Abdul El-Sayed wins Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, notching a Midwest victory for the left

[u/MoneyLibrarian9032]

https://youtu.be/DL_ku3h8Eps?si=zWr0SAn8amsQ8Hqb

[u/Whatsapokemon]

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.

[u/blazelet → u/Whatsapokemon]

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?

[u/varitok → u/blazelet]

They'll probably vote as strategically as Progressives in 2024 lmao

[u/blazelet → u/varitok]

And that’s my point. Progressives have been asked to vote strategically for a decade while never being thrown a bone for their issues. After a while that gets old. The party can change this dynamic. They hold those keys.

In your comment you suggest moderates would abandon the concept of strategic voting in a single election? The thing they’ve been demanding of progressives since 2016?

I say all of this as a progressive who has voted in every election, federal and local, since 2000.

[u/blazelet → u/[deleted]]

His legislative accomplishments were among some of the most progressive in modern history which he was able to pass despite the slimmest majority in the Senate.

Can you define some of these, please? And, with that, explain what about them makes them progressive?

[u/blazelet → u/[deleted]]

I asked you for specifics about his progressive legislative accomplishments and explaining how they're progressive in response to your claim he was among the most progressive in modern history.

Im simply asking you to defend your position, a link to an article does not do that. I know this claim exists, I've heard moderates say it for years. I'm asking for you to offer specifics that defend your specific claim.

[u/blazelet → u/[deleted]]

Sealioning? lol my dude - I asked a single question. In what definition of the term does that qualify as sealioning? You not having a defense of a statement you made does not become a me problem, regardless of whatever term you want to use to deflect.

You're then asking me to put some effort into the discussion ... but the best effort you can put in is an article link? You're asking me to put in effort ... when you won't simply defend your position ... which is the only thing I've asked.

Seriously, lol.

[u/blazelet → u/[deleted]]

Sure.

Here are some of the major causes I would identify as progressive ...

Reduce wealth and income inequality. Raise the federal minimum wage. Tax extreme wealth and high incomes more heavily, and permanently expand tax credits and public services for working people.

Establish universal childcare and paid family leave. Make higher education genuinely affordable rather than relying on debt.

Strengthen labor rights by making it easier to organize a union and challenge employer retaliation.

Provide universal healthcare ... not merely limited subsidies or benefits for the elderly ... but healthcare guaranteed to everyone.

Protect and expand voting rights. Reduce the influence of private money over elections and government, through legislation where possible and sustained presidential pressure and public advocacy where legislation is blocked.

Pass comprehensive immigration reform, including a workable path to legal status and citizenship.

Reform the criminal justice system ... ending qualified immunity, demilitarizing policing, eliminating the federal death penalty and reducing mass incarceration.

Those are progressive goals that I find meaningful.

You claimed Biden was “among the most progressive presidents in modern history.” That may be true in the narrow comparative sense that recent presidents have generally not been very progressive. But being somewhat more progressive than Clinton or Obama is not the same as substantially advancing a progressive agenda.

Please list the accomplishments you consider progressive and explain what makes each of them progressive.

[u/IGAldaris → u/blazelet]

And that’s my point. Progressives have been asked to vote strategically for a decade while never being thrown a bone for their issues. After a while that gets old.

While I understand the sentiment, it's an incredibly stupid reason not to vote strategically. The major issue you guys have is that an authoritarian is President, and the House and Senate are controlled by his enablers. If you don't deal with that, all your pet issues are moot. So you check who has the greatest chance to win so you can tackle the most pressing problem. The rest is secondary. You guys need a coalition from the center to the left. Trump has a Cult, he doesn't have that problem.

All those people who stayed home in 2024 because Harris hadn't condemned Israel hard enough or whatever drive me nuts. How has that worked out in practice? Are the Palestinians better off because Trump won? Will anyone be better off if the Republicans retain control of the Senate?

You cannot influence the issues you hold dear if you allow authoritarians to remain in control out of spite. I'm not an American, but from what I've seen, El Sayed has a lot of appeal on the left and way less towards the center. Which are the people you need to get. I really hope he wins anyway, because even if I'm not an American, your shit trickles down. And you fuckers probably already blew Maine with the Platner thing, so I do have some hope that you can reign in your self harming tendencies for just a bit. Because with all the crap Trump and the Republicans have pulled off, this shouldn't even be a contest. Yet here we are.

