So, I know that Democratic voters are almost certainly going to react to Haley Steven’s last-minute (well, last 48-hour-ish) decision to endorse Republican Mike Rogers in the US Senate contest in Michigan, at least in part through the anxiety lens of worrying about the Senate majority. And, fair enough, on one level. Since many of us see the election as one that has the potential to provide some check on the obvious authoritarian, if not fascist, machinations of the Trump administration, the stakes are high (as is, therefore, the anxiety).
It doesn’t help that there is concern that the Michigan race is closer than many might like to be the case.
Here’s the FiftyPlusOne polling average, which would suggest an El-Sayed victory to be likely.
To be honest, given the historic lean of the state and the general anti-Republican mood in the country, I would feel pretty good about these numbers were I in the El-Sayed camp. But I do recognize that some combination of concerns about El-Sayed’s views on Israel coupled with a heapin’ helpin’ of Islamophobia means that the race is closer than many might like to be the case.
Even having said that, the latest NYT/Sienna poll released over the weekend has El-Sayed up by 11.
And even if Stevens’ views have much influence in the state, waiting until the Sunday before the election was not the most efficacious timing to deploy said influence.
I find the whole thing quite bizarre.
There can be no doubt that she has torpedoed her political career as a Democrat. She is forever going to be seen from the vantage point as a traitor. This maneuver would have been career-threatening in a normal electoral cycle, but turning coat under these circumstances, where many Democratic elites and voters see the choice as democracy or anti-democracy, I see no room for recovery. Even worse, Mike Rogers has been running a blatantly racist and Islamophobic campaign. It is an odd choice for Stevens to burn down her career by throwing in with Rogers.
Sure, the theory goes, she could seek office as a Republican (even though she claimed in her video she is still a Democrat), but why would they want her? Her previous existence was as a moderate-to-liberal Democrat. Of what use is she to the GOP? Further, she just proved herself to be untrustworthy.
I don’t know what the deal here is, but it was a very strange choice.
Watching the following makes me think that there is no strategy here, and maybe this is some personal issue linked to losing the primary. This interchange is just a rambling mess. It also suggests to me that her level of influence is likely to be small.
At a bare minimum, she is not well articulating why she did what she did. This was a shambolic interview.
Here is the beginning of the Dingell interview:
