Wherever I read reports about Abdul El-Sayed's victory over Rep. Haley Stevens in Michigan's Democratic primary in the USA yesterday, in which that party selected its candidate for the US Senate midterm elections this autumn, I could not help but feel the shock creeping from the pages of the mainstream press.
Commentary in the Financial Times, the New York Times and the Washington Post all reflect the same sentiment. The shock of a democratic socialist being selected over a mainstream corporate Democrat is something that the mainstream media is having difficulty coming to terms with.
Take this from the New York Times for example:
Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive former public health official, won a razor-thin victory in the Democratic primary for Senate in Michigan that serves as the most significant triumph for his party's left wing this year.
Dr. El-Sayed prevailed in a highly contentious contest against Representative Haley Stevens, who argued to the end that he was unlikely to win a general election in a battleground state.
Can you spot the positive dimensions in there? No, me neither. Grudging disbelief coupled with foreboding naysaying is the one I am getting.
This is the FT take:
Progressive challenger Abdul El-Sayed has defeated congresswoman Haley Stevens in a high-stakes Democratic Senate primary in Michigan that has delivered a stunning rebuke of the party establishment.
The result is a significant victory for the party's progressive leftwing and sets the stage for a blockbuster US Senate race in the critical swing state in November's midterm elections.
Much the same sentiment is expressed as is seen in the New York Times. The message is one of sympathy for the Democrat hierarchy and their loss, and misses the point that they threw four times more money at this campaign than Abdul El-Sayed and still lost, as if they had to find out the hard way that money can't buy you love.
The sentiment is such that you almost believe that these papers are aligned with Trump, who said on his social media platform, as quoted in the FT:
Great news for the Republican Party. El-Sayed, a Communist loser who hates Jews and Israel is the projected winner in his race. Now the Dumocrats crazy policies will only get worse!
That comment is worth noting. The language is patronising. As far as I can see, it would be hard to call Abdul El-Sayed a democratic socialist, let alone a communist, but this portrayal of the left by Trump (and many Democrats) is familiar, and alienating for anyone who cares about others.
As tellingly, the framing around support for Israel is significant: this reveals the real issue in US politics, which is whether the US should be a sovereign state, or one run for rhe the benefit of Benjamin Netanyahu's factions in Israel. Many in both the Republicans and Democrats take the second view. That is the great divide in US politics now, and maybe elsewhere as well.
The reality is, of course, that this is great news for politics in the USA. To get a sense of that, I had to read Robert Reich. He said in a Substack post:
With the victory of progressive Abdul El-Sayed over Rep. Haley Stevens in Michigan's Democratic primary yesterday, prepare yourself to hear enormous quantities of bullsh*t about the Democratic Party now being “taken over” by “Democratic Socialists.”
Or as the reliably establishment New York Times described what's at stake, “can an insurgent candidate, with unabashedly left-wing positions, win in a moderate state?”
Oh, p-l-e-a-s-e.
Michigan Democrats didn't choose El-Sayed because he's “unabashedly left wing” or a Democratic Socialist (in fact, he's not).
They chose him because he's a fighter — at a time when America needs fighters willing to stand up to the worst tyrant who has ever occupied the Oval Office.
I hope and believe that is right, precisely because, as he added:
Corporate Democrats — such as Haley Stevens, along with Rahm Emanuel, Chuck Schumer, and Hakeem Jeffries — aren't up to the task because they won't bite the corporate hands that feed them campaign money. They won't criticize the billionaire class. They refuse to see how big money has corrupted America.
That is the issue at stake here, and which is at stake in the UK as well.
People have had enough of the influence of money in politics of both the far-right and the soft right, which the Democrats in the USA and Labour here represent.
They are sick and tired of welfare for the wealthy, and the steady stream of grants they are given in exchange to appease their squealing when real people in need are ignored.
They want action on issues that offend those who pursue big profits from exploitation of people and planet, which activity corporate interests can only maintain by buying politicians.
People in the USA want a fight on these issues, not because they are communist or democratic socialists, but just because they care, they have had enough and truly do want to drain the swamp.
In the USA, some Democrats are choosing to take on a fight against those corporate interests that put money ahead of people, when politics in a democracy should be about people before corporate power. I am hoping it is a fight that they win.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
One word explains the hostility – Israel.
