SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
aipac
El-Sayed's Michigan Primary Victory Was a Big Deal—Here's Why
His win proved that a pro-Palestinian progressive could triumph over AIPAC, dark money, and the Democratic establishment.
Aug 11, 2026
In what, I believe, will be seen as this year’s most significant election; Dr Abdul El-Sayed won a victory in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary. It was a close contest—a nail-biter, as we say—but it was an important win that marks a watershed moment in US politics.
It was the first time that Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza and massive US military support to Israel became central themes that were actively debated across the state. This issue has come up in a few other races. But this Senate race was different. There were daily discussions about the fact that the US has been subsidizing Israeli policies that have taken such a huge toll on Palestinians and Lebanese. From the results it is clear: Israel and the candidate that supported Israel, four term congresswoman, Rep. Haley Stevens, both lost.
Another major issue actively debated in this contest was the role of “dark money” and other independent expenditures. We’ve seen dark money dominate campaigns in the past. But never at this level. At last count, Stevens had received upwards of $70 million, with the bulk of these funds coming directly from pro-Israel groups, led by the Israel lobby, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In contrast, El-Sayed’s campaign was fueled largely by small donors. Overall, Stevens and AIPAC outspent El-Sayed by a margin of over 11 to one! In the end, dark money and AIPAC were resoundingly defeated, proving that money can prop up a candidate but can’t automatically win an election.
The El-Sayed-Stevens contest also became a national face-off between the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and the party’s establishment, with leading Democrats from both wings endorsing and campaigning in the state. El-Sayed’s win in this bellwether Midwestern battleground state represents a major win for progressives. It demonstrated that the “establishment” itself has become toxic to many Democratic voters.
I am hard pressed to find an election that was more consequential and broke ground in more areas than this Michigan primary contest.
This election also marks a huge victory for Michigan’s Arab Americans. Four decades ago, the leading candidate for mayor of Dearborn made “What to do about the Arab problem?” a central issue in his campaign. Since then, that community has continued to organize, register voters, and win elections. Much maligned after registering their discontent with the Biden administration’s support for Israel, they came roaring back by helping to elect an Arab American as the Democratic Senate nominee. Not only that, but in the contest in the Dearborn area for the nomination to represent Democrats in the November election for Michigan State Senate, Abbas Alawieh won a decisive victory. Abbas was the leader of the 2024 “Uncommitted” movement.
I am hard pressed to find an election that was more consequential and broke ground in more areas than this Michigan primary contest. Now it’s on to November.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Israel and Its Lobby Allied With Trump and Damaged the Democratic Party
Pro-Israel PACs finance Republicans, import Republican donor money into Democratic primaries, punish dissenting Democrats, divide the Democratic coalition, and bind Democratic leaders to policies that damage the party’s moral credibility and electoral prospects.
Aug 08, 2026
There are plenty of principled, humanitarian reasons for opposing US support for Israel’s current government. Multiple human right groups, United Nations bodies, international courts, Israeli politicians, and genocide organizations have accused Israel of engaging in war crimes, including genocide, in Gaza and the West Bank. The invasions of Lebanon and Iran are likewise criminal humanitarian disasters.
There are also practical foreign policy reasons for opposing the influence of Israel and the Israel lobby. Jeffrey Sachs and Sybil Fares argue convincingly, in "Stop Netanyahu Before He Gets Us All Killed," that Israel encouraged most of the US foreign policy disasters in the Middle East and Africa:
In 1996, [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and his American advisors devised a “Clean Break” strategy. They advocated that Israel would not withdraw from the Palestinian lands captured in the 1967 war in exchange for regional peace. Instead, Israel would reshape the Middle East to its liking. Crucially, the strategy envisioned the US as the main force to achieve these aims—waging wars in the region to dismantle governments opposed to Israel’s dominance over Palestine. The US was called upon to fight wars on Israel’s behalf.
The Clean Break strategy was effectively carried out by the US and Israel after 9/11. As NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark revealed, soon after 9/11, the US planned to “attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years—starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.”
The US followed through with military actions against all those countries, which now lie in ruins, except for Iran, which Israel and the US are in the process of destroying. As Sachs and Fares wrote, “Netanyahu was a cheerleader of these wars of choice–either in public or behind the scenes–together with his neocon allies in the US.”
Israel has corrupted US foreign policy, causing the country to fight unnecessary wars and create unnecessary enemies.
Aside from the humanitarian and foreign policy reasons for opposing the influence of Israel and the Israel lobby on American politics, there are also political reasons. Foremost among them is that Israel and the Israel lobby have repeatedly lent their substantial financial and political influence toward helping elect Republicans, including President Donald Trump, and toward electing Democrats disliked by many Democratic voters.
Multiple US presidents, including Presidents Harry S. Truman, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, made efforts to break away from staunchly pro-Israel policies but eventually succumbed to pressure from pro-Israel lobbyists threatening them with electoral opposition.
During the Republican primary debates in 2016, Trump criticized the invasion of Iraq and said that US policy in the Middle East needed more balance: more support for Palestinian rights. But during the general election campaign, Trump had a meeting with Sharon and Miriam Adelson, who promised to help fund his campaign (source). From that point on, Trump has been staunchly pro-Israel.
Sheldon and Miriam Adelson donated approximately $100 million to pro-Trump super PACs during the 2020 election cycle.
You could call this a representation deficit: Democratic politicians become more responsive to a donor network than to Democratic voters.
The New York Times reported in 2021 that the Adelsons’ contributions to GOP campaigns and organizations had totaled around half a billion dollars since 2010.
In 2024 Miriam Adelson donated $100 million to help elect Trump and spent a further $500 million on other Republican causes. According to OpenSecrets, from 2023 to 2024, pro-Israel PACs gave $5.4 million to candidates, almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. The Republican Jewish Coalition spent over $14 million supporting Trump since 2020. The New Republic says that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spent $45 million in the 2024 elections.
In 2024, Trump ran as the peace candidate, promising to stop the war in Gaza. Kamala Harris’ support for Israel was a significant cause of her election loss (source, source).
Polls (this and this) have shown that among Democratic voters, support for Israel has plummeted. In April 2026, Pew found that 80% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents viewed Israel unfavorably, up from 69% in 2025 and 53% in 2022. Gallup found in July 2025 that only 8% of Democrats approved of Israel’s military action in Gaza. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released August 4, 2026 found that only 16% of Democrats supported continuing military and economic aid to Israel, while more than 80% of liberal Democrats considered reducing aid important or essential.
The victories of socialist and pro-Palestinian candidates (e.g., Abdul El-Sayed in the Michigan Senate primary) during the 2026 primaries—despite tens of millions of dollars spent by the Israel lobby to defeat them—further illustrate the fact that the Democratic base is rejecting mainstream Democrats who support Israel.
Of course, AIPAC does not represent the views of all American Jews. Roughly 7 in 10 Jewish respondents in a March 2026 survey identified as Democrats, and younger Jewish voters have become significantly more critical of unconditional aid.
The Democratic Party’s congressional leadership has continued defending a position overwhelmingly rejected by its own voters. That creates several electoral injuries:
- Young voters conclude that Democratic leaders do not represent them.
- Arab American and Muslim voters feel deliberately disregarded.
- Anti-war progressives see the party as morally compromised.
- Other voters see wealthy donors overriding public opinion.
- Republicans can run as outsiders or supposed “peace candidates,” however dishonestly.
You could call this a representation deficit: Democratic politicians become more responsive to a donor network than to Democratic voters.
In 2024, the Israel lobby helped unseat Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) and Jamaal Bowman (D-NY). Republican-aligned billionaires should not be able to determine which candidates Democrats are permitted to nominate. In 2026 the Israel lobby helped unseat Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.), one of Trump’s biggest Republican critics.
Though the Israel lobby gives to Democratic candidates too, its political strategy is not simply bipartisan support for Israel. Its effect is asymmetrical: It helps Republicans win national power while policing the Democratic Party from within. It supports Republicans directly, then spends heavily in Democratic primaries to defeat candidates who challenge Republican-backed Israeli policies. Democrats therefore bear the electoral cost of unpopular policies while Republican candidates receive both financial support and an issue with which to divide the Democratic coalition.
In short, powerful pro-Israel organizations are harming the Democratic Party. This is not because support for Israel is inherently Republican, and not because Jewish voters are disloyal Democrats—many Democrats strongly oppose Israel’s policies—but because these organizations increasingly enforce a Republican-aligned foreign policy inside a Democratic electorate that rejects it. They finance Republicans, import Republican donor money into Democratic primaries, punish dissenting Democrats, divide the Democratic coalition, and bind Democratic leaders to policies that damage the party’s moral credibility and electoral prospects.
Democratic Party leaders and activists should stop allowing a pro-Republican, pro-war lobby to distort its policies and chooseits candidates.
The Israel lobby, for its own sake, should think hard about whether it wants to support a quasi-fascist movement. For more on this, see "Supporters of Israel Will Eventually Regret That They Allied With Fascist Trump."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'See You in November': Progressives Welcome the Fight as AIPAC Plots Round Two Against El-Sayed
"I’m happy to burn your money for you, and then we can get on to the business of governing," Abdul El-Sayed said in a message to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Aug 06, 2026
After setting over $30 million on fire in Michigan's Democratic US Senate primary, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is reportedly plotting round two against progressive epidemiologist Abdul El-Sayed—this time seeking to boost his Republican general election opponent, Mike Rogers.
The New York Times reported Wednesday that the pro-Israel lobbying organization, known as AIPAC, "has told allies that it is considering a major financial campaign to support the Republican Senate nominee in the Michigan general election this fall." AIPAC said publicly following El-Sayed's victory over Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) in Tuesday's primary that "our members remain determined to ensure that voters reject Dr. El-Sayed and his radical anti-Israel agenda in November."
