In six days, Michigan's U.S. Senate Democratic primary will be over. Ha! Who am I fooling? It will never be over, because regardless of who wins, the outcome of this primary will cue recrimination, blame and a mad scramble to herd Democrats into some semblance of a coalition before the Nov. 3 general election.
Does your head hurt? Mine does, all the time.
U.S. Rep Haley Stevens, D-Birmingham, and former public health administrator Abdul El-Sayed are vying for a spot on the fall ballot against former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, running in the Republican primary with only nominal opposition. A third candidate, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, left the race on July 5.
This is the most unnecessarily expensive, nasty race I can recall in a long time, and I've got a few things to say about it.
Michigan's U.S. Senate race doesn't have to be an existential crisis for Democrats
Hear this: As U.S. Senators, Haley Stevens and Abdul El-Sayed would cast identical votes 98% of the time.
Coverage of the candidates' policy positions has centered on their differences, some of which aren't very: El-Sayed wants single-payer Medicare for All and a public option, while Stevens favors expanding Affordable Care Act subsidies ... and a public option. (Rogers, in the meantime, voted against the ACA during his previous tenure in the U.S. House, and in recent remarks has said wants to end no-cost coverage for preventative care suggested that sick people should pay higher premiums.) El-Sayed believes U.S. Customs and Immigrations Enforcement should be abolished; Stevens believes it should be significantly restructured, and defunded while President Donald Trump holds office. (Rogers is staunchly pro-ICE.)
The candidates' greatest area of significant difference is America's relationship with Israel: El-Sayed calls Israel's military assault on Gaza a genocide, and says he would vote to end arms sales to Israel. Stevens voted in favor of unconditional support for Israel. Hamas' Oct. 7 attack on Israel was an atrocity. So is Israel's ongoing military offensive, which has claimed more than 70,000 lives, with the vast majority, reportedly, civilians. The conflict carries great moral weight, but politically, tends to rank lower among Michigan voters’ concerns.
On nearly everything else ‒ voting rights, civil rights, LGBTQ+ rights, abortion rights, climate change, the list goes on ‒ Stevens and El-Sayed are in lockstep.
El-Sayed's most serious miscalibration
The passion of El-Sayed's opposition to the horrors wrought by Israel in Gaza, against the influence of money in our politics and to the inequities of our health care system is plain, and he's not wrong to campaign on a vast re-envisioning of these things. But in his urgency to connect with young or low-propensity voters and differentiate himself from his less voluble opponents, El-Sayed has been careless.
Like campaigning with streamer Hasan Piker, who has said Israelis are inbred and voiced support for Hamas; or when El-Sayed said, of an armed man who drove a car loaded with gasoline into a Jewish school after losing family in an Israeli airstrike on Gaza, "hurt people do hurt people," as though grief could explain an attempt to kill more than a hundred children.
As a result, some Jewish metro Detroiters are wary of El-Sayed's intentions. Some of those fears center more on who he is what he's said or done. But El-Sayed has undermined his standing with some Jewish voters who might otherwise find his platform persuasive ‒ even his push for restraint in U.S. support of Israel.
And he certainly hasn't done enough to corral his followers, who are raging across the internet with the heat of a thousand fiery suns. Stevens' support for Israel, in El-Sayed's narrative, means she favors genocide; he's likewise very clear that politicians who take campaign contributions from corporate political action committees are bereft of moral compass, beneath contempt. It's a construction that legitimizes nearly any sort of attack.
A weak statement late this month urging his followers to stop mocking Stevens' accent and appearance is a case in point. Supporters in the comments made just that case: If Stevens is a genocidal corporate shill, all bets are off.
El-Sayed is a thoughtful person with a gift for communication, and for breaking down complex arguments into points that aren't simply motivational, but actionable. But in this, he's miscalibrated. It may cost him the election; it's definitely cost him with some Michiganders who deserve better.
Stevens' most confounding decision
In direct fundraising, Stevens and El-Sayed (and McMorrow, for that matter) are in spitting distance of each other. In the last reporting period, El-Sayed outraised Stevens, with a cumulative $14 million to her $11 million.
But the tally of outside groups spending money to support Stevens has topped an unbelievable $52 million, compared to $4 million for El-Sayed. Stevens has a $12-to-$1 spending advantage, with the lion's share coming from the United Democracy Project, aligned with AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Another big-spending group, A Stronger Michigan, hasn't disclosed its donors.
Much has been made of AIPAC's influence in this race. But the particular cause of the PAC shoveling money into our elections is nearly immaterial. An outside group has pushed ‒ let's say this again ‒ $52 million into our U.S. Senate primary. That AIPAC and its affiliated groups don't lobby on the issues most Michiganders rate as top priorities is just icing on the cake.
I have a more nuanced understanding of money's role in our elections than El-Sayed. I don't believe, for example, that Right to Life of Michigan convinces naturally pro-choice lawmakers to become anti-abortion rights with a few thousand here or there; instead, such groups identify candidates with an affinity for the cause and work first to elect them, then keep them in office.
Stevens tends to dodge questions about this influx of cash. Still, it's likely that her concern for Israel is genuine, despite telling the Free Press Editorial Board last month that if she were Israeli, she would not vote for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
But it's difficult to argue that cash doesn't come with strings when $52 million is on the table.
It's an obscene amount of money. It weakens Stevens' case for her own electability. And it adds gravity to El-Sayed's dire warnings about campaign contributions.
If Stevens is successful in the primary, it will be difficult for her to argue that she won on merit. This outsized spending makes the primary a referendum not on candidates' policies or theories of politics, but how cash can warp our democracy.
Stevens ought to know better.
Nancy Kaffer is the editorial page editor of the Detroit Free Press. Submit a letter to the editor at freep.com/letters, and we may publish it in print or online.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Michigan's U.S. Senate primary is ugly and expensive | Opinion
