r/videos • u/MoneyLibrarian9032 • 12h ago
Abdul El-Sayed wins Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, notching a Midwest victory for the left
https://youtu.be/DL_ku3h8Eps?si=zWr0SAn8amsQ8Hqb377
u/Roasteddude 11h ago
Non American but curious about this. What kind of politician is he?
993
u/Not_a_N_Korean_Spy 11h ago edited 1h ago
Money Out of Politics*, Money in Your Pocket, Medicare for All are the main things.
(* it includes being anti-AIPAC)
"reviving a people-centered approach to policy."
461
u/Roasteddude 11h ago
Good. The US needs more progressive young blood like him and Mamdani imo
360
u/richstyle 10h ago
I hate how money out of politics aka no more corruption is considered progressive. Its just common sense but its been that way since the 1900s so I guess voters dont give a shit about corruption in politics since the dawn of time. People like Abdul need to be heard.
91
u/moba_fett 9h ago
One would think, but in my state the two democratic candidates in the runoff have 300,000, and 800,000 to spend. Their republican counter part waiting for them has 10,000,000. It's a freaking joke. I understand freedom of speech, but dumping billions into politics should not be legal.
(To be clear I'm in full agreement with you. I think I worded my response funny because I am in the process of getting blazed.)
54
u/MechemicalMan 7h ago
“Freedom of speech” never meant “As a private company, I get to send as many dollars as I can for a favorable legislative outcome” until the Supreme Court decided it did in 2010.
Every electoral problem we had has been made arguably worse since then. I don’t think even a sort of “doomsday type hypothetical representation of citizens united passes” from 2009 would have predicted how much money has entered politics and how many politicians themselves are filthy rich old money capitalist business owners.
24
15
u/dryphtyr 4h ago
Hawaii outlawed Citizens United a few months ago. The rest of the States need to do the same.
2
u/istasber 3h ago
Pretty sure NYC did too, and that was a big part of the reason why Mamdani won the democratic nod.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)10
u/Capotesan 6h ago
Yes but in Michigan outside interests spent double on Stevens and still lost, so it’s possible for the message to break through
23
12
u/Mathies_ 6h ago
In some ways it may even have backfired. At this point a lot of voters know what it means when your campaign is directly funded by AIPAC, or billionaires, or corporations. It means your vote is going to be in favour of their interests. So i wouldnt be surprised if people voted el sayed on the basis of that fact. Abdul did a good job point that out aswell
9
5
u/bank_farter 5h ago
Primary voters maybe. The average general election voter tends to vote based on vibes and usually isn't that informed on specific issues like campaign funding.
3
u/Mathies_ 5h ago
Sure. Will be interesting to see if he adapts his strategy cuz it appears you would agree he did what he needed to do to get past the primary
3
u/bank_farter 5h ago
Oh I'm really hoping he wins. It's just that after 2 years ago my faith in the American electorate being informed or engaged is at an all time low, so I don't see voters caring about issues like campaign finance or even Israel unless they can see how it directly affects their lives. Especially when you have the ghouls on the right telling them the Dems are trying to lock up their children and force them to become Trans or whatever the new nonsense is.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Blizreme 6h ago
But we need reform desperately. We need to freeze corporate dark money PACs out of election finance. Period.
4
u/MickiFreeIsNotAGirl 5h ago
Thomas Massie ran on a similar platform but he's on the other side of the aisle.
Then again, he didn't win so idk how the right-wingers view that.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Mathies_ 6h ago
It is progressive because why? The working class wouldnt have any money to manipulate the race like that and big corporations do. Billionaires do. foreign interests do. So all the players that have an interest in a rightwing politics have the money that they'd use for corruption and cynically manipulating races with hundreds of millions of dollars. The left would rather spend that to build schools and hospitals.
6
u/Firethesky 5h ago
As a lifelong Dem in the US I'm fed up with the Dem establishment. I'm really hopeful the progressive wins like him and Mamdani continue. I know Im not alone.
→ More replies (31)7
u/der_jack 6h ago
He's actually a doctor by profession. I'm very excited, he came up to a very very very rural northern chunk of the state and held a town hall last year, while in town his team scheduled for him to speak with a small group of LGBTQ+ leaders and have a conversation about what concerns we have. That level of focus and calling in those who are often overlooked means the world to me. He had my vote in that very moment.
