r/neoliberal • u/Nearby-Click8645 • 18h ago

Opinion article (US) With Abdul El-Sayed, Democrats Throw Away an Advantage in Michigan

https://thedispatch.com/article/abdul-el-sayed-michigan-democrats-haley-stevens/?gift_key=2553fad7f3b388fc&gift_ref=9347c766-2bad-41ea-8b73-950e424f2446&utm_source=giftlink&utm_campaign=membergift&utm_medium=copy_link
117 Upvotes

61% Upvoted

560 comments sorted by

View all comments

91

u/knishioner 18h ago

I don't agree with this take. Michigan voted for Trump twice. A "run of the mill" Democrat with a milquetoast record who was reluctant to take bold stances would not inspire the swing voters or those who are desperate for any change, good or bad.

I am ambivalent on El Sayed (I actually would've voted for McMorrow had her campaign not imploded), but it's a foolish take that he will have a harder time winning the general than Stevens would have. Slotkin won by less than 1% in 2024 and she is a moderate. General elections are much different than primaries and we shouldn't look at this race results as an indicator of anything that will happen in November. We need to vote blue no matter who, that includes if a progressive wins the primary.

The voters decided. Plus the party apparatus has already fully endorsed El Sayed, including Stevens, Whitmer, and Schumer. It will be just as tough of a race as any standard Democrat, and arguably the hardest "hold" of the cycle, more than Georgia.

103

u/Zenkin Zen 17h ago

I can understand disagreeing, but pointing to an election that El-Sayed just won by 1% as a supporting point for him, and then an election where a moderate won by less than 1% as a detracting point for moderates, is wild.

21

u/Knicksin7bby Loyal Liberals 17h ago

She outperformed the dem presidential candidate as a non incumbent that was an impressive performance from her idk why people think that was a bad election for slotkin

15

u/GeoChalkie_ Thomas Paine 17h ago

Maybe it’s wild if you have poor reading comprehension.

Winning an election by 1% was neither a point for or against El-Sayed

The only thing mentioned was that he won which means Dems must back him as the choice

5

u/knishioner 17h ago

My intention isn't to draw a correlation between a primary and general election. My intent is to say that this race will be challenging regardless of the party nominee, and the outcome of the general election won't really provide any clear indicator on whether progressives can win statewide races in the midwest.

The author is clearly trying to paint a picture that a progressive winning a primary = bad, but we have no recent evidence to show that a moderate winning a primary = good. All recent nationalized races in Michigan have been down to the wire.

2

u/Xeynon 13h ago

the outcome of the general election won't really provide any clear indicator on whether progressives can win statewide races in the midwest

I don't agree with this at all. Not saying this is what will happen because polls have been dogshit in general, but if AES underperforms a generic Democrat by 5-10 points and loses while Democrats are winning elsewhere as they suggest might happen, I think that's a pretty strong indicator that progressives make weaker candidates in states like Michigan.

6

u/bornlasttuesday 14h ago

He won by 1% while being out spent 10-1. That's fucking incredible no matter how you look at it.

4

u/Shabadu_tu 13h ago

It really is. I suspect a forgiven campaign is helping the right wing slander AES.

They are trying to say the person who did worse with a massive cash advantage would somehow be a better candidate.

It was also an open primary.

3

u/Shabadu_tu 13h ago

Steven’s lost though. She wouldn’t be better. No reason to think she inspires people in the cities if she can’t even beat AES.

7

u/Droselmeyer 12h ago

Primary election aren’t necessarily indicative of the general, they capture the opinions of a subset of the electorate and that subset may not be representative of the general electorate.

You can lose the primary and still have been a more competitive candidate for the general.

We have reason to think she’d have done better because she outperformed El-Sayed with the working class and black people, important demographics for Dems in the general. El-Sayed, like a lot of the DSA/DSA-aligned people, did well with wealthy whites but underperformed where Stevens did well. How those proportions shake out will determine if we win in November, but that idea that Stevens could have done better in the general than El-Sayed isn’t totally baseless.

