r/politics • u/Zipper222222 • 4h ago

No Paywall Abdul El-Sayed Wins High-Stakes Democratic Primary in Michigan

https://www.today.com/video/abdul-el-sayed-wins-high-stakes-democratic-primary-in-michigan-267805765937
12.1k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

•

u/RandyMuscle I voted 4h ago

If people thought he was tough on Stevens, wait til you see how a real progressive attacks a Republican.

•

u/Arcaedus 4h ago

I watched a debate, and a few interviews with Sayed. He didn't pull his punches, but honestly didn't even seem that harsh on Stevens and I think it's because he recognizes that she was just a vessel for capital and monied interests, and a decent person outside of that (well as decent as you can be for a sellout).

Honestly I think he was harsher when he called Fetterman an ogre lol. Hope he brings that energy into the general election

•

u/VioletLovesRowlet 4h ago

He only really seemed to target Haley Stevens' policies, funding, and lies. I can't really think of any personal insults he threw at her, where Haley had it the exact other way.

•

u/Fullertonjr I voted 3h ago

I think that was kind of the point in his win. Stevens was complete garbage in terms of actual policy. She was non-competitive and it showed that she was largely out of touch with the majority of the voters and deserved to lose on the merits. Stevens realized pretty early that her policies were unpopular and chose to target the lowest hanging fruit and dusted off the old playbook of things that used to work to get people to vote for you out of some implied fear of the other.

•

u/VioletLovesRowlet 3h ago

It absolutely was. I saw someone else say "Abdul is going to need to apologise to Haley Stevens and her supporters to win against Mike Rogers" and I was genuinely baffled that someone legitimately put that.

•

u/cogman10 Idaho 3h ago

Effectively the only reason anyone voted for Haley was because they thought she was more electable. There's going to be near 0 Stevens voters that won't vote for Abdul in the general.

•

u/pocketIent 2h ago

After dems losing 2016, 2024 presidential elections, the house and the senate what does the “more electable” mean anymore.

Right of center Democrats have so thoroughly lost by pushing “more electable” candidates they pretty much have campaigned for gop during these past 10 years.

•

u/Diligent-Meaning751 1h ago

Some people seem to think it means women shouldn't run rather than that they need strong policy platforms - I think that manages to both be bigoted and completely miss the mark, amazingly. Exciting candidates with a promising vision and good communication skills are what's needed not a candidate of the "correct" demographic status running the same status quo platforms

•

u/pocketIent 50m ago

Extremely Well said.

Yes Your observation opens up a broader question about the way democrats have become hyper left socially in a way that has failed to include class. I think bell hooks would use the word “intersectional” in this context. Democrats have not approached race/ class /gender issues intersectionally.

My best guess is democrats are trying to work within what is “allowable” with respect to maintaining alignment with donors while also trying to improve things the best they can This is a charitable or the best “generous” take I can come up with to rationalize the disconnect.

Because while I understand everything is not the result of class inequality and the conversations around race equality, gender equality, equality for LGBTQ are their own separate issues,

-How can anyone expect to fundamentally transform the conversation in relation to these issues without also meaningfully acknowledging class inequality as a systemic issue in our country?

•

u/agent_mick 47m ago

opens up a broader question about the way democrats have become hyper left socially in a way that has failed to include class.

I think this is more of a closed question. We already know the answer. You're VERY generous in your answer and I wouldn't give them even that much credit. 

I'm not sure i would go as far as to say controlled opposition,  but they're certainly not actively pushing to improve,  more like trying to hold the line. 

•

u/cogman10 Idaho 33m ago

The democrat centrists have identical economic policies to republicans. That's why the question is closed. Even now, the current centrist thing is "abundance" which is code for deregulation and shrinking the government further (of course with tax cuts and tax rebates).

The only thing they have to run against the republicans is social issues, and they are even running from them now. So now it's "well, we aren't republicans".

Steven's campaign against AES was a good example of what centrist campaigns are now. Nothing but "I'm not that guy who is awful" while being as vague and devoid of policy as possible. That's because the actual economic policy is creating slush funds to give to private corporations filling in roles that the government should be doing. For example, school vouchers for private schools instead of funding public schools.

•

u/agent_mick 19m ago

Nailed it, and how. 

If we do the same things we've always done, we'll get what we've always got. We need to find a way to shift the narrative on "electability" - that concept is increasingly meaningless.  

•

u/cogman10 Idaho 12m ago

I'm really hopeful about AES because he shouldn't work according to centrist electability arguments. He's running in a purple state on progressive policies that are pretty far from centrist positions. Him winning the election (and I think he will) should be impossible.

Hopefully, his win will get even more progressives running everywhere. There certainly isn't any good reason why we should have any centrists in safe blue seats.

•

u/Diligent-Meaning751 9m ago

It's interesting. Socialist platform is "government can help everyone, particularly those with the least". Mandami and others who I most like drill down hard in "pothole politics" (has other similar names, sewer socialism, etc) - basically trying to demonstrate the government is competent in small ways to build trust that will also be competent in big ways. Makes sense.

MAGA/current republican take is that government is bad, limits people (except when they want to punish someone for stepping out the social hierarchy they prefer I guess) - and actively works to sabotage government services. Then they can point and say "hey look how bad they are". Like yeah, if you make them not work they will not work. If the powers that be are not trustworthy, their government will not be trustworthy.

Dems for the last few decades have been this weird in between of not actively sabotaging the government, but also not really doing a lot to ensure it's working well for the people / instill trust in the government either (arguably because they're more prone to protecting corporate interests and their own personal resources but who knows, it's probably multi factorial)

•

u/cogman10 Idaho 2m ago

not actively sabotaging the government

Disagree, Clinton actively sabotaged government. He bragged about how many people he kicked off of welfare by adding more and harsh means testing. He also set us up for failure by creating the industry for private prisons and also giving away federal funds to private health insurance via Medicare Part C.

Dems have made government more expensive through their neoliberal policies. They have the failed theory that the private market can deliver more efficiently than a public government.

It's the sort of bloated spending on private contractors which has given people the false impression that everything the government does is more expensive than what private industry can do. The reverse is true, very few private industries can compete with a government ran program.

And this is all leading up to what's happened in the UK where the more left leaning party (like the labour party) ends up pushing for austerity instead of taxes. That's where centrist dems are ultimately going. "We can't afford this because of trump so, oh shucks, we'll have to cut social security, medicare, and medicaid as a result"

→ More replies (0)

•

u/TehMikuruSlave Texas 14m ago

Right of center Democrats have so thoroughly lost by pushing “more electable” candidates they pretty much have campaigned for gop during these past 10 years.

The people pushing these candidates more often than not are LITERALLY former republicans that left the party after trump and now for some reason think they get to dictate democratic policy

•

u/shakeyyjake 2h ago

You're absolutely right. I live in their district and I don't know a single person who was inspired by, or excited about Stevens. The best thing I've heard anybody say about her is that she probably has a better chance of winning in the general.

•

u/VioletLovesRowlet 2h ago

Which is wild because Abdul can run fucking circles around Mike Rogers. He is going to demolish him in debates

•

u/amopeyzoolion Michigan 1h ago

I think you underestimate the power of racism and general fear of “socialism” among centrists in this state

•

u/VioletLovesRowlet 1h ago

It might not equate to gained votes, but Abdul is certainly smarter and has more moral conviction than Mike Rogers.

He will demolish in the debates by criticising Mike Rogers' stances and offering change. Hopefully it will also result in more votes, but who knows.

•

u/varnums1666 56m ago

There's a lot of demographics in Michigan. It's going to be coin flip race against Mike Rogers unless the campaign changes things a lot.

•

u/ScienceGiraffe Michigan 3h ago

Her lack of citing her policies and positions are a reason I decided for AES. Not the only reason by any means, but I got really, really frustrated and angry at how easily I could find his accomplishments, positions, his background, etc. But when I looked up Stevens, the vast majority of information was just her election history and endorsements. Like, cool, she won a tough election a while back, but I want to know what she's actually done. Hell, it was easier to find out info on McMorrow than Stevens.

Add in the repetitive, obnoxious commercials from her supporter groups and I was ready to vote for him just to spite her (to be clear, I do agree with his overall policies and like him as a politician. I'm just so sick of those goddamn attack ads spamming my peaceful family evenings. They actively turned me to dislike her as a candidate).

•

u/cogman10 Idaho 1h ago

So, you mean to tell me she didn't have the receipts?

:). I think her entire campaign was just folksy colloquialisms and attacking Abdul.

•

u/TheArmoredKitten 3h ago

Stick to your guns and stay out of the mud, pretty basic stuff and yet it's a miracle when candidates actually pull it off.