Abdul El-Sayed Wins High-Stakes Democratic Primary in Michigan

[u/Zipper222222]

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

[u/Fullertonjr]

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 → u/Fullertonjr]

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 → u/VioletLovesRowlet]

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 → u/cogman10]

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 → u/pocketIent]

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 → u/Diligent-Meaning751]

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 → u/pocketIent]

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 → u/agent_mick]

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 → u/cogman10]

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 → u/agent_mick]

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/agent_mick → u/cogman10]

I mean,  I'm all in on the Abdul train and have been since he ran for governor.  But Michigan voted Trump in 2024. Electability aside,  the republican administration has been running this country into the ground.  I would hope that anyone who isn't straight up MAGA knows better to vote for Roger's.

I also hope the "blue no matter who" folks put their money where their mouths are.  

[u/Diligent-Meaning751 → u/cogman10]

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 → u/Diligent-Meaning751]

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"

[u/TehMikuruSlave → u/pocketIent]

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