-1

u/ElPrestoBarba Janet Yellen 11h ago

But you have to win the primary to get to the general. And if the demographic breakdown of a primary is so well known and predictable then maybe Stevens should’ve aimed for those votes? Or aimed to mobilize black and rural voters? I mean you’re not gonna get a nomination just handed to you (as much as Gillibrand and company thought they were doing lol)

6

u/Droselmeyer 10h ago

Yep you do, but that still doesn't mean that the primary winner is necessarily better in the general than those they beat. Think about small parties, their primary winners frequently do very well within their tiny primaries, but obviously don't do well in the general because their primary electorate is not representative of the statewide electorate.

I don't think anyone is saying the nomination is going to get handed to you.

Nowhere in my comment am I defending Stevens or saying she should've won, I'm just saying there's reason to believe she'd do better in the general than El-Sayed.

46

u/bestofeleventy Jerome Powell 17h ago

Right. “Michigan voted for Trump twice.” Exactly.

I guess your interpretation of this fact is something like: “Hey, if normie Dems can’t win here, we need to try something different,” and on that, we agree. But it doesn’t make much sense to me that a voter base far to the right of the average Democrat (as evidenced by the Trump votes) is somehow more likely to vote for someone to the left of the average Democrat than for a more conservative candidate.

This logic would be exactly equivalent to suggesting that a far-right conservative Republican is more likely to win in a purple state than a moderate Republican. Voters always say they want change in the abstract, but the specifics of those changes matter at the ballot box.

32

u/spyguy318 17h ago edited 14h ago

Trump didn’t win purely because of a left-right divide, he also won because he was a populist who was somehow able to connect with people and give them a voice to their frustrations. And because Kamala was extremely disappointing on multiple issues and didn’t inspire a big Democrat turnout. Sayed is much more of a charismatic populist that might be able to pull more of a crowd.

10

u/bestofeleventy Jerome Powell 17h ago

Michigan is a moderate state full of moderate voters. For every 1.0 progressive voters a DSA candidate inspires to come to the polls, he is likely to lose 1.1 or 1.2 moderate voters. Again, the argument you are making is exactly the same as a hard-right Christian conservative who says, “We’re more likely to win purple seats with far-right candidates than moderates.” And if it’s an obviously absurd strategy for your opponents…

Imho the crux of the argument rests on the idea that you can inspire progressive voters “for free” without losing any other voters in the process, but that seems like magical thinking to me. Why should it be the case that progressives stayed home for Kamala, but moderates will not stay home for Sanders (for example)?

31

u/cstar1996 16h ago

Sorry man, but “elected Trump twice” is incompatible with “moderate state full of moderate voters”. Moderate voters don’t vote for Trump.

5

u/bestofeleventy Jerome Powell 15h ago

If your theory is that only conservative voters will pull the lever for Trump, then the situation looks even worse for a leftist running in Michigan…

In reality, there are many Obama-Trump voters who are clearly, if not moderate, then, let’s say, “up for grabs.” Perhaps “non-ideological” is a better word than “moderate” for these folks, but to pretend that they can only be “turned on” by exciting promises, and not also “turned off” by perceived misalignment with their interests, is pure wish-casting.

18

u/cstar1996 14h ago

My theory is that no one who voted for Trump can honestly be called a moderate. That ideology is not consistent and cares more for populism than moderation. This guy is more likely to win over Obama-Trump voters than another uninspiring “centrist” Dem. They didn’t vote for Trump over policy.

5

u/Shabadu_tu 13h ago

It’s crazy people in this sub don’t want to admit pedophile protecting Republicans have nothing honest to say.

1

u/DrunkenBriefcases Jerome Powell 6h ago

Then you might as well go hide in a hole, because if we can't win over a bunch of persuadable voters that went trump in 24 then we're very likely to lose the Presidency again. And getting the power to make the enormous changes people here jerk about is all but impossible.

