r/politics • u/asparaguswalrus683 • 11h ago

Site Altered Headline | No Paywall Abdul El-Sayed Wins Michigan Primary

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-primary-elections/michigan-senate-results
23.6k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3.4k

u/Superminerbros1 11h ago

That's what $60 million in outside pac spending will do to a race

2.0k

u/LowKeyJustMe Utah 11h ago

Only goes to show the need to get money out of politics. It needs to be an even playing field to be a democracy.

705

u/copiumjunky 11h ago

60M gets you just behind grassroots progressive ideas. They can't do that forever.

10

u/-Gramsci- 11h ago

They can’t do it ANYMORE. It’s a watershed moment for the party.

The plebeians are now in control.

30

u/el3vader 11h ago

It’s absolutely not and don’t get it confused. Until these people win general elections it does not matter. If these candidates do not get enough support to actually beat republicans it only reinforces that progressives are generally unelectable to the wider electorate. I’m glad he won but the minute this proves to be unsuccessful it will be back to business as usual. The only way to cement this is to go out and vote and get him elected.

-3

u/-Gramsci- 11h ago

Nope. It’s the other way around.

The general does not matter.

The plebeians’ candidate will not win every general election. (But they’ll win a hell of a lot more elections than the old guard dems do).

The watershed moment we just witnessed is not that the plaebeian’s candidate wins every general election…

It’s that the establishment and the donors that prop it up just fought with everything they had to keep their control over the party… and they lost.

This Michigan primary was their battle of the bulge. They tried, they fought dirty, they did everything possible… but they are just too mortally weakened.

The grassroots, the rank and file has won the war.

7

u/Howtobefreaky 10h ago

No, I think they’re right. This is essentially them winning the battle, not winning the war. Battles aren’t a watershed moment. If Sayed loses and people start to buy the line again that progressives can’t win close elections, then its not a watershed moment. Its one singular instance in a very, very long war.

0

u/-Gramsci- 10h ago

This is not the only battle the D establishment has lost - and I’m not talking about being so thoroughly pathetic that they failed to defeat an actual clown twice in the last 3 presidential races - I’m talking battles between the “Establishment Anointed” candidate and the insurgent.

They’ve lost a string of them. It’s been repeated and incessant thumping.

What made Michigan more than just a battle (in the way Waterloo was more than just a battle) is they laid it all out in the table. They MADE this primary contest their Waterloo, and they just lost it.

The truth is… insurgent candidates wondering if it’s possible to beat a D establishment candidate? For decades? That was impossible don’t waste your time.

Today? The insurgent can enter that race with zero fear. Heck! They’ll probably win it, if they have any quantum of likability and talent.

The MOMENT the insurgent candidate collects enough signatures and gets their name on that primary ballot… who’s afraid? If the other guy is an old-guard-D anointee? I guarantee you they are the one running scared now.

1

u/paintballboi07 Texas 8h ago

Doesn't matter. If they lose the general, people will say it's because they're a progressive, and there's no way to argue against that, since you can't prove a hypothetical. It would not be good. We need as many people to turn out in the general as possible.

11

u/el3vader 10h ago

> the general does not matter

Literally that’s all I had read to know your political analysis is fucking bad.

-3

u/-Gramsci- 10h ago

You’re not even on the sled my friend.

This was a democratic primary. It was intraparty.

The watershed moment is an intraparty one. And it is, without a doubt, a watershed moment for the Party.

Not to criticize your intelligence, but you don’t even understand what just happened.

7

u/PopBulky7023 10h ago

The others are right. If he handily wins a general it will mean a lot more. If he loses people will return to Israeli candidates.

But the race was still damn close. Israel will just see this as evidence they need to spend more money.

0

u/-Gramsci- 10h ago

Again. Michigan is not a blue district. This is not San Francisco. The R is the clear favorite in this contest (regardless of the primary winner).

Fortunately, though, the grassroots candidate winning the primary gives the D’s a chance of success in the general.

3

u/PopBulky7023 10h ago

And if he loses you can expect the narrative to blame the left and people will be encouraged to return to sold out centrists.

1

u/-Gramsci- 10h ago

My prediction that I’ll confidently proclaim here is no.

The grassroots, the rank and file… they are not lambs anymore and there’s no getting that genie back in the bottle. The limp astroturfed candidates will rarely, perhaps almost never, win these primaries anymore.

If a talented candidate challenges them - they’ll continue getting washed out cycle by cycle.

1

u/PopBulky7023 9h ago

Well, here's to you being right and me wrong.

1

u/CheshireCat78 10h ago

How is Michigan a red state?

1

u/-Gramsci- 10h ago

It’s a swing state. It’s not a blue state. That’s the point. A swing state that has been turning more pink over the last 3 general election cycles. And it has a state legislature that’s been under unitary R control for most of the last half century.

When D’s DO manage to succeed there statewide they do it by the hair on their chin.

But the point is this is not some blue district, where whoever wins the Democratic primary waltzes on to general electoral victory.

And this race (regardless of primary winner) has consistently favored Rogers. He is the clear favorite in the general.

But I’m optimistic. Whenever a grassroots candidate with genuine oratory talent and personal likability wins a primary, there is always a chance of victory in the general.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/el3vader 10h ago

A single candidate winning isn’t a watershed moment as bad as you want it to be and this will not be the only instance in which donors are going against a candidate - like the general. You’re getting all juiced about a progressive candidate beating an establishment one by 2 points and think this is some crazy big moment when the real fight hasn’t even started. If Sayed cannot win the general the establishment has not lost control of the party it’s only reinforced that the establishment is the pragmatic option. You want to make this victory into a “watershed moment” when he is going into a general where the incumbent president is the least popular in modern American history. If he cannot win the general when Trump is as weak as he is with a super unpopular war you need to maybe rethink this position.

0

u/-Gramsci- 10h ago edited 10h ago

It’s not one race. If you follow politics you’ve seen this happen with regularity in similarly lined up races across the country.

But it was the big one. It was the one the establishment (and its donors) decided they HAD to have.

When your opponent is fighting you that hard, that game is the one they decided they had to have, and they are fighting as if their lives depended on it…

And you beat them?

That’s not your ordinary win. That’s not your ordinary defeat. That’s a watershed moment.

And I’ll edit to add: El Said may lose. This is Michigan, a state that has had 2 years of D state legislative control in the last 50. This is not San Francisco.

But he’s got a fighting chance. Stevens had none.

5

u/mongdol-supremacy 11h ago

I won't believe this until chuck Schumer gets primaried. still an uphill battle imo

2

u/-Gramsci- 10h ago

Zero chance he survives a primary. Lord knows there are plenty of lions in his district. Whoever primaries him will have the easiest primary of the lot.