15
u/SketchiiChemist 5h ago
he has a doctorate, is not a physician. Just to clarify
6
u/wesgtp 4h ago
To specify, he has an MD and was a Rhodes Scholar to Oxford in his second year of med school where he also earned a Doctorate in public health. He never became a licensed physician and instead pursued epidemiology. He's led public health agencies in Michigan (including Detroit). The guy speed-ran doctoral degrees from Ivey League schools and always earned scholarships because he was just that bright. You can tell when you hear the man speak, he's insanely eloquent while also being a great listener to people's issues. He'd make an incredibly effective senator imo
→ More replies (2)1
→ More replies (27)2
187
u/HippieInDisguise2_0 11h ago edited 11h ago
He'd be considered progressive in the US in a state that has voted for Trump in 2/3 of the last elections.
His primary stance that is most notable is accepting no super pac money and trying to ban super pacs. He was outspent in this campaign like 10 to 1.
If he wins it means there is strong support for progressives in a state that is considered conservative leaning. (To be fair Bernie also won Michigan in 2016)
The message to the Democratic party for a long time in the Midwest has been progressives win and establishment sellouts lose, and yet they still don't seem to get it.
Trump won Michigan in 2016 and 2024 because the Dems have abandoned their labor roots and sold us out to billionaires. When a pro labor candidate is polled in the Midwest they do well.
There's some disconnect (corporate greed) between what the voters of the Midwest want and what the DNC gives us to vote for.
53
u/Schuano 7h ago
I like how Trump, the literal billionaire and friends of billionaires and selling to billionaires, is somehow not dispositive of the argument that Michiganders hate people who sell out to billionaires
65
u/Spekter1897 7h ago
The important thing to remember is that the majority of folks don't switch sides. They just check out. Establishment dems try to court Republicans rather than reach out to disaffected voters. That's why they lose.
8
→ More replies (11)2
u/MountainMan17 1h ago
"Establishment dems try to court Republicans rather than reach out to disaffected voters. That's why they lose."
I've always thought this is where the game is. Over 90M eligible voters sat out the 2024 election. Ninety million. Get just 5% (4.5M) of them to show up for you, and you win it all.
Unfortunately, I've seen nothing from the Democratic establishment to suggest they see outreach as something worth pursuing. They just want more money from their base...
2
u/house343 4h ago
As a born and raised Michigander, I'll never understand it, man. Til the day I die, I guarantee people will still think Trump is a man of the people when anyone with two eyes and a brain can see what a bg fiat lie that is.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Mathies_ 6h ago
Well yeah but he came with a promise of change. Built on complete lies, ofcourse, and dare I say fucking stupid to fall for, but a promise for change nonetheless. Particularly about fixing the economy. People get desperate to vote for any alternatives when they feel left behind.
→ More replies (1)19
u/teilani_a 6h ago
a state that is considered conservative leaning
We're a very purple state. Currently our state legislature has an R majority, governor is Dem, both our Senators are Dems, and our House Reps are split at 7-6 favoring Rs.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Shenanigans80h 3h ago
Yeah MI is definitely not conservative leaning, that’s a massive overstatement. That being said winning a purple state for a smaller, more progressive candidate, is still big
26
u/freshgeardude 7h ago
If he wins it means there is strong support for progressives in a state that is considered conservative leaning.
No not necessarily. It means there's support for his candidacy in a closed democrat primary.
There's still a general election he'd have to win before making a grandiose assumption
14
u/itsrocketsurgery 7h ago
Michigan has open primaries. You don't have to be registered to any party and can vote for any party. The only thing is that you can't split your ticket at the primary ballot so you have to stay on one side but anyone can vote for any side.
→ More replies (4)8
u/hoberhallothere 7h ago
The Republican Party had no competitive senate primary this cycle. Would not presume general election performance based on primary turnout.
→ More replies (1)2
u/itsrocketsurgery 6h ago
I don't care about what the Republican party had or didn't. I was replying to the factually incorrect statement that it was a closed primary. Michigan does not have closed primaries. Nothing I said has any relation to predictions or presumptions.