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who endorsed and campaigned for El-Sayed, wrote in response to AIPAC's post-election statement that she appreciates the group "proving it doesn't belong in the Dem Party and especially in our primaries."
"From endorsing Jan. 6th members to ensuring Congress remains in the hands of a 34-count felon, AIPAC is an org committed to undermining democracy at home and abroad," Ocasio-Cortez wrote on social media. "See you in November."
Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) noted that "a big majority of Americans want the US government to stop sending American dollars to Israel's reckless regime and to end the war in Iran."
"Yet AIPAC is threatening to spend to deliver the Republicans a critical Senate seat in Michigan, helping a Trump stooge like Mike Rogers who will keep funding Netanyahu's wars and do nothing to stop Trump's Iran war," said Deluzio. "This is exactly why so many Democrats like me have rejected AIPAC."
AIPAC cash accounted for around half of all outside spending in the contest between El-Sayed and Stevens—the most expensive Democratic primary in American history.
But the organization and its affiliated groups appear to have plenty more resources to devote to the general election, the results of which could decide control of the US Senate next year.
The United Democracy Project (UDP), AIPAC's super PAC, had over $80 million in cash in hand at the end of June, according to federal filings.
AIPAC is UDP's primary funder, but the group has also received cash from right-wing billionaires such as hedge fund manager Paul Singer and businessman Haim Saban.
During a virtual town hall days before Tuesday's election, El-Sayed—a vocal opponent of US support for Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza—dared AIPAC to keep pouring its financial resources into Michigan's Senate race.
“AIPAC, if you’re listening, burn your money. Come back and burn it again in the general,” said El-Sayed. “I’m happy to burn your money for you, and then we can get on to the business of governing and asking whether or not our foreign policy ought to be dictated to us by the interests of a foreign government.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
El-Sayed on Track to Win US Senate Primary, Overcoming AIPAC's $30 Million Onslaught
"We all knew they were going to spend their money," said Abdul El-Sayed. "We didn't know that they were going to outspend us $11 to $1. And yet we're still standing."
Aug 05, 2026
Abdul El-Sayed was on track Wednesday to narrowly win the Democratic nomination for US Senate in Michigan, overcoming tens of millions of dollars in outside spending by AIPAC and other special interests that sought to smear the progressive epidemiologist and boost his opponent, US Rep. Haley Stevens.
NBC declared El-Sayed the winner, but The Associated Press said the race was too close to call with over 90% of ballots counted. As of early Wednesday morning, El-Sayed was leading Stevens by roughly 21,000 votes—or just over one percentage point.
In his election night speech, El-Sayed stopped short of declaring victory but celebrated the "movement that we were able to inspire."
"Across that movement that we built, there was an inspiration in the idea that we could take our government back. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people instead of government of the corporations, by the special interests, and for the billionaires," El-Sayed told supporters. "And because you had the audacity to believe in that, you know that the billionaires, the corporations, and the special interests, they weren't going to give up lightly. We all knew they were going to spend their money. We didn't know they were going to spend $70 million of their money. We didn't know that they were going to outspend us $11 to $1. And yet we're still standing."
An El-Sayed victory would be a brutal defeat for AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying organization that shelled out over $30 million to defeat him. AIPAC cash accounted for nearly half of all the outside spending in the race, which was the most expensive Democratic primary in US history.
"AIPAC spent over $30 million to stop Dr. Abdul El-Sayed in this race, and that record-high sum wasn’t enough because Democratic voters have had it with the fringe and extremist view that our tax dollars should pay for Israel’s bombs, wars, and genocidal ambitions," said Margaret DeReus, executive director of the IMEU Policy Project. "With Michigan now playing a decisive role in selecting the next Democratic president, potential 2028 contenders should take notes."
The winner of the Senate contest will face Republican Mike Rogers in November.
Progressives also appeared poised to win other closely watched races in Michigan. The Associated Press projected that grassroots organizer and climate activist William Lawrence has won the Democratic primary in Michigan's 7th Congressional District, while progressive state Rep. Donavan McKinney led establishment-backed US Rep. Shri Thanedar—who received AIPAC support—in the 13th District, with more than 70% of the vote counted.
"AIPAC fell on its face in Michigan," the progressive advocacy group RootsAction said in response to the primary results. "Voters showed that they want what progressives have been clamoring for, including Medicare for All, a stop to endless wars, and true economic security."
Keep ReadingShow Less
AIPAC’s 2026 Spending Tops $100 Million—Including $30 Million Against El-Sayed in Michigan
AIPAC has spent at least $104.3 million during the 2026 election cycle—a figure that's "likely to swell before the midterms are through," notes a new analysis.
Aug 04, 2026
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel lobbying organization widely known as AIPAC, has poured more than $100 million into the 2026 midterm elections, with around $30 million dedicated to defeating progressive epidemiologist Abdul El-Sayed in Tuesday's Democratic US Senate primary in Michigan.
