Haley Stevens

In the 26 years I've covered Michigan politics, the conventional wisdom has rarely changed: Elections here are decided not by loyal Democrats and Republicans, but independents who favor moderate candidates and whose votes are up for grabs in every election cycle. Progressives have influenced Michigan politics, but outside of a few deep blue enclaves, have rarely won significant victories. The safe, electable choice ‒ for Democrats, at least ‒ is a moderate who can hold the base while winning swing voters.

For a decade, progressives have argued that the conventional wisdom was flawed, pointing to Trump's wins here in 2016 and 2024. Moderates counter with U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin, who won Michigan's 2024 open Senate seat in a red wave year by the thinnest of margins, and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's focus on dinner table issues and decisive wins at the ballot box.

In this year's Democratic U.S. Senate race, progressives finally have the match-up that could prove their case: In the Aug. 4 primary, voters will choose between moderate Haley Stevens, elected four times to the U.S. House of Representatives, and former public health administrator Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive whose only previous political experience was an unsuccessful 2018 run for governor. (State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, ideologically between Stevens and El-Sayed, ended her bid for the seat on July 5, crystallizing the moderate-versus-progressive primary narrative.)

Members of Stevens' and El-Sayed's camps are dug in, insisting that their candidate will roll through the primary and hold Michigan's U.S. Senate seat against likely Republican nominee Mike Rogers this fall.

Stevens has the traditional qualifications, legislative accomplishments and institutional support El-Sayed does not. But El-Sayed has something Stevens doesn't: The enthusiastic support of Michigan Dems who are angry at their party, frustrated with safe choices and tired of being told to vote with their heads, not their hearts.

How many of them? That’s the question.

Donald Trump's staggering unpopularity ‒ the president's approval rating hovers around 60% disapproval in most recent national polls ‒ has put control of the GOP-led Senate within Democrats' reach ‒ but not if the party loses Michigan, a state that hasn't sent a Republican to the U.S. Senate in 26 years.

Democrats writ large are in the midst of a political reset, and anyone who tells you they know how that's going to play out in Michigan is taking a real flyer.

But that's the neat thing about elections: We won't have to wonder long. In less than a month, we'll know whether El-Sayed and his progressive supporters can win a Democratic primary; three months after that, we'll know what kind of Democrat can win ‒ or lose ‒ a U.S. Senate seat.

This fight is not as ideological as it looks

Here's the crazy part: Stevens and El-Sayed may have different policy priorities, but they're more alike than different.

The pair differ most significantly over Israel, Gaza and continued U.S. support for Israel’s devastating military campaign there, which El-Sayed calls genocide. I’ve known El-Sayed for a decade and Stevens for nearly that; he’s not antisemitic, and she is not indifferent to civilian deaths.

They're both pro-choice, pro-voting rights, pro-LGBTQ+ rights. On health care, Stevens favors the extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies and a public option, while El-Sayed is for Medicare for All, but says he'd allow people to keep their private insurance. In other words, both believe Americans need more health care, and that government should pay for it. It's a difference of scale, not a vast moral chasm; Rogers, the likely Republican nominee, wants to eliminate some key provisions of the ACA, effectively restricting access to health care.

In El-Sayed's narrative, accepting a dime of corporate political action committee money renders a candidate ethically compromised; the reality of campaign spending and influence is more nuanced than in El-Sayed's telling, but it's a convenient argument, because Stevens' chief advantage is monetary ‒ and it resonates, because she's got a lot of it.

Stevens' institutional support has material value. As of last month, roughly $35 million in ads had been booked for Stevens, the tracker AdImpact reported, compared to $8.9 million for the departed McMorrow and $2.8 million for El-Sayed.

That sort of thing matters.

Stevens has money, but El-Sayed has momentum

Where the two differ most, as the kids have probably stopped saying, is vibes.

Stevens' strengths ‒ service in Congress, institutional support, moderate appeal ‒ are markers of an establishment progressives are ready to upend.

For El-Sayed, the traits that would make him vulnerable to GOP attacks in a general election ‒ he's a socialist-adjacent Muslim who's never held elected office ‒ resonate with a progressive bloc weary of caution and the status quo.

And here's where things get tricky again.

The question polls can't answer

Right now, this race is a black box. Most of the polling you've seen touted online is worthless, particularly the polls conducted by out-of-state outfits with dubious methodology ‒ if you get a text with a link to a poll, and you are able to forward that link to someone else, you cannot trust that poll's results.

One poll that showed El-Sayed leading in the primary and the general was conducted by the pollster who declared back in March that a majority of Detroiters want to sell Belle Isle to an eccentric billionaire. It's far from clear which way McMorrow's supporters will break.

The last really reliable polling in this race was in April, which in campaign terms was about eleventyjillion years ago.

It's far too early to say whether Stevens, and the Democratic establishment backing her, have misread the moment; and likewise, whether El-Sayed's support is a movement or a mirage.

The next reliable poll ‒ the only one that matters ‒ is on Aug. 4.