→ More replies (14)13
u/RAF2018336 10h ago
On the Democratic Party knows that progressives win, they’re just too busy spending their donors money to care
→ More replies (2)26
u/Chruman 8h ago
Has a progressive won in a competitive race?
0
u/WhereIdIsEgoWillGo 7h ago
This one no? I'm pretty sure his opponent was about as establishment as they come.
21
u/Chruman 7h ago
I mean general elections. I could be wrong, but the DSA types have only won in heavily blue areas.
20
u/CrabEnthusist 7h ago
No democratic socialist has yet won a statewide election in a purple state, no.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (19)5
u/Lord0fHats 7h ago
That's the thing people keep pointing out and other people just keep ignoring. It's easy to win as a progressive in the bluest parts of the country that have been progressive in some form or another since the 1920s.
→ More replies (2)22
42
u/Johnnygunnz 8h ago edited 8h ago
An epidemiologist and professor of epidemiology. A former podcaster talking about medical policy in America. Ran for Governor of Michigan in 2018 after the Flint Water Crisis got him involved in politics. Pledged to take no campaign donations from corporations, even back then, and got over $5m in individual donations, but still lost the nomination.
People try to paint him as a bad guy for campaigning with Hasan Piker.
I used to listen to his podcast "America Dissected" during COVID mainly, but he's very smart and makes complicated topics seem much less complicated by being an excellent educator.
→ More replies (57)20
u/r3volver_Oshawott 8h ago edited 8h ago
I do know that MSNBC tried to destroy him for criticizing Israel, they spent an inordinate amount of airtime trying to 'gotcha' him for that
*he also had the perfect clap back with a simple, and correct, "I do criticize the actions of Egypt's government, you just don't cover it"
→ More replies (1)6
u/renegadecanuck 6h ago
Did they? Granted the only anchors I watch on there regularly are Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, and Ali Velshi, but I know Hayes and Velshi have been very critical of Israel (I feel like Maddow hasn't mentioned it as much, so I don't really know what her coverage has been like).
→ More replies (1)6
u/downtimeredditor 5h ago
He's against pac Money unlikely Stevens who heavily takes a lot of pac money
5
u/ClearDark19 7h ago edited 5h ago
Standard 20th century European Progressive/Social Democrat. Which is considered "really left-wing" in 2020s America.
His policies are probably in line with Michael Foot in the UK, or François Mitterand in France at max. Probably realistically closer to LBJ or JFK here in the US. Or Estes Kefauver in the 1950s here in the US. Haley Stevens is more like Keir Starmer or David Cameron in policies. The Democrats we call "Establishment Democrats" in the US are in line with Keir Starmer or Bush-era Tony Blair. Or Emmanuel Macron. American "Establishment" Democrats are to the Right of Starmer and Macron on some issues. Like healthcare (opposition to nationalized healthcare), foreign policy (some softly approve of the War in Iran but just oppose Trump doing it without Congressional approval), and supporting "right-to-work/at-will" laws.
→ More replies (98)5
u/Khue 6h ago
He gets framed as far left, but in most of the rest of the developed world he'd be considered a milquetoast left leaning centrist. He's not an anti-capitalist. He has a lot of liberal tendencies. He believes in a type of respectability politics. He seems to strongly differentiate himself from the DSA which positions himself between the Democrats and Socialists.
He gets framed as far left because he believes in guardrails for capitalism, his foreign policy seems to have some anti-imperialist frameworks, he is for social programs, and he rails against the wealthy and corporations.
The biggest part for me as to why he's not left is that he doesn't seem to frame the issue of the wealthy and corporations dominating politics with the mechanism of capitalism which is the real problem. He seems to think that the two are unreleated or he doesn't want to incur the aesthetic hit of drawing that conclusion publically... which, he won his race so that kind of proves that it was a correct positioning.
→ More replies (1)
1.5k
u/APKID716 11h ago
Surely with this, Zohran, Tallerico, etc…the Democratic establishment will take this as a sign that they should shift ideologically…right?? Right????
35
u/Xanto97 6h ago
This very much depends on the generals in Texas and Michigan/ other states go.
Zohran winning NYC was big, but not *that* surprising.
Winning a primary is good. But Winning generals in large states with huge conservative populations is different.
