Michigan U.S. Senate- Race of the Day

 64 Days Until Election Day

Michigan U.S. Senate

Status: Democrat Open 

2024 Presidential Result: Red State (Midwest)

 

Outlook: Tossup (R)

 

For a party looking to take majority control of the Senate, Democrats should not have to be worrying about Michigan. For a party running against an extremely unpopular President, they should not have to worry about losing a seat they have held since the 1978 election. That is the position the party is in though. To be sure, a loss is far from certain, and a truly big national wave will probably deliver it to them, but it is far more of an uncertainty than it should otherwise be. Here is the crazy thing though. A lot of Democrat insiders and establishment types are probably at least kinda hoping they lose this election in November.

 

It came as somewhat of a surprise when Democrat Gary Peters announced he would not run for a third Senate term. While he had a tight battle in 2020, he likely would have been a heavy favorite to win in a midterm year. Suddenly, the window was at least opened to Republicans in a state that Donald Trump twice won, including in 2024. The party definitely had a large bench though of candidates to choose from to succeed Peters.

 

In the meantime, Republicans had a smaller bench and a lot of potential candidates were more focused on the open Gubernatorial election. Briefly, the name of former NFL coach Tony Dungy, an African-American noted for his Christian faith was mentioned as a possibility. He was a Michigan native but lives in Florida, although Florida resident former football coaches have won Senate elections in other states recently. Dungy would not run though and this cycle, at least nobody seemed to seriously hyping the possibility of a Ted Nugent or Kid Rock Senate bid.

 

There still was Mike Rogers though. He had served 14 years in Congress, starting in 2001 and had won some battleground races during that time. Rogers was an Army veteran and went on to become a special agent with the FBI. After he left Congress, he sometimes had criticism for the Trump Administration on issues related to national security, especially after he was considered but not selected to the FBI Director. Rogers was even mentioned as a potential 2024 Presidential candidate, as a traditional mainstream alternative. However, he went a different route that cycle and decided to embrace the dominance of Donald Trump in the Republican Party. In 2024, with Trump's endorsement, Rogers easily won a primary for U.S. Senate. For most of the general election, he was considered the underdog but wound up losing to Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin, a Jewish Democrat who also had national security credentials, by just about one point.  Trump had won the tossup state over Kamala Harris and even in defeat, Rogers had come closer than many expected. Slotkin was able to cross the finish line because she had strong support among moderates and received some crossover Trump votes.

 

In a 2026 midterm, conventional wisdom was that Rogers would have a tougher race if he tried again, even though close Senate races had become more normal in Michigan. The White House wanted him to run again as their best option and his one primary opponent, a MAGA backing African-American woman was disqualified from the ballot. Rogers took the Republican nomination again, this time without an opponent, in the August 4 primary. 

 

The real nomination action was on the side of the Democrats. Outgoing Governor Gretchen Whitmer, perhaps more focused on a future White House bid did not run, and perhaps thinking the same thing, neither did Pete Buttigieg, the former Transportation Secretary and one time South Bend, Indiana Mayor, who catapulted into national political relevance during a 2020 Presidential primary campaign. Joe Tate, an African-American State Representative who had just wrapped two years as Speaker, did get into the race. He had an impressive biography as a former NFL player who later served in Afghanistan as a Marine officer but only stayed in the race for a few months. Apparently, he struggled to raise money and endorsed another candidate soon after he exited. I would surmise that a lot of Democrats around the country might be happier today if he were now the nominee.

 

Three Democrats would compete for the nomination. A lot of progressive activists around the country were especially excited about State Senator Mallory McMorrow who from that post seemed to have a knack to make national headlines and was considered a strong communicator. One aspect involved her talking about having had a medical procedure (she was not pregnant) related to a birth control device that she said could have been deemed illegal amid all the issues surrounding the repeal of Roe v. Wade. 

