AP (“Abdul El-Sayed wins Michigan Senate primary in major victory for Democrats’ progressive wing“):

Abdul El-Sayed has won Michigan’s Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate, narrowly defeating U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens in a victory for the party’s progressive wing in a battleground state.

The real test of El-Sayed’s and progressives’ strength will now come in a November matchup against Mike Rogers, a former congressman who ran unopposed for the Republican nomination. The seat is pivotal to Democrats’ chances of flipping the Senate and El-Sayed will face the challenge of uniting a divided Democratic base after a bruising primary.

The race remained tight throughout Tuesday night, with a winner not declared until Wednesday morning. In his final remarks at a primary night party before the race was called, El-Sayed said “tomorrow we begin to mend fences.”

Stevens called El-Sayed to concede Wednesday, and she issued a statement saying she would back El-Sayed’s candidacy.

“I am proud to offer my support as he takes on Mike Rogers in the general election,” she said.

Stevens added, “This was a thorough and rigorous campaign that brought out the full span of views within the Democratic Party — and that is why we have primaries.”
El-Sayed’s win represents a significant shift for the Democratic Party; in 2018 he lost the gubernatorial primary to now-Gov. Gretchen Whitmer by 21 percentage points.

El-Sayed, a former health official, campaigned on “Medicare for All,” halting military aid to Israel and campaign finance reform. He had support from progressive leaders including Sen. Bernie Sanders and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who framed the race as a grassroots-focused movement and a broader fight against the establishment and big-money spending.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, another progressive leader who endorsed El-Sayed, said the race “should be a wake-up call to the Washington Democratic establishment.”

NYT (“Congressman Is Ousted by Democratic Socialist in Michigan House Primary“):

Democratic primary voters ousted Representative Shri Thanedar of Michigan on Tuesday night, according to The Associated Press, nominating a democratic socialist for a deep-blue district in the latest sign of the party’s hunger for new blood.

Mr. Thanedar lost to Donavan McKinney, a state representative, in the 13th Congressional District, which includes parts of Detroit and its suburbs.

Both candidates are progressive and support policies like funding universal health care and abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But Mr. McKinney, 34, who is Black and grew up in Detroit, has contrasted his background with that of Mr. Thanedar, 71, an Indian immigrant who was elected to Congress in 2022. Mr. Thanedar’s victory that year left Detroit, a city that is roughly three-quarters Black, without a Black representative in Washington for the first time in decades.

The primary also highlighted Democratic voters’ continued backlash against lawmakers who support Israel. Mr. McKinney has condemned the war in Gaza as a “genocide” and campaigned with fellow pro-Palestinian Democrats, including Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, the progressive candidate in Michigan’s marquee Senate race. Mr. Thanedar, in contrast, has consistently voted to fund aid for the Jewish state.

While Mr. Thanedar had the endorsement of Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader, Mr. McKinney secured the backing of several other members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has spearheaded a string of insurgent Democratic primary victories.

Mr. Thanedar was the latest pro-Israel Democrat to fall to a challenge from the left. This summer, Representatives Diana DeGette of Colorado, Dan Goldman of New York and Adriano Espaillat of New York were all defeated by younger, more progressive challengers who were fueled by strong organization by the Democratic Socialists of America.

I haven’t followed the House race at all and the Senate race only mildly. Yesterday’s episode of The Daily, “Will Michigan Rewrite the Rules of Democratic Politics?” shed some light on the latter.

In some ways, the conversation between host Michael Barbaro and NYT political correspondent Michael Kruse was a bit odd. Kruse kept mentioning that Michigan had voted for Trump in both of his wins, 2016 and 2024, but that El-Sayed nonetheless had enthusiastic support. Even in counties that voted for Trump!

For example,

Kruse: It is, to date, the most important moment in this whole midterm cycle when we are thinking about the question of what the Democratic Party is and where it is headed because I think in Michigan, we have the purest test yet of whether a progressive vision of the Democratic Party can succeed in American politics. In the last year or so, we’ve seen compelling progressive victories, but in a certain kind of place — in blue places. Zohran Mamdani in New York, congressional primaries in Philadelphia and Denver. Graham Platner felt a little bit like a test case, but his scandals, the way his campaign ended — hard to extrapolate grand conclusions from Maine.

So here in Michigan, we have a race that feels like a much better, truer test of this fight between progressives and moderates. And that’s because, Michael, this race is happening in a swing state in the middle of the country. Trump won here in 2016 and 2024. And if the progressive candidate wins this election in Michigan, it would really reorient our understanding of the progressive movement’s appeal in our politics at this point in time.

Barbaro: Right. And just to put a really fine point on it, it would show that in places that we think of as inherently moderate, Democratic primary voters are ready to lurch meaningfully to the left. And, of course, this test case you’re describing is happening in a race where the stakes are already quite high, just based on the math of the United States Senate.

But, of course, the Democratic primary electorate and the general election electorate are wildly different groups.

More interestingly, they noted the contrast between Haley Stephens, “a moderate, four-term member of Congress,” and El-Sayed, who, while “not a member of the DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America,” is “endorsed by key socialist political figures like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.” They describe him as “charismatic” while she “has this folksy, almost zany way about her.” The picture they paint, essentially, is that her supporters were reluctant, focusing primarily on “electability”—her ability to defeat Republican Mike Rogers in November—while his were enthusiastic and willing to take their chances.

Kruse notes that recent polls had El-Sayed with double-digit leads and provides anecdotal evidence that Democrats were willing to vote for the guy they wanted rather than settling for one they felt more likely to win. The actual results suggest something else: El-Sayed’s margin was razor thin.

Kruse, through one of the faces in the crowd interviewed, makes the analogy with Republicans and Trump in 2016.

Speaker 28: Donald Trump came in 2016. Now, he was not at all a middle-ground candidate, but he spoke to people that hadn’t voted in years. He wasn’t trying to convert other Democrats. He was trying to bring new people into the process. And it worked. He won this county. And Abdul is saying, hey, we need to do something different.

Kruse: Think back to 2016, all of the conventional wisdom up until Election Day that said, surely, Donald Trump could not win. But clearly, enough Republicans made him their nominee in 2016, and then just enough people in just enough places, the places that matter the most, made him the president. And perhaps, Democrats find themselves now, a decade later, at a similar juncture.

Of course, Trump got three million fewer votes than his Democratic opponent. There’s a strong likelihood that a more conventional Republican—a Jeb Bush or Marcio Rubio or John Kasich—would have won the popular vote. More importantly, there’s no Electoral College equivalent in Senate races.

Republicans have thrown away races they could have won, going back to at least the Tea Party rise in 2010, by nominating candidates attractive to the hard-core base but not to the general electorate. We’ll see in November whether Democrats are following suit.

Then again, there may be something to the Trump analogy. For a variety of reasons, voters seem to be tired of “establishment” politicians. Nominating charismatic candidates who can convey anger at the system may well be the right strategy.