So El-Sayed's entire campaign is based on two vague policies without specifics and one undeliverable. I wonder if this sets him up for failure if he selected, especially the latter when we are in a climate with the few hard-fought health-care gains have been stripped by the Trump administration. I'm more likely to trust someone like Congresswoman Lauren Underwood (IL-14) who has actually passed a series of bills that provide access to health care in small ways. We need to recover ground and build on that. In fact, with Trump gone, our main job will be repair.
Re AIPAC, I dislike the organization and dislike all PACs; getting rid of ALL PACs should be a goal for anyone who wants to restore our democracy. However, please clarify for your readers that AIPAC is not Israel’s PAC in the US. It is a PAC formed by American citizens with American money.
One should also clarify that no candidate "takes" PAC money. PACs are outside spenders that technically are not allowed to coordinate with campaigns. And yes, all of them should be reined in.
You folks seem to be afraid of anything to the left but not really bothered by the rightwing. My father a career army officer and my uncles were considered moderate in the 50’s and today they would be considered raving leftists.
Seriously, I don't want my Democrat Congress Representative, reaching across the aisle to find common ground or compromise with the Republicans. We've had the orange blight's regime, BIG MONEY, techbros, oligarchy and illegal wars ruining our democracy, our economy and our reputation in the world. Precisely because the Republican Party has allowed itself to be taken over by these people and I for one am sick of it. Someone has to stand up to established Republicans or we won't have any democracy left.
the point is that there are fifty ground zeroes. a presidential candidate could emerge from seeing which of these work most seriously to stem and then repair the assault on the country.
I appreciate the fair tone with which you wrote about Graham Platner. Few people are doing so, despite saying “I know nothing about the subject, but…” And then proceed to insist he’s evil incarnate. The next thing that happens is an internet bloodbath where everyone must get their punch in. It’s sad and sickening to watch and I thank you for reminding readers why Graham received an astonishing 72% of the primary vote.
I notice that someone slipped the “credibile” adjective before the “allegations” and now that phrase is everywhere, including in this article. That’s most unfortunate. Do you personally know with certainty whether these are in fact credible allegations? Or is Graham absolutely positively lying when he claims to be innocent? If not, then this is “sheep, follow the herd”language that ironically destroys a writer’s own credibility.
"Fair tone" about Graham Platner inevitably means an undertone of nasty misogyny, and it's definitely there especially among horseshoe "progressives" writing to defend him.
I have said more than once that it is strange that these matters weren't aired as soon as Platner emerged from the pack. If what the women say is true (and I'm def not saying it isn't) why weren't these seriously concerning matters aired as soon as Platner emerged from the pack???? The timing is suspect. Platner's message and policy agendas were and are very popular in this state and I'm very worried (yes, shades of Susie Collins, except I'm more than concerned) that The Maine Democratic committee is going to pick a "safe" centrist and break the morale of the enormous grassroots organization that Platner has built.
Everything that was "aired" about Platner was dismissed as irrelevant or a. sign of his "authenticity" (it's hard to think of a less "authentic" candidate). Given the blowback, dismissal and pileon that women inevitably get when they accuse a popular man, they will wait to air their stories until they think it is absolutely necessary and they have no other option. That is what happened here.
Anyway, there are no "centrists" left in the Democratic Party, only people who use less extreme language and make unrealistic promises. So much of the whole "progressive/centrist" thing is image, not reality. Platner turned out to be all image.
I’m a pragmatic voter who has lived in Ann Arbor (liberal college town), Grand Rapids, a red city with small purple pockets and Oakland Co, in both purple and deep red parts. I also know people inside Steven’s campaign and people who have worked with and for El Sayed. It is worth noting that former Senator Debbie Stabenow has endorsed Stevens. Stabenow had the backing on farmers, miners and forestry workers even though she was a Democrat working for primarily red constituents.
The bottom line is who can beat the carpet bagger Mike Rogers and represent ALL the residents of Michigan.
Since their voting records are almost identical across the party — and there's a vast gulf dividing them from Republicans — then everybody is an "establishment Democrat" and "center right." People fling these terms like poo but few seem to know how elected officials vote and what they actually DO, not say.
For example, The Squad are not. As you correctly point out, they say a lot of things, but when it comes time to vote, they quietly toe the line, sometimes voting Present without ever causing a Dem motion to fail.
This is a good analysis, but framing it as "far-left insurgent" vs "moderate" is utter nonsense that does you no favours. That framing is the chosen framing of the establishment, and it inherently positions establishment democrats as a "moderate" centre that doesn't actually exist.
They are, and have been for a long time, strongly right wing on economic policies - many of them are de facto to the right of Reagan, as the Democrats inherited the old right-wing conservative economics when the Republicans leapt over the cliff edge post-Gingrich. This is a fight of _left_ versus _right_ for the soul of the Democratic party, and of grassroots vs big donors - but not, in any way, of extreme vs moderate.
Fair point. I was using the term “moderate” as sort of shorthand for the establishment wing, but probably should’ve defined the terms more. Because generally I agree the term “moderate” is no longer terribly useful even in positioning someone on a left-right spectrum.
Rachel Bitecofer's comment is quite Delphic. Sure, the best candidate is the one who can win the general election. But she doesn't say who she thinks that is. She could be agreeing or disagreeing with the Detroit Metro Times endorsement of El-Sayed.
I woke up on June 1st to the news that the progressive candidate had won in Colorado. At first, I thought they were talking about Hickenlooper's primary race. He won, but not by as much as everyone expected. I told his staff why my vote went for Gonzales. I also let Joe Neguse know that his AIPAC support is my one disagreement with him, but it is a deep moral wound. They need to understand that we can no longer support this Israeli government's continuing genocide!
Neguse is one of the best congresspeople we have, a fighter who is totally in touch with his district. Using "AIPAC APACC Squawk Squawk" as an excuse to attack him is nonsense. Burning up our own country by privileging a (usually) shallow take on Israel/Palestine, an issue that barely registers with voters, is stupid in the extreme. Also NO ONE "takes" AIPAC money; they are an outside spinner who cannot legally coordinate with campaigns. Neguse is too busy serving his constituents to get into arguments about this. And the minute you use "genocide" to describe Israel I want to see your pre-October 7, 2023 posts railing about "genocide" in Yemen and South Sudan. Please share.
I have every right to let my representative know how I feel about this "one disagreement" I've gladly voted for him every time, he is an excellent rep. I wish he'd publicly question our unconditional support for Israel. My take on Israel/Palestine is not shallow. I have been against Israeli agression since 1967, when I was 8. My uncle was a Merchant Marine when they torpedoed the USS Liberty, killing 34 and wounding 171. I've supported relief for Palestinians since 1975, when I had a civics teacher originally from there. History does not look kindly on Israel, despite all your 'Squawking'. Many respected organizations have called this a genocide, including 20 UN commissions, UNICEF, Oxfam, Doctors Without Borders, and Amnesry International. Facts on the ground clearly show this to be true. The victim has become the aggressor.
I will concede that I haven't posted about other genocides around the world, perhaps b/c I don't personally know anyone involved. Perhaps, because my tax dollars are not Directly Funding Them!
This is a lot of great info, Todd. At this point in US history, some things have become non-negotiable for me. Centrist Democrats are just Republican Light. It pains me that some potential candidates who I admire in many ways, like Mark Kelly, I just cannot support because of their AIPAC involvement. I don't see how ANYONE can support someone who associates with genocide. My voting will be very hard-nosed. It must be.
If AIPAC "involvement" (AIPAC is an outside spender and no candidates are involved) is your litmus test, you're throwing your own country overboard for an issue a vanishing small number of voters care about.
I appreciate your work. I can't remember if you ever look at G. Elliott Morris and Strength in Numbers but I think a conversation between the two of you would be interesting. I really don't believe the average American understands or cares what the DSA is about and what they want other than to punch hard for "people like them," the average American. Morris argues that persuadable voters are more anti-establishment than anything and that's certainly understandable. What the hardcore DSA types seem best at is ground game and hyper local politics. This works great for mayors and House seats, it'll be interesting how it plays out with statewide offices. I haven't looked at all of the upset races this cycle, but previously, people like AOC simply worked harder than the incumbent and brought a message of fighting right to people's doors (and social media). Mamdani seemed to do the same.
Platner was polling WAY below expected for a Democrat in Maine before this most recent scandal, so I'm not sure he's the best example of anything other than what you get when you nominate a guy with an SS symbol tattooed on his chest.
The DSA types, while strong at ground game and fighter messaging seem, in my experience to be anti-money, which, while understandable (and I tend to agree) in the post Citizens United world is potential for disaster for most statewide races (it can work, just not consistently from what I've seen). DSA types can't fathom why Schumer, Jefferies and Pelosi maintain(ed) power when it's simply that they are the best fundraisers the Democrats have ever had. I would GUESS the strongest candidates are going to be the ones that can open wallets AND pound the pavement with an anti-establishment fight message. Love her or hate her, this is what AOC seems particularly adept at. Without looking at his numbers, I'm guessing Mamdani too.
AOC opens wallets because she's a celebrity, and it's always made me angry because unless another AOC comes along and primaries here, she will win her election if she does absolutely nothing and doesn't spend a penny because the district is so blue. So she's robbing other, more difficult races. And she doesn't have an anti-establishment message; she says things we love in a spunky manner.
So El-Sayed's entire campaign is based on two vague policies without specifics and one undeliverable. I wonder if this sets him up for failure if he selected, especially the latter when we are in a climate with the few hard-fought health-care gains have been stripped by the Trump administration. I'm more likely to trust someone like Congresswoman Lauren Underwood (IL-14) who has actually passed a series of bills that provide access to health care in small ways. We need to recover ground and build on that. In fact, with Trump gone, our main job will be repair.
Re AIPAC, I dislike the organization and dislike all PACs; getting rid of ALL PACs should be a goal for anyone who wants to restore our democracy. However, please clarify for your readers that AIPAC is not Israel’s PAC in the US. It is a PAC formed by American citizens with American money.
One should also clarify that no candidate "takes" PAC money. PACs are outside spenders that technically are not allowed to coordinate with campaigns. And yes, all of them should be reined in.
The party can contain both and work for the people! Give and take!
You folks seem to be afraid of anything to the left but not really bothered by the rightwing. My father a career army officer and my uncles were considered moderate in the 50’s and today they would be considered raving leftists.
I dont know who ISN'T "bothered" by the rightwing.
When will the establishment figure it out? Very obviously: never. They are proven, willfully blind, losers.
Seriously, I don't want my Democrat Congress Representative, reaching across the aisle to find common ground or compromise with the Republicans. We've had the orange blight's regime, BIG MONEY, techbros, oligarchy and illegal wars ruining our democracy, our economy and our reputation in the world. Precisely because the Republican Party has allowed itself to be taken over by these people and I for one am sick of it. Someone has to stand up to established Republicans or we won't have any democracy left.
"ground zero"? really?
the point is that there are fifty ground zeroes. a presidential candidate could emerge from seeing which of these work most seriously to stem and then repair the assault on the country.
I appreciate the fair tone with which you wrote about Graham Platner. Few people are doing so, despite saying “I know nothing about the subject, but…” And then proceed to insist he’s evil incarnate. The next thing that happens is an internet bloodbath where everyone must get their punch in. It’s sad and sickening to watch and I thank you for reminding readers why Graham received an astonishing 72% of the primary vote.
I notice that someone slipped the “credibile” adjective before the “allegations” and now that phrase is everywhere, including in this article. That’s most unfortunate. Do you personally know with certainty whether these are in fact credible allegations? Or is Graham absolutely positively lying when he claims to be innocent? If not, then this is “sheep, follow the herd”language that ironically destroys a writer’s own credibility.
"Fair tone" about Graham Platner inevitably means an undertone of nasty misogyny, and it's definitely there especially among horseshoe "progressives" writing to defend him.
I have said more than once that it is strange that these matters weren't aired as soon as Platner emerged from the pack. If what the women say is true (and I'm def not saying it isn't) why weren't these seriously concerning matters aired as soon as Platner emerged from the pack???? The timing is suspect. Platner's message and policy agendas were and are very popular in this state and I'm very worried (yes, shades of Susie Collins, except I'm more than concerned) that The Maine Democratic committee is going to pick a "safe" centrist and break the morale of the enormous grassroots organization that Platner has built.
Everything that was "aired" about Platner was dismissed as irrelevant or a. sign of his "authenticity" (it's hard to think of a less "authentic" candidate). Given the blowback, dismissal and pileon that women inevitably get when they accuse a popular man, they will wait to air their stories until they think it is absolutely necessary and they have no other option. That is what happened here.
Anyway, there are no "centrists" left in the Democratic Party, only people who use less extreme language and make unrealistic promises. So much of the whole "progressive/centrist" thing is image, not reality. Platner turned out to be all image.
I’m a pragmatic voter who has lived in Ann Arbor (liberal college town), Grand Rapids, a red city with small purple pockets and Oakland Co, in both purple and deep red parts. I also know people inside Steven’s campaign and people who have worked with and for El Sayed. It is worth noting that former Senator Debbie Stabenow has endorsed Stevens. Stabenow had the backing on farmers, miners and forestry workers even though she was a Democrat working for primarily red constituents.
The bottom line is who can beat the carpet bagger Mike Rogers and represent ALL the residents of Michigan.
I take issue with the very first sentence in your article.
Establishment Democrats are not "The Left". They're "to the left" of Republicans, but in absolute terms they're Center at best if not Center-Right.
Since their voting records are almost identical across the party — and there's a vast gulf dividing them from Republicans — then everybody is an "establishment Democrat" and "center right." People fling these terms like poo but few seem to know how elected officials vote and what they actually DO, not say.
There are extraordinarily few Leftists in office.
For example, The Squad are not. As you correctly point out, they say a lot of things, but when it comes time to vote, they quietly toe the line, sometimes voting Present without ever causing a Dem motion to fail.
This is a good analysis, but framing it as "far-left insurgent" vs "moderate" is utter nonsense that does you no favours. That framing is the chosen framing of the establishment, and it inherently positions establishment democrats as a "moderate" centre that doesn't actually exist.
They are, and have been for a long time, strongly right wing on economic policies - many of them are de facto to the right of Reagan, as the Democrats inherited the old right-wing conservative economics when the Republicans leapt over the cliff edge post-Gingrich. This is a fight of _left_ versus _right_ for the soul of the Democratic party, and of grassroots vs big donors - but not, in any way, of extreme vs moderate.
Fair point. I was using the term “moderate” as sort of shorthand for the establishment wing, but probably should’ve defined the terms more. Because generally I agree the term “moderate” is no longer terribly useful even in positioning someone on a left-right spectrum.
Rachel Bitecofer's comment is quite Delphic. Sure, the best candidate is the one who can win the general election. But she doesn't say who she thinks that is. She could be agreeing or disagreeing with the Detroit Metro Times endorsement of El-Sayed.
I woke up on June 1st to the news that the progressive candidate had won in Colorado. At first, I thought they were talking about Hickenlooper's primary race. He won, but not by as much as everyone expected. I told his staff why my vote went for Gonzales. I also let Joe Neguse know that his AIPAC support is my one disagreement with him, but it is a deep moral wound. They need to understand that we can no longer support this Israeli government's continuing genocide!