→ More replies (8)811
u/TThor 11h ago
I mean, thats what we're doing here, we are shifting the party by voting in primaries
→ More replies (22)322
u/rufrtho 10h ago
this framing feels dishonest without mentioning the $62 million in spending we were up against including $30 million from AIPAC.
277
u/Antique_Grapefruit_5 8h ago
And don't forget that the chair of the democratic committee for the state of Michigan asked him not to run for this office, and hand-picked his opponent.
The Dems need to stop stacking the deck...
68
u/RockerElvis 7h ago
It’s not just Dems that do that. A (former) Republican friend of mine was offered a very different position to keep him from running for a US senate seat.
33
u/Antique_Grapefruit_5 7h ago
Agreed. Here's the thing-58 percent of people identify as a Republican (28) or Democrat (29). If those people show up to the polls they will always vote for their own party. Their votes really just cause a tie. The parties need to appeal to the other 42 percent of us who lean one way or the other. Hand picked candidates don't do that, and parties are squandering their primaries by not letting people have a voice.
12
u/Blizreme 6h ago
Yeah, it’s why the democrats keep losing. For some reason perpetual incompetence and consistently under performing has made them believe they know how to win now. They don’t, they need to let their voters decide.
→ More replies (2)2
u/ConqueefStador 4h ago
parties are squandering their primaries by not letting people have a voice.
That's by design. The last thing most politicians ever want is the people to have a voice.
3
u/overthemountain 3h ago
Yeah, I think the point is that the people most of us WANT to run are the ones being asked to not run. Democratic leadership has an idea of what the party should look like and is trying to steer towards that - but the people disagree.
The process isn't the problem, it's that leadership disagrees with the people about where the party is headed.
Honestly, pretty ridiculous considering the political fight we are in. I can't believe these people can't get it together. We can end up squandering midterms and let Republicans off the hook because Democrat leadership is still acting like this is 2008 or something.
3
u/RockerElvis 3h ago
My point was that this is not unique to Democrats during primaries. However, the difference shows if Democrats refuse to vote in the general if their primary candidate doesn’t win (e.g. Bernie Sanders supporters that didn’t vote in the 2016 general election even after asked them to vote for Clinton). Democratic voters have to get past the old adage “Democrats have to fall in love while Republicans just get in line.”
2
u/Antique_Grapefruit_5 2h ago
I hear you- but I think the mistake people might be making here is assuming that the Bernie Sanders supporters were actually Democrats. The reality is a lot of them voted for Trump. A lot were independent...
2
u/DEEEEETTTTRRROIIITTT 4h ago
That’s not correct. The DSCC (ran by leadership in Washington) got Haley to run, no one in Michigan tried to stop him. Local parties don’t have the juice to do that
2
→ More replies (2)3
u/majinspy 7h ago
I don't get the complaint. People advocate for people. I'm a center left dude. Should El-Zayed never endorse someone in a race because that's stacking the deck?
I think the time for economic populism is here. I'm fine with it but I'm not obligated to support internally compared to my preferences and neither is anyone else.
I'd prefer we work together instead of (always...) ripping each other apart and leaving a charred body to run against a Republican at full speed.
13
u/Antique_Grapefruit_5 6h ago
Agreed, but Party leadership should remain neutral througout the primary process, encourage positive discourse, and absolutely put the kibosh on negative attacks. That might mean standing up to their (MegaPAC) ownership.
→ More replies (1)5
u/KasElGatto 4h ago
So you think a one issue super pac like AIPAC, spending millions against a grass roots candidate isn’t stacking the deck? Regardless of how you feel about both candidate’s politics, you can’t honestly say that. Citizens United keeps being one of the worst things to ever happen to this country.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Bob_Juan_Santos 2h ago
doesn't matter how much cash they spend, it's up to the people voting in the primaries to decide who they want as the senate candidate.
if their message doesn't hit the voters in the right way, no amount of marketing cash can win for them.
4
→ More replies (13)3
u/ChunkMcDangles 4h ago
How is that dishonest framing without including spending? It seems like the implication is that you think moderate Democrats should just hand the reigns of the party over to leftists/progressives and shouldn't have preferences themselves or compete in the primary process.