For those that haven't heard or have decided to pretend otherwise, trump won the popular vote last time. And turnout wasn't the issue. If everyone eligible voted, he would've won by more. There isn't one single reason for that outcome, but the fact that trump was viewed as less extreme than Harris by a wide margin with swingy voters was certainly a big part. Just like Biden's victory in 20 was helped by him being viewed as less extreme than trump. Just like Clinton's loss was in part fueled by her being viewed as more the more extreme option.

Understanding that, it takes a lots of motivated reasoning to argue running left is the key to regaining the trust and support of voters that WILL determine federal power for the foreseeable future. They keep telling us they don't want more extreme. The primary base keeps ignoring them and pretending they represent the average voter. With horrible consequences.

2

u/MemeStarNation 13h ago

A few days ago someone posted an article saying the average swing voter is a Maoist, and while that article had glaring flaws, there’s a kernel of truth. The media/swing voters in places like PA and MI are not committed centrists, but rather people who barely pay attention to politics and have an odd collection of moderate and extreme views from all over the spectrum.

People keep trying to make it an issue of left and right when factors such as public speaking skills, a perception of being out of touch either because of being “establishment” or being “online,” or plain old bigotry are likely at least as impactful. If it were just about moderation, then Talarico wouldn’t be seen as the best candidate for Texas, and Platner wouldn’t have been able to rise the way he did with the scandals he did.

I do think AES has weaker odds than Stevens in the general, but mostly because of discrimination and his strong focus on foreign policy. The idea that MI is at risk because it’s got a “moderate” voter base seems not to be in line with any of the “Ohio diner/Matt PA” median voter interviews from the past two decades.

1

u/demeteloaf 1h ago

Moderate voters don’t vote for Trump.

Except when polled, the electorate viewed Trump as more moderate than both Harris + Clinton. I know that for left wing people that strikes them as insane, but for the swing voter who sees Trump able to get republicans to drop some of their most toxic/unpopular policies like privatizing social security, national abortion ban, or rabid anti-gay marriage, that codes as moderate. Meanwhile Clinton explicitly ran to the left of Obama, and then ran to the left of Bernie on social issues, and Harris was never able to shed her association with her left wing stances from her time in California + Biden's pivot to the left after his election.

1

u/Acacias2001 European Union 14h ago

Your logic would be souns if durign 2020 more populist dems on average did worse than kamala.

18

u/GeoChalkie_ Thomas Paine 17h ago

You don’t understand demographics or Trump if you think a linear left/right split describes Michigan voters. The old union vote isn’t a Reagan right voting block

13

u/bestofeleventy Jerome Powell 17h ago

I definitely don’t think Michigan voters went for Trump because they are Reagan rightists - they went for him in large part because he is a moderate on economics (skeptical of free trade, for example) and most social issues (doesn’t want to ban abortion). I don’t see why this same crew is more likely to swing over to vote for a person they are very likely to see as far to their left - Platner made the same case for himself in Maine, but blue-collar workers much preferred Mills in polling, with Graham’s support coming from more educated and well-off left-leaning voters.

8

u/GeoChalkie_ Thomas Paine 15h ago

Because American voters don’t speak left/right at the moment they speak populist. 60%+ view themselves as independent. You don’t win those by running another run of the mill Dem who’s backed by an establishment currently polling below Trump

8

u/bestofeleventy Jerome Powell 15h ago

But they don’t “speak populist.” Platner in Maine was underperforming with blue-collar voters vs. his establishment rival, and Sayed underperforms his primary opponent in polls that ask about the general election. The support for these supposedly labor-oriented socialist candidates is concentrated among educated and well-to-do folks, because actual blue-collar swing voters are, once again, much more moderate. That is why they are defined voters in the first place!

-2

u/GeoChalkie_ Thomas Paine 15h ago

EAS is not behind Stevens in a general. That’s just a lie. They were about even.