There will be a massive smear campaign.
I have to say, given what previously happened when Bernie Saunders was pushed aside by Clinton (Mrs) I was gobsmacked to see this happen.
The Democratic Party is a failed political institution showing signs of life when something like this happens. Something has to give one day, let us hope that this is the beginning of something.
I hope that Cortez is still being strong and on the right track.
Thank you.
AOC and Bernie are sheepdogs to show the left a bit of leg and then get them to vote Dixiecrat.
From 2008 – 18, I often worked on Wall Street and in DC.
I am hoping there is more to this than that
Thank you, Richard.
Last week and week-end, the Dixiecrats deployed Obama, James Clyburn and MLK’s daughter Bernice to campaign against El Sayed, trying to convince African Americans to vote against their interests. The trio conflated Jews with Israel and Zionism and said El Sayed was more interested in Palestine than civil rights.
The same stunt is being deployed against the DSA candidate in Wisconsin.
“the party’s progressive leftwing”……..bursts out with laughter.
El Sayed, a bloke & possible senator more interested in the well being of US citizens & policies relating to them than……….Israel & Israelis. & of course, that is causus belli for many in the USA.
It is unfortunate that there are not more politicos & potential politicos in the UK that have a similar attitude towards UK citizens (= they come first and everybody else a long way behind). But there we are, we live in an info space manipulated for the benefit of non-Brits.
Obama didnt indorse a candidate. It looks like Abdul El-Sayed used this fact to his advantage. The other candidate for falsely portraying himself as an Obama indorced candidate. Another politician would say “weak weak weak”. Absolutely the voters want a fighter. They want someone who can stand up to bullies.
https://www.garbageday.email/p/people-in-the-midwest-know-what-a-livestream-is
This may be of interest: a good take on the Michigan Senate Primary by the ever-informative Garbage Day.
According to the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/aug/05/abdul-el-sayed-democrats-trump :
“he built a grassroots machine, barnstorming the state with in-person rallies while delivering clippable moments for social media feeds. His campaign knocked on more than 200,000 doors and made more than 1m phone calls, aided by leftwing groups such as the Working Families party and Indivisible chapters. El-Sayed held more than 500 campaign events and visited 150 churches.”
and
“But the race solidified a growing anti-establishment sentiment on the party’s left, where activists and supporters have sought a proactive vision that doesn’t rely on the pre-Trump status quo, apparent in a string of wins for insurgent candidates. There’s a sense that systems were already broken before Trump’s rise, and a return to those norms won’t serve everyday Americans. They’re looking for politicians who can call out their own party’s orthodoxies, and challenge the big money that haunts US politics.
Michigan voters found it in El-Sayed, who centered his campaign around universal healthcare, and wasn’t shy about calling the war in Gaza a genocide.”
As you say, the Republicans thought they could buy the election with millions of dollars
The Republicans were not in this election.
This was a primary.
Hear, Hear Richard
I blame the Democrats totally for the chaos in the US these days. If they’re not careful it will lead to the collapse of the entire empire, which might actually be a good thing now! The Democrats gave up supporting working people in the US over a decade ago, and this allowed the likes of Trump to take power – by gaslighting them.
If Mamdani and El-Sayed can show the way forward perhaps the US has a chance – interesting that they are both immigrants! What would we do without them!
Regards…Bob
Thanks, Bob.
For a useful and fully informative analysis, please see G. Elliott Morris’ https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/why-the-polls-missed-in-michigan
Pull quote:
The electability debate about El-Sayed is really stupid. Across public polling of Mike Rogers against either El-Sayed or Stevens, the gap between the two is statistically indistinguishable from zero. The only way to believe Stevens was clearly stronger is to weight a single Glengariff Group survey — which has also shown the strongest numbers for Rogers of any pollster — more than everything else. That notwithstanding, when we run all the data through our forecasting model, El-Sayed holds Michigan 64% of the time with Democrats taking the Senate 55% of the time; Stevens, performing similarly, comes in at 69% for Michigan and 56% to win the chamber. Mind the uncertainty, folks.
Thank you
Michigan has form at this – 2016 Presidential primary, Sanders beat Clinton 49.68% to 48.26%