 

Another candidate was Congresswoman Haley Stevens, who like Elissa Slotkin came to the U.S. House in 2019. She had worked in the Obama Administration on the auto industry bailout, an important issue in Michigan, and then returned to the state, after several years away, to seek office. In 2020, her first reelection was a competitive contest against a Republican and in 2022, redistricting threw her into a primary with a House colleague considered to her left. She won the battle by a hefty margin and then had an easier time in the next two general elections in a bluer district. Stevens was not exactly considered a smooth talker though, as compared to the more telegenic McMorrow. While such things should not matter in politics, it was noted that Stevens had gained some weight since joining Congress.

 

The third candidate, all of whom were under age 43, was Dr. Abdul El-Sayed. The son of Egyptian immigrants, he had a fairly all-American childhood and was a star athlete in High School and was a Rhodes Scholar.  While he received a medical degree, he never went through the process to practice medicine and entered into a career in the public health field, serving as the Health Director of Detroit and then Wayne County. In 2018, as a political unknown, he left that first post to run for Governor of Michigan. He would go on to raise a large amount of money and received many left-wing endorsements as he sought to become America's first Muslim Governor, in a state where Arab-Americans have more political influence than any other. He finished second in a three way primary and lost by 22 points, but his showing of 30 percent against a heavy favorite was impressive.

 

Upon becoming a Senate candidate in 2026, El-Sayed again won endorsements from the likes of Bernie Sanders and others on the left and became a highly popular figure among Muslim political activists. El-Sayed took a variety of liberal positions on domestic and social issues, but became perhaps most known for a very strong position critical of Israel, and even the right of the Jewish state to exist. In that regard, he resembled Zohran Mamdani, the young articulate Muslim-American politician, who came from seemingly nowhere to become New York City Mayor and a folk-hero for many on the left. It is definitely the case that support for Israel, which used to be a bipartisan agreement, has taken a major hit among Democrats in the aftermath of Israel's response to the terrorist attacks of Hamas. That is of course a very large issue that I will not take the time to get into here.

For months, it looked like the two female candidates, who had more traditional political backgrounds, could split the vote although a lot of people also doubted El-Sayed could ultimately be nominated. I was among those who thought it could happen and that if he was, it could be a politically negative situation for Democrats in advance of the general election. For most of this time, it appeared the candidacy of Congresswoman Stevens was stagnant. She became a figure of ridicule among many on the left for her speaking style, which some called "cringe." There was also a weird video of McMorrow trying to dance down a hallway at the state party convention (which was dominated by activist rhetoric in a way that made Jewish Democrats, including elected officials feel uncomfortable.) It seemed to me at least that if one of the two female candidates did not drop out, El-Sayed would win with a divided vote. For a time, it looked like Stevens might be the person in the third position, but she would eventually overtake McMorrow. With electability a concern, scores of establishment Democrats, including many in the black community offered their support to Stevens. Running now in third place, McMorrow would be the one to suspend her campaign in July. While she did not endorse a candidate, this was seen as a benefit for Stevens to consolidate the anti-El-Sayed vote, but it was too late for McMorrow's name to be removed from the primary ballot, and that would prove to be significant.

 

There could perhaps be a book written about the final weeks of the Stevens vs, El-Sayed primary battle. Stevens claimed she had momentum and continued to gain endorsements and also had a lot of money spent on her behalf by the pro-Israel AIPAC (which operated in this midterm cycle in various places under other names) and that became a focus of the campaign. The interplay between the two candidates became quite heated. At one point El-Sayed had to tell his supporters to stop making fun of Stevens' physical appearance, even as he himself mocked her speaking style. Stevens seemed to lean into her Midwest corniness such as a "stick it to 'em" viral moment, and won over a lot of people in that regard. In the final days though, the polls were showing a sizable advantage for El-Sayed and many thought the race was out of reach. Some national politicians, who were not completely associated with the left, would endorse him, perhaps sensing the writing on the wall.