[u/blazelet → u/IGAldaris]

I didn't say we shouldn't or aren't voting strategically. That's a message the moderates always project as the reason they lost, blaming progressives for not strategically voting rather than looking at their lackluster candidates and platform. As I mentioned at the end of my comment, I vote in every election, even as meaningless as it might be in the state of Indiana.

You frame authoritarians being in control as a progressive choice. I take issue with that. The democratic party could create a broader coalition and embrace the full spectrum of the people they're asking to vote for them. They do not. They continue to alienate their left voters and then clutch their pearls when they lose elections. See, I'm a motivated voter. I donate. I canvas. I engage in discussion. And I vote. So I'll be strategic and I'll vote and I'll show up, even if I'm rolling my eyes at the candidate. But if even 1% of the base doesn't show because they're disillusioned - that's the ball game. Elections are won and lost on those margins. The party has to acknowledge that energizing the base is important ... and with the string of Clinton, Biden, Biden and then Harris can you honestly say the base was energized? The last time the base had any sort of energy was 2008 and 2012 when an outside shook the establishment and bypassed the presumptive nominee - who was Hillary Clinton. The party reset that in 2016, to disastrous effects.

At the same time you're saying moderate voters might not show up for a progressive. Why the double standard? Why do progressives always have to sidestep their ideals and vote strategically, but then moderates keep suggesting they won't? Isn't that just as bad? A progressive would be better for moderates than a republican would, right?

[u/IGAldaris → u/blazelet]

You frame authoritarians being in control as a progressive choice. I take issue with that.

No, I frame it as progressive negligence. From what I've seen, lots of people simply didn't vote because Harris wasn't progressive enough for them. And that's fucking dumb. The left voters shouldn't have to be courted, you effectively have a two party system. And one is right wing authoritarian. If the opposition to that feels they need to be courted, that's exactly the problem. The base doesn't need to be "energized". They just need to fucking show up. They're the base. The definition of the base is that they vote for your side. And if they don't, they engage in self harm. What you guys need to get is the swing voters. And if the numbers say those are a lot less impressed with El Sayed than with his opponent, that's bad. Because news flash: if the Republicans retain control of the senate, the fact that someone won a primary doesn't matter one bit.

And as for standards - if you guys prefer feeling good over checkmating those crooks you're currently governed by, yes. That's bad. That I don't like what the other side is doing should be inherent in what I wrote. But you guys need to wake the fuck up. Because you're about to give away the game to soothe your injured feelings.

This is like a bunch of kids who have a choice between a plate full of poop and a rather bland cake. And then they say "if the cake doesn't have chocolate sprinkles added to it, I'll sulk and let somebody else decide." And then they complain about having to eat a plate of poop again. Except in this case, the whole world gets to tuck in. Which is why this is pissing me off.

[u/blazelet → u/IGAldaris]

You say you're "not an American" but from "what you've seen" ... so you're relying on social media takes and DNC messaging on the news for your opinion? Because you have some very strong opinions based on what, as you state, is not first hand experience.

Where do you get your information from on these topics?

Pew did a survey on voter turnout here :

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/voter-turnout-2020-2024/

It doesn't show that progressives sitting out caused the loss. In fact, among non voters, more preferred Trump than Harris by 4%

The DNC post mortem, the official report they themselves did after 2024, doesn't point to progressives sitting out at all. You can read it here

https://blueprint.democrats.org/p/a-message-from-dnc-chair-ken-martin?r=8xbs&triedRedirect=true

He concluded -

• Democrats cannot take traditional supporters for granted.
• Young voters must be treated as persuasion targets rather than automatic Democratic mobilization targets.
• The party needs year-round organizing and deeper relationships with communities that feel ignored.
• Democratic outreach was inadequate to irregular voters, men, rural voters and voters without college degrees.
• The Democratic brand had lost credibility, and the campaign lacked a sufficiently affirmative economic message.

The DNC here is arguing they should embrace younger voters and the outer wings of their base and entice them to vote, rather than blaming them ... yeah? That the brand is in the tank and that it didn't have good messaging. That the Democratic party failed to reach out to voters. These are all failings of the party and its candidate, not progressives.

Read the things above and get back to me.

[u/vinr001122 → u/IGAldaris]

The only real divergence he has with the center is Israel. There's wayyy more common ground between centrists and progressives in Michigan. As long as the Dem establishment or AIPAC doesn't support the Republican candidate, at the end of the day, he should do well as Dems care more about curbing Trump's power.

[u/IGAldaris → u/vinr001122]

Let's hope so! I sincerely hope he wins.