The $30.6 million that AIPAC's political action committee and super PAC, the United Democracy Project (UDP), have spent on the Michigan contest is the most money the organization has ever devoted to a single race, according to an analysis published Monday by Sludge. El-Sayed and his supporters have repeatedly called out his opponent, US Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.), for benefiting heavily from AIPAC cash.
"The Michigan Senate primary is a fight as to whether billionaires and their super PACs will continue to control American politics, or whether we can have a government that represents working families," US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is supporting El-Sayed, wrote in a social media post on Monday. "Let’s elect Abdul El-Sayed."
More broadly, AIPAC has spent at least $104.3 million during the 2026 election cycle—a figure that's "likely to swell before the midterms are through," Sludge noted. The investigative outlet observed that AIPAC's super PAC—whose ads often include no mention of Israel—had $80 million of cash on hand as of the end of June.
The $104.3 million total does not include spending by super PACs quietly bankrolled by AIPAC. The American Prospect reported earlier this summer that AIPAC has been "routing campaign cash through anodyne-sounding pop-up shell PACs like 'Elect Chicago Women' or 'Affordable Chicago Now,' which received $5.3 million from United Democracy Project back in February for four races in Illinois, which resulted in two wins and two losses."
In addition to spending big to defeat El-Sayed in Michigan, AIPAC is backing incumbent US Rep. Wesley Bell against progressive challenger Cori Bush in Tuesday's Democratic primary race for Missouri's 1st Congressional District. Bell unseated Bush in the district's 2024 Democratic primary with the help of millions of dollars in AIPAC spending.
AIPAC's super PAC pumped more than $3 million into the Missouri primary last month, The Intercept's Akela Lacy reported over the weekend.
"One thing Bell does not have is Bush’s grassroots army," Lacy added. "Though he’s far outraised Bush and has outside spending in his corner, Bush is buoyed by organizers with the St. Louis chapter of Democratic Socialists of America... After being saturated with negative ads and mail from AIPAC and other groups that spent on the 2024 primary, St. Louis residents are slightly more prepared this time around, said organizers backing Bush’s campaign."
US Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.), who is facing progressive challenger Donavan McKinney on Tuesday, has also received significant campaign funding from AIPAC.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Stevens Dismisses Concerns About Campaign Finance, Super PAC Funding as 'Educated Issue'
"It can't be overstated how flippant and arrogant Stevens comes off when questioned about $60 million in super PAC spending for her in this race," said one observer.
Jul 31, 2026
With just days to go until the Michigan US Senate primary election, Rep. Haley Stevens, the preferred candidate of several Democratic establishment figures, suggested this week that campaign finance—a top issue in her race against former public health official Abdul El-Sayed—is a niche interest held by "educated" people and not working families, and appeared eager for voters and the press to stop asking her about the roughly $60 million outside groups have poured into the race on her behalf.
"It seems like we got the campaign finance zoomies," the Michigan Democrat told reporters at an event with business leaders in Lansing on Wednesday, appearing mystified at the suggestion that ordinary voters would be interested to know her position on super political action committees, which can raise unlimited money from corporations and other groups and individuals to support a candidate's run, and her significant backing from a super PAC affiliated with the increasingly unpopular American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
"My opponent has done a great job talking about campaign finance. It’s an educated issue,” Stevens said, according to a report from Michigan Advance Thursday. “I even had someone who’s got a law degree asking me about some of the campaign finance stuff today. That’s totally fine, but you know what else? These families on paid leave? They need affordable daycare. They need good public schools to go.”
Journalist David Sirota of The Lever said that in what amounts to Steven's "final argument" ahead of the election, the candidate suggested that pro-Israel and other groups' attempt to "buy her a Senate seat—is merely an esoteric 'educated issue' that has nothing to do with corrupt lawmakers creating corrupt policies fueling the affordability crisis."
As Mother Jones reported Friday, about half of the super PAC spending on Stevens' behalf has come from United Democracy Project, which is affiliated with AIPAC, while a large chunk comes from the super PACs A Stronger Michigan and Center Forward.
Those groups have received millions of dollars from PhRHMA, a trade group representing pharmaceutical firms, and UnitedHealth Group—both key players in the for-profit healthcare industry that's raised household costs for families across the country in recent years, with UnitedHealth slashing care expenses for nursing home patients and unlawfully using an artificial intelligence algorithm to deny coverage to people with Medicare Advantage. El-Sayed has notably made Medicare for All a key priority of his campaign.
"The outside spending picture for El-Sayed looks much different," reported Mother Jones. "The biggest individual donor to Fighting for Michigan—El-Sayed’s main outside backer—is the candidate’s father-in-law, a nephrologist at a Detroit hospital who had given $300,000 as of July 15. Overall, the super PAC has expended about $2.8 million—less than one-tenth of what has been spent against El-Sayed by the United Democracy Project alone."