 

Most went into Primary Night expecting El-Sayed to win the nomination with the ramifications for the general election about to begin, and that is what indeed happened. However, the race wound up being incredibly tight, as he edged out Stevens 48-48. The suspended candidacy of McMorrow took four percent. Had her name not been on the ballot, it is hard to argue that Stevens would not have won by at least a point or so. If the campaign had another week, Stevens might have won too, but the vote was the vote and Stevens would go on to graciously concede and endorse her once bitter rival, although she has not exactly denounced the concerns she had about electability. The fact of the matter in this primary was that polls were wrong (and some thing were altered deliberately so, which is a whole other conspiracy theory deal.) El-Sayed did not do well though with black voters in Detroit and he certainly did not do well in the rural parts of the state. Of course he did do well with Muslim voters and upscale white liberals, especially young people and their professors on college campuses. This all leads to a larger discussion, which will probably be held even more so, after the election, about divisions within the Democrats' party. The politicians furthest on the left who claim to be champions of the downtrodden are not doing as well in primaries among the voters who would perhaps be expected to be most susceptible to that message. The young white barista crowd loves them though. For his part, El-Sayed has said he is not a socialist, even though the Democratic Socialists of America took particular interest in supporting his candidacy. It certainly cannot be argued that he is to the left of any Democrat who has won statewide in Michigan.

 

Mike Rogers has the burden of running as the candidate of Donald Trump and that is definitely going to play a role in this race. However, Republicans are very interested in pushing the narrative that El-Sayed is the candidate of Hasan Piker, a controversial California online streamer whom El-Sayed campaigned with in the primary and is now trying to walk a line between distancing himself from and not totally denouncing, lest it offend so many of his primary voters. The litany on Piker is quite lengthy, from claiming America deserved 9/11 and other anti-American comments to numerous inflammatory statements about Israel and openly saying that he sided and sympathized with terrorist groups in conflict with Israel. Even Piker has admitted that the more Republicans talk about him in this race, the more of a problem that is for El-Sayed.

 

Let me say this. We are seeing from the White House down, a pretty despicable campaign to smear El-Sayed just for being a Muslim, such as using the formal version of his full name which sound even more Arabic. (My joke is that El-Sayed is Arabic of Sharron Angle "If you know, you know.") It is definitely true that nobody of that faith has ever won an election for Governor or U.S. Senate (the same for Hindu-Americans which will be another test case this cycle) and many Americans are definitely leery of such things as "Sharia Law."  The way these figures on the right are attacking the candidate are wrong and offend me as an American, and especially as a Jewish-American, who deplores all forms of religious bigotry.

 

Now having said that, El-Sayed is a completely unacceptable person and has himself availed himself of antisemitism for his political benefit. While he is not personally Hasan Piker, he showed horrible judgment by campaigning with Piker and by continuing to not cut all ties with him. I will easily compare Piker to far-right white nationalist podcaster Nick Fuentes (and they likely agree on Israel and "the Jews") and a Republican who would associate with someone like Fuentes and his ilk would never hear the end of it from the left. Now though, so many on the left, and even mainstream Democrats, are in a position of having to defend El-Sayed, and soft-pedal his association with Piker and other extreme figures, just because they want to win an election. There is so much hypocrisy involved, including of course on the right and among Republicans who have spent a decade trying to rationalize Donald Trump and the people in his orbit. 

 

El-Sayed is in many ways a talented politician, At times, he is very good at delivering his message, but he seems to also be full of hurbis and has shown an ability to let his cockiness cause political problems for himself. Recently, he brought up Usha Vance as a tool to attack her husband the Vice President, and that seemed unnecessary. He went on a tv show with an un-serious host on Fox News Channel and got baited to the extent that he seemed to defend the concept of underage transgender operations with the procedure of male circumcision, even asking Jesse Watters if he is himself circumcised. That was a self-own that distracts from whatever it is that El-Sayed wants to say about "Medicare for All" (it could be noted his wife is a physician who does not treat Medicare patients) or issues related to foreign policy, economic tariffs, or a White House ballroom that might get people to the polls in Michigan. I would not put it past El-Sayed to say several other problematic things before this campaign is over The candidate seems to realize that he may need to try to moderate his issue to some extent. This week, he went before Jewish Democrats in Michigan to apologize for comments he made a few months ago that seemed to rationalize a a thwarted attack by a Muslim man at a Detroit area Jewish synagogue full of young school children. It is good he apologized but one has to really wonder about what kind of person would ever say that to begin with. El-Sayed is definitely not backing down on his criticisms of Israel and claims of genocide. While he can claim to want peace and stability in the Middle East, it is hard to argue that the logic of his position is not in favor of a two-state solution but a one-state solution that does not include Israel, Of course that is very ironic for a candidate who is a social liberal. The views he has on those issues would be far less tolerated in a Palestinian state than in present-day Israel.

