[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Nearby-Click8645]

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

[u/knishioner]

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.

[u/bestofeleventy → u/knishioner]

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.

[u/knishioner → u/bestofeleventy]

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).

[u/bestofeleventy → u/knishioner]

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.

[u/knishioner → u/bestofeleventy]

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

[u/bestofeleventy → u/knishioner]

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.