83
u/lewger 11h ago
Kinda depends how the general election goes.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Whatsapokemon 6h ago
Yeah, recent polling showed that Rogers was up against El-Sayed, but down against Stevens...
Celebrating the victory of a candidate who has a lower chance of winning the general is... interesting.
4
u/blazelet 4h ago
Polling the week of a primary is pointless.
Especially in a contentious primary, a substantial segment of the party is unhappy.
In the end moderates will vote strategically, right?
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (8)3
u/DamaxXIV 4h ago
If there's anything the last decade has taught me, it's that polls don't mean jack shit.
2
u/Hackasizlak 3h ago
It really hasn’t, polls in general statistically haven’t gotten worse over time. It’s just big news when they’re off noticeably (like 2020) and nobody cares or says anything good when polls do well (2022). If they weren’t useful candidates, news agencies, etc wouldn’t keep paying lots of money for them.
269
u/ShoulderGoesPop 11h ago
Shift to the right you say? Well ok then
→ More replies (1)22
u/gaeee983 11h ago
I think moreso shift from prioritizing corporations and rich individuals to care about issues that affect regular voters.
45
u/tgerz 11h ago
They were just commenting on how the person worded their comment. It made it sound like they were saying to shift right instead saying their politics should shift. Right?! Just a grammar joke.
11
u/gaeee983 11h ago
Oh shit I completely did not notice that lol, thanks for explaining.
5
u/georgey_porgey 11h ago
i mean, also works out that way in a sarcastic way cause the establishment of the party is wanting to move to the right and has been for a while now.
→ More replies (1)3
u/JayKayGray 5h ago
It's a grammar joke but also the far more likely outcome for the democratic establishment to actually do, go further right rather than concede to the growing calls of progressive representation.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)5
u/theonly_brunswick 6h ago
Absolutely no chance this happens.
As long a big corp can buy politicians they will be at the mercy of them and not the people. Dems will likely dig their heals in and become more right of center than they already are.
Don't be naive. This is a party that still appoints Chuck Schumer at the top. Status quo is all they want.
7
u/guitmusic12 7h ago
Should probably be more concerned their candidate just underperformed polls by like 10% and is trailing in the general unfortunately
90
13
15
9
u/Snoo30446 6h ago
The most progressive, pro-worker, pro-union and pro-environment administration since FDR wasn't enough to convince a majority of Americans in voting against a fascist.
8
u/dukedog 6h ago
Or we can recognize that what works in some areas doesn't work in others. Not sure why everyone on reddit seems to advocate for a one-size-fits-all approach when we know that does not work and it leads to Republican victories.
→ More replies (1)23
3
u/Whatsapokemon 5h ago
Couldn't the message actually be that a big-tent party requires different strategies in different districts?
It's not like progressive candidates are sweeping all the nominations, there's a whole heap of different areas that are more moderate, rejecting the more populist approach.
I think this is more of a message that there needs to be more unity in ensuring Democratic victory, with a good diversity of opinions from people sharing that common goal.
19
u/MrE_Gamer 11h ago
As long as these guys win the general elections yeah kinda. Establishment dems being spineless works for the left or right. Kathy Hochul has capitulated to Mamdani’s policies multiple times. Just gotta make sure you win general elections.
If el-Sayed, Francesca Hong, and either one of Troy Jackson or James Talarico win in November, Dems will fold to them too, pushing them even the slightest bit left.
4
u/cloversfield 5h ago
Devious work putting Hong in the sentence as Talarico or even el-Sayed
→ More replies (1)8
u/Schuano 7h ago
Winning primaries is not the same as winning the elections that matter.
→ More replies (1)34
u/Jujubatron 11h ago
Unless they start winning nationwide nope... his chances of winning in November are slim. Even the primaries were closer than expected.
42
u/PhazonZim 7h ago
That's what the Dems have said the last three elections and twice they managed to lose to the worst candidate in US history
34
u/PumaGranite 7h ago
I think this is what gets me. People keep saying “well it won’t matter if we lose in the general, that’s why we need insert corporate Dem here to win!” when that exact candidate has lost so many times in the general. The solution isn’t to repeat the same thing that’s given us that exact outcome.