 

If I lived in Michigan, there is no way I could vote for Abdul El-Sayed, even as I want Democrats to take the Senate as a way to stand in the way of the horrors of the Trump Administration. Not in a million years could I vote for him. Does that mean I would vote for Trump embracing (even if disingenuous)  Mike Rogers? I would hope not but you know, if the race is close enough and I lived there, I might actually have to bite the bullet on that one. Neither man is belongs in the Senate. Nobody who accepts the support of Hasan Piker belongs in any office. I was rooting for Haley Stevens, who of course is well to my left also.

 

This is a very complicated general election to analyze. In a way, Rogers is a side player and it will come down to a referendum on El-Sayed It is interesting that Rogers, a pro-Israel Republican, is calling on AIPAC to not spend money on ads on his behalf. He must fear there will be a backlash against him for that,. The bottom line though is that Rogers is someone who came very close to winning a Senate seat two years ago against a Democrat who did not have anywhere near the baggage of El-Sayed. One will argue though that he will drive voters to the polls who would not be excited to vote for a traditional Democrat. Clearly though, he demonstrated weakness in the primary by underperforming polls and not doing well with traditional Democrat groups. While he will do well with Muslim voters, many of whom nonsensically voted for Donald Trump in 2024, because they were mad at the Biden Administration over Israel and because Trump and Vance claimed Kamala Harris would get the U.S. into a "forever war" with Iran, he will struggle with Jewish Democrats in the state. That is just a fact. Some Democrats, including a Congresswoman from Michigan, have said they cannot endorse El-Sayed, at least at this time. He hardly has a united party behind him, which is not the case with Rogers and Republicans,

 

Right now, the polls are tending to show a small lead for El-Sayed, sort of consistent with the Democrat's lead in the Gubernatorial race. That speaks mostly to the weakness of Republicans in the state in this Trump midterm year. Nobody on the right, or nobody period who wants El-Sayed to lose should be confident he will be seen as too extreme or too dangerous to win. He very well might win this thing, and if I see that happening, I will change my prediction. However, looking at everything that is transpiring in this campaign, especially the under-performance of him in the primary, consistent with some similar dynamics in other states,  I think he will have a hard time winning. Maybe that is wishful thinking, but I think Democrats just made a huge mistake in nominating the guy and perhaps leaving a winnable Senate seat on the table, just as Republicans did in some places in 2010, 2012, 2014, and even since

 

Losing a blue seat to the red team would be a pretty bad development for Democrats who want to take over the Senate this year. I think though if they could somehow win a majority without El-Sayed, they would be happy. Let us face it, if he wins, in a purple state like Michigan, the left-wing of the party will be completely vindicated in thinking they can nominate the most far left or anti-Israel candidates they can find anywhere. As mentioned, maybe in a horrible midterm wave election they can get away with that. In a 2028 Presidential cycle, it may be another story. The Republican Party sure changed fast under Trumpism  and Democrats who want to still be able to recognize their party, may want to wind up with an "I told you so" and root for El-Sayed and his backers to fail, while they still can be beaten back.

 

Whatever happens, this will be an ugly race. JD Vance was today in Michigan attacking El-Sayed and calling him things and accusing him of things that are not exactly true, instead of focusing on the issues or the actual defects of his character. El-Sayed called the Vice President an "asshole" which may be easier to prove, but everyone in this whole story is bad news. Too bad for Michigan. Just imagine the potential scene though January of next year if Vice President Vance has to swear in a Senator El-Sayed.

 

 

Senate races predicted thus far: 

 6 D (3 Safe, 1 Likely, 1 Leans, 1 Tossup)

10 R (2 Safe, 3 Likely, 2 Leans, 3 Tossup)

 

Senate total predicted thus far:

40 D (34 holdover, 3 Safe, 1 Likely, 1 Leans, 1 Tossup) 

41 R (31 holdover, 2 Safe, 3 Likely, 2 Leans, 3 Tossup)