Stevens attempted to shift the focus to her opponent's support from his father-in-law at her meeting with the Lansing Regional Chamber on Wednesday, after she was asked about the record-breaking outside spending in the race by a business leader in the very first question of the event.
But another attendee brought up the issue again later, noting she had not specifically addressed concerns about the groups whose spending her campaign is benefiting from and asking whether she would back a bill proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), an El-Sayed supporter, to abolish super PACs.
Stevens was noncommittal once again, suggesting concerns about super PACs are part of "campaign platform" favored by Sanders.
"He’s in the independent party," she added. "I haven’t talked to him about it. I’m not trying to do any division.”
Stevens did allow that she "would love a constitutional amendment to get rid of money in politics and maybe make our elections shorter" and said she had spoken to Republicans about such a proposal.
But one observer said Stevens' overall message that the financing of her campaign is an issue only voters with "a law degree" are interested in was "flippant and arrogant."
Stevens has benefited from millions in AIPAC-backed super PAC spending as public approval has plummeted regarding the powerful pro-Israel lobby and the United States' funding of Israel's military, after nearly three years of the Israel Defense Forces' assault on Gaza and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's push for the US to join in attacking Iran—a conflict that has also had a direct impact on working families' household budgets as gas prices have soared.
On Thursday, Stevens took direct aim at El-Sayed, a Muslim, for his focus on AIPAC during the campaign, addressing him in a lengthy post on X in which she said, "Everyone in America understands you want to blame all of your problems on Jewish Americans."
The remark was widely condemned as "race-baiting," and interpreted as one that conflated Jewish Americans with the pro-Israel lobby.
"When someone points out AIPAC is spending $50 million, it’s presented as 'blaming Jewish Americans,'" said podcast host Adam Johnson. "I hate this shit so much, it’s gross, it’s bad faith, it’s sleazy, and it’s more manipulative, crybully smarm."
Keep ReadingShow Less
$60 Million 'Crutch' From Super PACs Is Proof That Stevens Isn't Actually 'Electable,' Says El-Sayed
In the final debate before Michigan's pivotal Democratic Senate primary, Abdul El-Sayed continued to hammer on the idea that his opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, is "bought off" by AIPAC and corporate-funded super PACs.
Jul 28, 2026
Progressive US Senate hopeful Dr. Abdul El-Sayed spent Monday night's final Democratic primary debate in Michigan continuing to hammer on his centrist opponent Rep. Haley Stevens' backing from big money donors.
With just a week before Michiganders head to the polls, Stevens has emphasized her supposed electability against presumptive Republican nominee former Rep. Mike Rogers for the seat, which could decide the balance of power in the Senate.
While El-Sayed has consistently dominated in fundraising from individual contributors, particularly small-dollar donors, he is still dramatically outgunned by Stevens in terms of overall financial support.
Six aligned super PACs have reserved roughly $60 million to run ads boosting her—more than half of which comes from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)-affiliated super political action committee (PAC) the United Democracy Project.
This tidal wave of outside funding has appeared to help Stevens remain competitive with El-Sayed after initially trailing him. But on the debate stage Monday, former Detroit public health official El-Sayed—who has made removing big money from politics a central campaign plank—argued that the spending cuts against Stevens' claim that she is more "electable" than him.
Along with the Senate filibuster, which he said would allow Republicans to stymy ambitious agenda items like Medicare for All and labor protection bills like the PRO Act, El-Sayed argued that "money in politics" was among the biggest "risks to our democracy."
He pointed to the super PAC-funded "attack ads that you've seen, probably in the last commercial break itself" that "change our political system." He then called out Stevens directly.
"When you ask $60 million to come into a race for you, and then say that somehow you're electable, I think you don't quite understand what electability means," El-Sayed said. "If you need a $60 million crutch, you probably can't be elected on your own terms."
Both El-Sayed and Stevens are shown to be slightly ahead of Rogers in polls for a hypothetical November matchup.
While Stevens has claimed that Rogers views El-Sayed as an easier opponent, one aggregate of four recent polls by 270ToWin shows El-Sayed leading the Republican by about 2.5 percentage points on average compared to Stevens, who leads by about 1.3 points on average.
El-Sayed, who has made a point of swearing off corporate backers, hit on the idea that Stevens was "bought off" repeatedly throughout the night.
He noted the $45,000 in direct support her campaigns had received since 2019 from the increasingly loathed Michigan energy monopoly DTE, as well as her support from super PACs backed by donors in the health insurance and tech industries.
Responding to Stevens’ message about the need to lower prices for ordinary people, El-Sayed said, “I don’t take money from the corporations who are jacking up your prices in the first place.”
He also pointed to her vote last week to preserve $3.3 billion in military aid for Israel while more than half of her Democratic colleagues voted for an amendment that would have cut off the support.