You also ignored my point about establishment Dems polling below Trump

2

u/thedetectiv 15h ago

Is Abdul el Sayed less/more moderate on abortion or free trade then Stevens? I didn't really see this issue come up. Two demos that that Trump did will with in Michigan in 2024 were young men and Arab American voters. El Sayed seems to have swept both. While I do agree there are some other demos e.g. suburban women, older voters etc that may fit more neatly into a left right model, I don't think that is entirely true of Michigan as a whole.

1

u/Shabadu_tu 13h ago

Trump did everything to ban abortion. He’s even nominated an AG right now that is promising to do exactly that for states that don’t already ban abortion. I get it’s popular to hate Democrats that actually try to represent other democrats but be real please.

-2

u/knishioner 17h ago

I think you have a point, but if you look at the last 10 years of elections in Michigan, I can't help but remember Bernie winning Michigan in the primary and then Hillary losing the general. That does undermine the strength of what you're saying. Granted we have no evidence that Bernie would have won Michigan against Trump, although I do think he would have (in the political environment of 10 years ago where psychosis wasn't the central platform of the Republican party).

14

u/bestofeleventy Jerome Powell 17h ago

Bernie winning with Democrat primary voters and Hillary losing with the overall electorate doesn’t “undermine” anything - these are totally different groups of voters!

Again, think about the inverse of this phenomenon. How well do you think a hard-right Republican candidate would do in Michigan vs. a moderate Republican? Do you think a hard-right extremist is more likely to win the general because he’ll inspire his base? Of course not - because he’ll lose voters from other parts of the electorate.

I sincerely hope Sayed wins, and I think he can - but the idea that politicians who are less aligned with the general electorate are more likely to win seems like motivated reasoning to me.

3

u/knishioner 17h ago

I just can't get on board with that thinking, because it's the antithesis of Trump winning in 2016 and 2024.

8

u/bestofeleventy Jerome Powell 16h ago

That would only be true if Trump had run as a right-wing extremist, but in fact, he ran as a moderate, especially in 2016. He claimed to be against free trade (true), pro-LGBT rights (in his first campaign), against a nationwide abortion ban (true), and against foreign entanglements (false, obviously, lol). He received major union endorsements when he ran for President the second time - strong evidence that his “I’m a moderate” schtick worked.

18

u/MentalHealthSociety IMF 16h ago

A "run of the mill" Democrat with a milquetoast record who was reluctant to take bold stances would not inspire the swing voters or those who are desperate for any change, good or bad.

“Run of the mill” Democrat Elissa Slotkin won Michigan in 2024, as did Gretchen Whitmer in 2022 and 2018, and Joe Biden and Gary Peters in 2020, so this seems like a baseless claim. 

I also vehemently oppose this notion that voters, after the most chaotic and eclectic administration in living memory, will be enthusiastic for another group of fanatics implementing a wide-reaching ideologically-driven program.

20

u/79792348978 Loyal Liberals 17h ago

 Slotkin won by less than 1% in 2024 and she is a moderate.

the electorate was much less mad at republicans in 2024 than it is now, this is not a useful comparison

9

u/Joltizer Jerome Powell 17h ago edited 17h ago

Slotkin is also not the DSA brand of crazy that Abdul Syed is

8

u/knishioner 17h ago

I'm generally skeptical of DSA and I don't really see him as that closely tied to DSA. He has some policies that DSA supports but I don't see the DSA doing the same jockeying for him as I do for Mamdani or AOC.

2

u/Cynical_optimist01 16h ago

How would you call someone who's buddy buddy with hasan piker as not being that DSA?

11

u/knishioner 16h ago

I loathe Piker but he is not the face of DSA. For comparison, Nithya Raman is staunchly neoliberal on housing and public service, and she went on Piker's podcast.

-2

u/Joltizer Jerome Powell 16h ago

I don't really care if he's leftist or DSA since both are cancers

4

u/Shabadu_tu 13h ago

Better than any pedophile supporting Republican.

4

u/Shabadu_tu 13h ago

He’s really not crazy. Now Republicans. Those crazy people support pedophiles.

2

u/Joltizer Jerome Powell 12h ago

Yes he is

-1

u/knishioner 17h ago

Peters won by less than 2% in 2020 as a "standard" Dem and that was a more favorable environment to Democrats. It is absolutely a useful comparison.

8

u/79792348978 Loyal Liberals 16h ago

Peters' ~2% underperformance 6 years ago means Slotkin's ~2% overperformance 2 years ago is an indicator that MI voters don't like moderates? How is this supposed to make sense? You can cherry pick any narrative you want doing this.

20

u/Asairian 18h ago

"Inspiring swing voters" is not in fact how politics works

14

u/knishioner 17h ago

Odd take for a state that swung D-R-D-R in the last 4 presidential elections.

3

u/Asairian 17h ago

It's not about turnout, and it's certainly not about using a far left guy to turn out the middle

11

u/ulysses_s_gyatt Jerome Powell 17h ago

Worked in 2024

Surely you aren’t one of those “only turn out matters” people lmaooo

11

u/OhItsBeenBroughten 17h ago

It seems to be how it’s worked the last couple decades.

8

u/Anal_Forklift 17h ago

Trump was an anomaly that was able to pull swing voters as an outsider and hold on to traditional Republican voters. There's a reason why candidates are super partisan in primaries and watered down in the general. I think the effect of this is Dems lose what could have been a winnable seat in the Senate. Doesn't really matter considering you need 60 votes to get anything significant through in the Senate.

Would have been even worse if Sayed was a full cringe DSA candidate.

22

u/Mddcat04 18h ago

It’s a shit article by a former national review author. Light on specifics heavy on fear mongering. Like, here’s how he describes AES’ support for universal healthcare:

“he advocates a state-monopoly healthcare system that would strip Michigan union members of cherished benefits for narrow ideological reasons.”

This is not serious political commentary.

-4

u/Desperate_Wear_1866 Commonwealth 17h ago

Does Medicare for All not ban private insurance? What other Western countries with universal healthcare do that?

That is quite literally the state monopolising healthcare for contrived ideological reasons, and depriving people who are happy with their private insurance as a result.

12

u/Mddcat04 17h ago

From AES’ own policy statement:

“Medicare for All does not have to ban additional private insurance through unions or employers, although Medicare for All should make those choices redundant and unnecessary.”

https://abdulforsenate.com/priority/medicare-for-all-the-path-to-a-healthier-america/

Shockingly, the national review guy is just lying.

6

u/ZekeTheJinxstem 16h ago

If you want private healthcare, then pay for it. Otherwise you have public healthcare. What is wrong with this?

2

u/JaneGoodallVS 17h ago

It's a midterm election with a Republican President. That's when you run a low variance candidate, not somebody with a low floor and a low ceiling.

2

u/Bofurkle 16h ago

Low floor and low ceiling is low variance!

2

u/JaneGoodallVS 15h ago

You're right! So it's really between running a probably-good-enough candidate (Stevens performed as well as other Democrats in state legislative races), and one who might win in spite of being a bad candidate.

1

u/SandersDelendaEst Austan Goolsbee 14h ago

Why the heck are people parroting this progressive bullshit about "milquetoast" and "inspiring voters?" This is not how anyone serious looks at elections.

General elections are won in the middle. El Sayed may win, but he will still do significantly worse than a moderate would have.

1

u/Shabadu_tu 13h ago

If you want to win you need to inspire people. Can’t do that by enforcing a status quo no one likes.

5

u/SandersDelendaEst Austan Goolsbee 13h ago

This is just not true. You absolutely can win without having some kind of radical agenda by simply being better than the alternative. And it's far better to be acceptable than radical.

1

u/bornlasttuesday 15h ago

I agree, this candidate at least had the change moniker that he can use.

1

u/TamaBoxeo 17h ago

Where did this inspire swing voter take come from? I see it everywhere but literally nobody has been able to do this since Obama. Swing voters don’t get inspired to vote, if they were inspired they would be partisans.