Neguse is one of the best congresspeople we have, a fighter who is totally in touch with his district. Using "AIPAC APACC Squawk Squawk" as an excuse to attack him is nonsense. Burning up our own country by privileging a (usually) shallow take on Israel/Palestine, an issue that barely registers with voters, is stupid in the extreme. Also NO ONE "takes" AIPAC money; they are an outside spinner who cannot legally coordinate with campaigns. Neguse is too busy serving his constituents to get into arguments about this. And the minute you use "genocide" to describe Israel I want to see your pre-October 7, 2023 posts railing about "genocide" in Yemen and South Sudan. Please share.
I have every right to let my representative know how I feel about this "one disagreement" I've gladly voted for him every time, he is an excellent rep. I wish he'd publicly question our unconditional support for Israel. My take on Israel/Palestine is not shallow. I have been against Israeli agression since 1967, when I was 8. My uncle was a Merchant Marine when they torpedoed the USS Liberty, killing 34 and wounding 171. I've supported relief for Palestinians since 1975, when I had a civics teacher originally from there. History does not look kindly on Israel, despite all your 'Squawking'. Many respected organizations have called this a genocide, including 20 UN commissions, UNICEF, Oxfam, Doctors Without Borders, and Amnesry International. Facts on the ground clearly show this to be true. The victim has become the aggressor.
I will concede that I haven't posted about other genocides around the world, perhaps b/c I don't personally know anyone involved. Perhaps, because my tax dollars are not Directly Funding Them!
This is a lot of great info, Todd. At this point in US history, some things have become non-negotiable for me. Centrist Democrats are just Republican Light. It pains me that some potential candidates who I admire in many ways, like Mark Kelly, I just cannot support because of their AIPAC involvement. I don't see how ANYONE can support someone who associates with genocide. My voting will be very hard-nosed. It must be.
If AIPAC "involvement" (AIPAC is an outside spender and no candidates are involved) is your litmus test, you're throwing your own country overboard for an issue a vanishing small number of voters care about.
I appreciate your work. I can't remember if you ever look at G. Elliott Morris and Strength in Numbers but I think a conversation between the two of you would be interesting. I really don't believe the average American understands or cares what the DSA is about and what they want other than to punch hard for "people like them," the average American. Morris argues that persuadable voters are more anti-establishment than anything and that's certainly understandable. What the hardcore DSA types seem best at is ground game and hyper local politics. This works great for mayors and House seats, it'll be interesting how it plays out with statewide offices. I haven't looked at all of the upset races this cycle, but previously, people like AOC simply worked harder than the incumbent and brought a message of fighting right to people's doors (and social media). Mamdani seemed to do the same.
Platner was polling WAY below expected for a Democrat in Maine before this most recent scandal, so I'm not sure he's the best example of anything other than what you get when you nominate a guy with an SS symbol tattooed on his chest.
The DSA types, while strong at ground game and fighter messaging seem, in my experience to be anti-money, which, while understandable (and I tend to agree) in the post Citizens United world is potential for disaster for most statewide races (it can work, just not consistently from what I've seen). DSA types can't fathom why Schumer, Jefferies and Pelosi maintain(ed) power when it's simply that they are the best fundraisers the Democrats have ever had. I would GUESS the strongest candidates are going to be the ones that can open wallets AND pound the pavement with an anti-establishment fight message. Love her or hate her, this is what AOC seems particularly adept at. Without looking at his numbers, I'm guessing Mamdani too.
AOC opens wallets because she's a celebrity, and it's always made me angry because unless another AOC comes along and primaries here, she will win her election if she does absolutely nothing and doesn't spend a penny because the district is so blue. So she's robbing other, more difficult races. And she doesn't have an anti-establishment message; she says things we love in a spunky manner.
The Detroit Free Press endorsed McMorrow, not El-Sayed. Will be interesting to see if they endorse one of the two remaining candidates.
Thanks for that catch! I meant the Detroit Metro Times. Corrected.
Left off the citation. https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/editorials/2026/06/29/free-press-endorsement-senate-primary-candidate-abdul-el-sayed-mallory-mcmorrow-haley-stevens/90506075007/