El-Sayed said it showed that AIPAC, which has grown overwhelmingly unpopular with Democratic voters disgusted by Israel's actions, had dumped at least $30 million behind Stevens because “they know she’ll be a reliable vote."
Stevens largely sidestepped questions about her super PAC support, instead hitting back at El-Sayed for campaigning with "senators who’ve come in here from the coast," like Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who she said lack an understanding of "what makes our state tick."
She emphasized her "experience" over El-Sayed as a four-term congresswoman and as “Michigan’s manufacturing geek” who'd bring a "unique understanding" of the state's issues to Congress.
"I don't think there's much difference between super PACs going in for Abdul or super PACs going in for me," Stevens said, ignoring that outside spending to back Stevens throughout the primary outpaces the amount supporting El-Sayed by about 18-to-1, according to the latest totals from AdImpact.
While polling for next Tuesday's primary has been all over the map, showing leads for both El-Sayed and Stevens in recent weeks, an unscientific online poll from Fox 2 Detroit indicated that El-Sayed was viewed overwhelmingly as the winner of Monday's debate.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Underhanded' Stevens Sends Out Fake El-Sayed Press Release Claiming He’s Endorsed by Their GOP Opponent
Not only was the press release fake, but Republican Mike Rogers didn't even endorse El-Sayed.
Jul 23, 2026
With less than two weeks before the critical Democratic Senate primary in Michigan, Rep. Haley Stevens is reportedly resorting to some underhanded tactics to attack her opponent, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, by sending out an email making it appear as if he was celebrating an endorsement from their Republican rival.
Remington Hernandez, a political reporter at WWMT-TV, reported on Thursday that the Stevens campaign had sent a fake press release meant to look like it had come from El-Sayed's team.
"ENDORSEMENT ALERT: Mike Rogers Endorses Abdul El-Sayed in the Democratic US Senate Primary," the email says, beneath an "Abdul for Senate" graphic identical to the one used in his campaign communications.
The email quotes Rogers, a former Republican US congressman expected to be the GOP Senate nominee, saying he wants to face El-Sayed in the general election because he'd be easier to beat than Stevens.
“If he wins, I think we’re in good shape,” it quotes Rogers saying. "I think we’ll do well if he in fact is the nominee.”
The quote from Rogers is real. It comes from a CNN report published on Thursday about a call with supporters last month, in which he reportedly called El-Sayed "so radical" and predicted he'd "lose big parts of the west part of the state."
But it is not true, as the email claims, that Rogers had "endorsed" El-Sayed.
Ben Solis, a reporter at Michigan Advance who also received the email, noted that it appeared designed to look authentic, with multiple graphics at the bottom mimicking those El-Sayed's social media team has posted following actual endorsements.
"Is this ethical or legal to make a fake campaign endorsement ad like this?" he asked. "And even if it is, is that playing fair? Seems pretty underhanded at first glance."
Despite the criticism, Stevens has run with the quote herself as part of her pitch against El-Sayed and posted the fake graphics to her own social media accounts, claiming that Rogers was "really wanting Abdul to win this primary."
But it's also not entirely clear whether Rogers was even saying that he'd prefer to take on El-Sayed over Stevens.
The CNN article states that Rogers was "responding to a question about his campaign’s strategy for El-Sayed."
"What is Rogers supposed to say?" asked media critic Adam Johnson. "Of course he's saying they're in good shape, just as he would if he was asked about Stevens."
It's unclear what, if any, response Rogers gave to the prospect of facing Stevens. But Johnson said that on a call full of potential donors, it was probably something similar.
"Was Rogers asked about Stevens? Has anyone seen the full donor call?" he asked. "If he was asked about Stevens, do we think he said, 'Gee, golly, she is gonna be tough to beat'? Or do we think he also projected confidence he would defeat her as well because this is the thing you tell donors?"
He also pointed out that Stevens' largest source of financial backing during the race has been the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) super PAC, the United Democracy Project, whose two largest donors, hedge fund manager Paul Singer and WhatsApp co-founder Jan Koum, are both major supporters of Republicans who spent millions backing President Donald Trump in 2024.
"Yes, Republicans are so excited to take on El-Sayed. Stevens' two biggest backers are Republican megadonors," Johnson quipped.
While Stevens has attempted to portray her progressive opponent as less electable, an average of four recent polls from 270ToWin shows El-Sayed with a slightly larger polling lead over Rogers than she has.
An official account for El-Sayed's campaign noted that it's not the first example of deceptive tactics being used to promote Stevens.
Michigan airwaves have been blanketed by a pro-Stevens super PAC ad heavily implying that she'd been endorsed by former President Barack Obama. Though Stevens did work on the team supporting Obama's efforts to revive the automobile industry during the post-2008 financial recovery, the former president has not endorsed her Senate campaign in 2026.
"Mike Rogers has not endorsed Abdul just like President Obama has not endorsed Haley," said El-Sayed's campaign on Thursday. "But there’s so much disinformation coming out of her campaign it’s hard to tell if this is satire or just another lie unbefitting of a congresswoman."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Fighter Michigan Needs': Warren Endorses El-Sayed as AIPAC Spends $30 Million Against Him
Warren praised El-Sayed for "not taking corporate money" and called out the "special interests running millions of dollars in TV ads to buy this seat."
Jul 20, 2026
Just over two weeks out from Michigan's Democratic US Senate primary, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed secured another key endorsement on Monday from Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Warren (D-Mass.) initially backed state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, who dropped out of the race earlier this month. Now, as a flood of big money threatens to carry the centrist Democrat US Rep. Haley Stevens across the finish line, Warren has thrown her weight behind the race's progressive anti-corporate crusader as he seeks the chance to battle Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers in November.
"The Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Michigan is now a two-way race—and I just officially endorsed Abdul El-Sayed," Warren said in an email to supporters on Monday. "Abdul is THE fighter Michigan needs in the Senate. Michigan families deserve a senator who will fight for them—not special interests running millions in TV ads to buy this seat."
Joining Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Warren is now the third US senator to endorse El-Sayed, who formerly served as Detroit's top public health official and has made Medicare for All a central campaign pitch.
In an endorsement video posted to social media, she emphasized his background as a physician and his longtime union membership.
I’m endorsing @AbdulElSayed today—because he is THE fighter Michigan needs in the Senate. pic.twitter.com/skDxiNnEtw
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) July 20, 2026
Noting his support from the state's largest union, the United Auto Workers, she credited El-Sayed with "growing a movement of working people all across Michigan."
Warren, who has long advocated for legislation to end unchecked corporate spending in elections, praised El-Sayed for "not taking corporate money" and "fighting to get money out of politics altogether."
Without naming Stevens, Warren called out the "special interests running millions of dollars in TV ads to buy this seat."
Last week, reports detailed how outside groups had spent roughly $50 million buying ads to support Stevens and bash El-Sayed over the course of the race, with nearly $30 million coming from American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and affiliated groups, who seek to stop another harsh critic of Israel from entering Congress.
Stevens, who has long trumpeted her pro-Israel bona fides, has appeared cagey about acknowledging that AIPAC, whose influence is increasingly loathed by Democratic voters, is her leading financial backer.
Asked whether she welcomed AIPAC's support, she told The Associated Press over the weekend that "anyone who supported me is supporting me because of my dedication to the people of Michigan, and the things that I have done for Michiganders."
The dark money group A Stronger Michigan—which Sludge has found to be connected to a lobbyist for the American Gas Association, Meta, and the military contractor Northrop Grumman—has also been found to have spent more than $12 million in support of Stevens.
She also has the backing of nearly 100 corporate political action committees (PACs), including those representing the health insurance industry, Wall Street Banks, fossil fuels, and Big Tech companies.
El-Sayed has outraised Stevens among small-dollar donors by more than 5-to-1 in the second quarter of 2026, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who spent the weekend campaigning for El-Sayed in Michigan, said the race was "an opportunity to show that things other than money can win in America.”
“You deserve a government that answers to you,” Ocasia-Cortez says. “You deserve a politics that treats the disease and not just the symptoms of what brought us Donald Trump.” pic.twitter.com/8vQ2FV7skZ
— Sam Robinson (@samueljrob) July 18, 2026
It's unclear whether the flood of spending is actually helping Stevens. Since the Democratic primary became a two-horse race, poll results have been scattered.
A Detroit News/WDIV-TV survey by the Glengariff Group, released July 15, showed that Stevens had surged to a 7-point lead over El-Sayed. But a poll by Data for Progress, sponsored by the group American Priorities, released the same day, showed El-Sayed with a commanding 13-point lead.
Stevens also has the strong support of the Democratic establishment.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who had been quietly putting his thumb on the scale to boost Stevens for months, gave an effective endorsement in June, saying she had the best chance to beat Rogers. She's also gained the support of other centrist stalwarts including Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), and Chris Coons (D-Del.).
Last week, she also grabbed the endorsement of the influential former House Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC).
But after a trend of success for progressive and democratic socialist candidates in Democratic primaries across the nation, El-Sayed suggested on Monday that a political outlook closer to his and Warren's is what would win the day.
"Sen. Warren’s vision for our future—one where corporations can’t buy politicians, and people can afford to put food on the table—speaks to Americans everywhere," he said in response to her endorsement.
"She’s been a generational voice for Americans who are tired of the status quo," he said. "Michigan needs unbought, principled leadership, and with Sen. Warren’s support, we can get rid of the chokehold that corporations have on our government."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Bipartisan US Consensus on Support for Israel Is Over
While public opinion, especially among Democrats, has long been critical of Israeli policies, only a handful of elected officials would speak out. That has changed.