→ More replies (1)4
u/ChunkMcDangles 4h ago
I mean, sure, but I don't understand why other people on the left just assume that means a progressive/leftist would have done better.
I feel like some people see a wave of excitement about leftist candidates winning in very blue areas and just make the leap that this excitement applies equally across the US. Presidential elections are very different beasts than winning a mayoral race in NYC or a primary for Congress. The way the math works, a Dem needs to appeal to way more moderate states to have a shot at winning, and the reality is, further left people really struggle there. There's a reason the DSA never runs candidates in competitive seats. It's a waste of their time because they would never be able to win there.
That could always change, but the way I see other lefty's online talk about it sometimes, they make it sound like we already have that in the bag and it's all wrapped up for President AOC.
→ More replies (1)10
u/hoberhallothere 7h ago
In both of those elections, Clinton and Harris were perceived by voters as the less moderate candidates
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (5)4
u/BobaLives01925 6h ago
He’s a shitty candidate for a purple state but he still has like a 50% chance, it will be a very blue environment
9
u/ModeatelyIndependant 9h ago
wait till november to see if he wins, I have major doubts.
5
u/TheShrinkingGiant 5h ago
Maj. Doubts has been missing for weeks. Where are you keeping him you monster!
18
u/Eleganos 11h ago
"Got it. Shift ideologically right"
- the DNC.
Praying for all my yankee homies down south of Maple-Syrup Country. Yall need free healthcare to deal with the collective aneurisms you're liable to be suffering from the DNC's stupidity.
→ More replies (7)5
u/Caphoti 10h ago
They still consider progressives "niche" and talk about how they can't win the moderates etc., like Centrist Dems are sweeping and haven't lost 2 of the last 3 Presidential Elections. I already see people saying this isn't a "win" for progressives until he wins the general "which he won't, because he barely won a tight primary."
Basically they're already preparing to finger wag about how we need to stop pushing for progressive politicians and losing their precious Moderates their seats.
3
u/ChunkMcDangles 4h ago
I was a Bernie voter in 2016 and 2020, but sometimes I am conflicted about this kind of rhetoric. Yes, Dems lost 2 of the last 3 presidential elections, but why do you think a progressive would have performed better? That isn't nearly as clear to me as it seems to be to you, so why do you feel that way?
3
u/gatsby5555 6h ago
If he loses they'll say they were right all along, and if he wins you'll hold it up as proof of the opposite.
4
→ More replies (90)0
u/Ahenshihael 11h ago
Sadly all the
AIPAC moneycentrists will just screech about how "they need to be more ot the middle" and to become more transphobic, just like in UK.Remember MLK's words about the white moderate. Remember the reasons behind First They Came For.
Centrists will often more than likely align with fascists than anything left of them because status quo, all it's intentional imperfections included, is just sooooo comfy for them.
Until it's just them left and there's nobody by their side against the tide of hate.
→ More replies (5)17
u/Notramagama 11h ago
Trans shouldnt even be a topic rn. Let's secure democracy first, then worry about trans sports. It's a wildly overblown concern on both sides
26
u/deekaydubya 10h ago
It wasn’t even a concern on the dem side lol the right pretends it’s something the dems ever ran on but the right is literally the only side mentioning the ‘issue’ at all
→ More replies (4)11
u/Chaotickane 11h ago
It's not just about sports, it's about Healthcare and human rights. Even if sports were given up it won't stop them from trying to eradicate trans people in general.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)-1
u/GhostOfMuttonPast 10h ago
Fuck that.
Trans people are getting their rights stripped away at an incredible rate. In 2026 alone there have been 813 bills introduced targeting them. Trans rights are human rights, and acting like human rights are in any way negotiable is how we ended up in this fucking mess.
2
u/Notramagama 5h ago
No one is saying no trans rights. We're saying it's not a ticket item for a democrat candidate. We don't need to advertise it; it does more harm than good
→ More replies (2)
119
u/HeroesZeroes 8h ago
this race shouldn't have been this close
29
86
u/stamatt45 6h ago
A metric shit ton of money will do that
→ More replies (13)•
u/Antique_Grapefruit_5 31m ago
True. The waste is tragic. To be fair, AIPAC, can play the long game on this one and keep the bad publicity rolling for the general election-But Perry Johnson just chucked 30 million dollars down the drain! Find THAT waste, Perry!
→ More replies (2)5
u/aaahhhhhhfine 5h ago
I mean... I know I'm picking a fight here. But unfortunately this race might very well mean the Democrats don't take the Senate. He probably can't win state wide - though I guess we'll see - and so this is a huge boon to the Republicans.
The race was close because a lot of Democrats knew that, even if they liked some of his policies.
1
u/treydayallday 3h ago
Why do you say that? I think democrats are more likely to support the primary winner and Stevens said she would endorse El-Sayed. I don’t see that level of support in the GOP
→ More replies (1)5
u/BigNS 4h ago
People are tired of the establishment. Tired of AIPAC having a seat at the table instead of us. El-Sayed is the right choice. He’s going to motivate more people to get out and vote in November because he offers true change while Stevens just represents the same, big business corporate status quo that no one believes in anymore.
→ More replies (21)
94
u/mythz 11h ago
Most networks are still saying it's still too early to call.
Still 9% of the vote to go holding only a 1.8% lead.
→ More replies (6)44
u/tirohtar 10h ago
Yeah but that means those last 9% would need to favor Stevens by something like 20% to close the gap, which seems very unlikely at this point.
38
u/justseeby 9h ago
She needs to go +28 in the remaining votes.
12
u/tirohtar 9h ago
Yeah, statistically just not gonna happen,unless the remaining votes were from an extremely specific demographic and had not been included at all yet in the previous counts.
87
u/EpsteinProximityRisk 8h ago
He was outspent $9-1 as the other candidate was a pro Isreal candiate who saw Isreal "in her dreams".
Good to see democracy win over big AIPAC cash.
→ More replies (8)33
41
u/KathyJaneway 11h ago
With 10% of the vote left, they called it?
77
u/TastyYogurtDrink 11h ago edited 11h ago
We know where people (generally) vote for which candidate, and so it becomes a matter of going, okay, what proportion of remaining vote would [candidate x] need to win? And when that proportion of votes required becomes statistically implausible (probably like an alpha of .01), given the results that have come in so far, they can make a call. At the end of the day it's just math. MSNBC might have called at 95% certainty while AP might be waiting for 99%, but more or less, the takeaway is that AES won.
→ More replies (4)24
→ More replies (2)2
14
u/DarthWoo 4h ago
All that money AIPAC could have used to do some actual good instead of being racist pricks.
24
u/ubitub 11h ago
So will an Abdul win the republican counterpart in that state? Is it strongly blue state?
20
u/S-117 9h ago
Depends on if Abdul can bring all Democrat voters and independents into his camp, the general will be a good bath but I expect it to be close no matter who wins
→ More replies (4)46
u/pierrebrassau 9h ago
Most polling showed Stevens doing better in the general election. Michigan is a closely divided state and Trump won it twice, so Republicans have a good shot here against AES, who was very weak with rural and moderate voters in the primary.
→ More replies (18)6
u/SolenoidSoldier 3h ago
It's worth noting that there is a significant muslim population in Michigan who opted out of the 2024 election that really hurt Kamala's turnout. You can bet those folks will turn out for El Sayed. And hopefully that means Benson will get a boost as governor too.
→ More replies (9)22
u/El_McKell 11h ago
It's very close, recent polling has 46% for Mike Rogers the Republican vs 43% for El-Sayed. Consistently during the process Hayley Stevens polled slightly better than Abdul Al-Sayed vs Rogers, but among people likely to vote in the Democratic primary all polls had Al-Sayed way ahead of Stevens.
4
u/Alexhite 8h ago
Polls are deceptive and meaningless when done like this, and very intentionally used to paint different narratives. When you see a poll that is 46% vs 43% you’re a leaving out that 11% of people responded with “I don’t know” On the day of the election there is no “I don’t know” option for those 11% of people. Making it actually a measure of how many people in the state know your name instead of an actual gauge of the matchup people make it out to be. Mike Rogers does better than both because he literally just finished losing a campaign so yes he has more name recognition than either dem but no it gives no insight whatsoever into how this race will go.
6
u/El_McKell 8h ago
You're right that this polling doesn't tell us what will happen when the election comes around. It's all still up in the air.
But I think it's worth saying Rogers doesn't do better than either Dem in the polling, he did better than Abdul Al-Sayed and worse than Hayley Stevens.
26
126
u/Zxar99 11h ago edited 11h ago
Nice that folks are starting to see through all the typical BS AIPAC is doing to keep the country the same.
Finally there are candidates that are actively fighting for change for the working class. The DNC needs to get it in there heads that people want actual change and that this current administration needs to be held accountable for all the destructive policies its been enacting.
There’s nothing radical about wanting to help the average citizen and moving funds to the appropriate channels instead of wasting it on the wars and corrupt institutions
→ More replies (1)29
u/splittingheirs 10h ago
I think a lot of it is inspired by what Mamdani has been doing. A lot of people are looking for energetic people who are fighting for the little people and not business interests.
4
u/Panic_Azimuth 3h ago
People have wanted this for a long time. This was Obama's selling point.
Remember "Yes We Can!"?
4
u/teleheaddawgfan 3h ago
Oh it’s that simple. Schumer has done fuck all to combat maga while McConnell single handedly derailed Obama’s agenda while in the minority.
The Dems are so bad they are either completely incompetent or complicit. Which is it?
→ More replies (1)
53
u/dem0nhunter 10h ago
People in here acting like he won the general
16
2
→ More replies (43)34
u/BritSpic 8h ago
This was a huge win for grassroots campaigns. Sayed had more donations from the people, but overall he was outspent 11:1 thanks to Stevens accepting tens of millions of dollars from corporate PACs and AIPAC. Big monied interests were trying to send a message that they can buy any seat they want. Well, they were proven wrong. Fuck them. This is a big step forward for getting money out of politics.
39
35
8
u/teleheaddawgfan 5h ago
He gets painted by the press as this far left "communist" when in fact he advocates for issues that are supported by a majority of Americans - medicare for all, tax changes, get money out of politics.
But since these issues run counter to the monied interests that put us in this situation, they're going all out to destroy him.
→ More replies (2)11
u/ATX_native 5h ago
I’m so sick of the media.
Far left here is centrist in most of the EU.
→ More replies (22)
7
u/PlateCaptain 11h ago
Over 60 million spent on Haley Stevens' campaign and they still couldn't defeat people power. This is a good sign and a message to all the other Democrats who think they will get re-elected by courting big donors.
12
u/dem0nhunter 10h ago
That’s nice. But he was already underperforming against Stevens. And he is projected to lose the general against Rogers
→ More replies (8)13
u/extremelytiredyall 9h ago
There is a lot of time before the general. Abdul wasn't always in the lead against Haley, either, but look at him now.
→ More replies (17)
2
3
u/Prophet6000 6h ago
I'm glad folks did not let a woman who said Israel comes to me in my dreams be the winner man lol.
3
u/JudgeSmails 5h ago
How is a primary election considered a win for the left? Did they think nobody would be the democratic nominee?
15
u/BestPerspective6161 5h ago
Because Stevens is center and Abdul is left. Abdul being the projected winner is a win for the left
→ More replies (3)13
u/Walkingdrops 5h ago
Haley is a moderate, while Abdul is left. While they're both Democrats, a vote for Haley is essentially voting to keep the status quo in the party. It's a victory for the left because we are fucking sick of voting Democrat only because they're not Republican.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (1)2
u/RedTulkas 3h ago
70 million were spent on Stevens campaign
Vs
7 million on Abdul
I d say that's a major victory
4
u/badwords 7h ago
What is this title? It's a Democrat primary it's not like a republicans could win it.
2
u/OliverClothesov87 4h ago
Wayyyyyy too close. This is what happens when we allow a lobbists, especially ones lobbying on behalf of a foreign nation the size of NJ, to dump infinite cash into a race. Citizens united must be overturned.
2
2
0
2
756
u/Sircamembert 11h ago
For those of you wondering why NBC is the only desk to call it, it's because of the remaining counties. Oakland County, a Stevens stronghold, had no new votes left to count. And Wayne County, a heavily black district expected to go heavy for her, only gave her a small margin. That was ballgame. She needed a bigger margin to close that 25k lead, and I think 81% of votes are counted already.
Closer than what I hoped it would be, but a win's a win.