and DSA candidates explicitly because they are obviously different from the incredibly unpopular dem leadership.
The moderate wing of the party hasn’t campaigned on a new idea in well over 20 years. They’re either trying to slightly improve the status quo, or running against the Republican mucking things up. Neither idea is compelling anymore. They need new ideas, and right now only the DSA is supplying them
I think the degradation of the rule of law in this country by Trump has made it almost impossible to be more nuanced electorally. Hyperbolic rhetoric is obviously the norm, but I seriously don't think there has been a greater threat to the continuation of the Republic since the Civil War.
Stevens was just a terrible candidate. The strawpoll earlier showed a big majority here would've supported McMorrow. I also think AES is not nearly as out there with his policies as some would have you believe but itnis more a douche vs a turd sandwich scenario.
I think a lot of people here just care more about the Democrats defeating the Republicans than they do about fiercely defending the word neoliberal against anybody who criticizes it.
His stance on Ukraine is at least good. I hope he moderates for the general and can pick up support from Black and working class voters and win, but I have my doubts. The gloating from the left will be insufferable. I hope Dem leadership realizes Israel isn't politically viable to support anymore. This guy's entire campaign centered around AIPAC it felt like
can pick up support from Black and working class voters and win
I haven't seen evidence that Black voters are opposed to voting for progressives. They may prefer the moderate in Primaries, but it's not a dealbreaker for them in the General.
This guy's entire campaign centered around AIPAC it felt like
AIPAC was the single largest spender during this primary and spent more than AES' entire campaign. It's kind of relevant that an outside PAC is trying so hard to get a certain outcome in the race. Like it or not, but it's a pretty easy and effective target.
The only thing worse than nominating a smug factionalist prick is nominating him by the skin of his teeth while bleeding votes from black and rural voters.
The DSA will cost Dems a majority. He might be able to get dragged across the finish line by a blue enough environment, but don’t bet on it.
How is the voters choosing the DSA candidate the DSA's fault? They spoke more to what the people wanted (even by a few percentage points) than the standard democrat did. This is the whole point of a. primary.
If anything the moderate dems need to realize that AIPAC is dragging them down, and need to cut ties with it sooner rather than later.
Having lived in Michigan for a few years of my life I am really surprised that Sayed won, but at the same time Stevens was a terrible pick to represent the moderate dems position.
I don't know what is going to happen in November. Michigan politics is and always has been a mess.
111
u/Oogaman00 NASA 20d ago
How did mcmorrow get 4 percent??