Jul 20, 2026
Evidence keeps piling up that the long-claimed bipartisan consensus on US support for Israel is dead. Almost daily there are signs that Israeli behavior and the heavy-handed tactics used by the pro-Israel lobby to browbeat elected officials into unquestioning support for Israel are being rejected not only by Democratic voters but increasingly by elected Democrats as well. Events this past week make this clear.
When the Democratic nominee for Senate in Maine was forced to withdraw because of allegations of sexual assault, pro-Israel groups were initially relieved because he had been a harsh critic of Israeli policies and had called for eliminating their military aid. The relief was short-lived, however, since all of the leading candidates vying to assume the Democratic slot on the ballot have now adopted the same views—charging Israel with genocide, calling for an end to military aid to Israel, and rejecting support from the pro-Israel lobby. These aren’t positions most of these candidates had taken before, but they know that if they want to win the Democratic nomination and the November election these are positions they must now embrace.
Even Democrats vying for the presidency are demonstrating their willingness to establish independence from what had been the pro-Israel consensus. Gone are the days when a candidate would make the obligatory pilgrimage to Israel to meet the prime minister, hug victims of Arab violence, and visit the Wailing Wall. Now they compete to show just how critical they can be.
Rahm Emanuel, a long-time fixture in US politics and supporter of Israel, traveled to Tel Aviv to deliver a highly publicized speech sharply critical of Israeli policy. His speech was overshadowed by Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) who visited the West Bank, where he was detained and harassed by menacing armed Israeli settlers. Khanna received more press coverage than Emanuel’s speech. This will, no doubt, continue as Khanna makes the media circuit, relating his eyewitness account of the repressive circumstances that define Palestinian daily life under occupation.
Change came slowly, but not before too many careers were destroyed and too many innocents lost their lives.
Because Emanuel and Khanna are potential presidential contenders, the fact that they chose to make these visits and criticism of Israeli policies a key part of their opening volleys spoke volumes about where Democrats are on this issue.
Just a few days later, back in Washington, two votes in Congress added further weight to the case that there is change. In the Senate, Democrats presented a united front to block a Republican effort, supported by Israel, that would have merged US and Israeli military and intelligence cooperation. It would have replaced aid to Israel with guaranteed cooperation and co-production of military equipment, thereby eliminating the ability of future US administrations to limit unacceptable use of US military supplies.
At the same time, the House of Representatives voted on an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have cut the annual $3.3 billion US aid package to Israel. This measure was supported by a slight majority of Democratic members of Congress. It wasn’t just the vote that was important. More revealing was how Democrats got to this vote and how they addressed it.
The amendment to eliminate the annual aid to Israel had been initially introduced by a Republican member who recently lost his primary contest owing to a $12 million outlay from pro-Israel sources. That the Republican Speaker of the House allowed the amendment to come to a vote made some Democrats wary that it was a trap, intended to hurt Democrats with pro-Israel donors and Jewish voters in November. In such situations, when controversial votes are to be taken, the party’s congressional leadership takes charge to mobilize their members to vote a certain way. Because the Democratic leader in the House had just received a rather substantial contribution from pro-Israel sources to support electing Democrats in November, it was assumed he would urge his members to vote against the amendment. Instead, recognizing the deep divide that existed in the party, he announced that while he would vote against the aid cut, other Democratic lawmakers were free to vote their conscience. Equally telling was the fact that the Democrats’ No. 2 in the House and the former Democratic leader both voted for the amendment to cut aid.
In their speeches explaining their votes against aid to Israel, most expressed their outrage at Israel’s behaviors, saying that the US should not be complicit in funding what Israel was doing in Gaza. Others cited their disgust with the Israeli prime minister. And a large group of the members who voted for the amendment noted that the money going to Israel to kill Palestinians could better be spent at home to support schools, healthcare, and other domestic priorities.
None of these arguments could have been made even a few years ago. While public opinion, especially among Democrats, has long been critical of Israeli policies, only a handful of elected officials would speak out. They may have been upset with what Israel was doing, but they did not dare voice their concerns in public or vote contrary to the wishes of the pro-Israel lobby. A few factors account for this change.
First, the mass killings of Palestinians and the devastation of Gaza have been viewed by voters in real time. Social media platforms brought this reality directly to the public, unfiltered by establishment media pundits or political propagandists. Equally important is the fact that voters are in a rebellious frame of mind. Both Republicans and Democrats are rejecting their establishments. That’s why Trump was able to win over a majority of Republicans. And it explains why Democrats are turning their backs on party elites and the big money interests who have dominated their politics for decades. Rejecting American Israel Public Affairs Committee, “dark money,” and the taboo against criticizing Israel are part of this shift.
In the face of these developments I can’t help but think back four decades ago when I was warned that if I said the “P word” (meaning the Palestinians) at the 1988 Democratic convention, I would be responsible for destroying the party. When I did say it in my speech to the convention, I was asked to withdraw from the party for fear of the backlash that would follow. Change came slowly, but not before too many careers were destroyed and too many innocents lost their lives. We’re in a different place today, and it’s important we recognize it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy