And what this means for the future of the Democratic Party
COLUMBIA — In a heavily contested race to represent Michigan in the Senate, Abdul El-Sayed (D) has defeated Mike Rogers (R), securing roughly 51% of the votes as of 12:06 a.m.
Dr. Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed ran to represent Michigan in the US Senate, after beating disgraced Democratic Congresswoman Haley Stevens in the August primary. El-Sayed was born in Rochester Hills, a suburb of Detroit, and is the son of Egyptian immigrants. This win made him the first Muslim and first Egyptian-American Senator, at a time when Islamophobia and anti-immigrant rhetoric are at an all-time high.
He faced Trump-endorsed Republican nominee Mike Rogers, an election that played a key role in swinging the pendulum for the Democratic Party, which has already taken back the House and the Senate.
Heading into the elections, Republicans held a 53-45 majority in the Senate. In 2024, President Donald Trump narrowly won Michigan, but just four years ago Joe Biden also won with a slim majority. The Michigan vote plays a critical role each election cycle.
This election, Michigan voters were posed with the following question: vote for the anti-establishment, Medicare for All candidate, or the candidate endorsed by Trump, whose administration sits at a 64% disapproval rating.
El-Sayed ran on a progressive platform that promised to deliver on getting Medicare for all and lowering the cost of living. El-Sayed advocated for an unconditional end to US military support and weapons transfers to Israel, as well as Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. El-Sayed has been extremely critical of Trump’s illegal war on Iran, as well as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps regime in Iran.
Healthcare affordability was one of the key voter issues in this election. Insurance costs have jumped by 20% for the average Michigan resident, thanks to the elimination of enhanced premiums tax credits. This hike in price is a direct consequence of the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate blocking a bill that would have extended these tax credits under the Lower Health Care Costs Act.
In 2015, El-Sayed was appointed Health Officer and Executive Director of the Detroit Health Department, tasked with rebuilding what was left of it after the city went bankrupt and the former mayor Dave Bing outsourced vital health care services to the private sector.
El-Sayed’s campaign centered around changing the health care system and making it more affordable, which spoke to these voters, because to Michiganders, who was Republican and who was Democrat didn’t matter; what mattered was who would actually change something about the status quo, and who would fall in line with it.
Michigan chose change.
The Future of the Democratic Party
In a move that betrayed her party but appeased her donors, Stevens endorsed Republican candidate Mike Rogers, despite belligerently criticizing him while campaigning.
“I don’t think she has a future in the Democratic Party at all,” Chair of Michigan Democrats Curtis Hertel said. “I don't think she has a future in elected office at all.”
Hertel alleges that he and delegates were lied to, and that she lied to the people of Michigan.
“I don’t think anyone’s going to listen to Haley Stevens,” he said before the election results.
Steven’s endorsement represents a key fracture in the party. There are those who would rather see the party fail than embrace a brand of politics rooted in progressive working-class issues.
This decision is the exact issue many have had with politics. Stevens made a choice that served her own ego and financial backers over the greater good for the Democratic Party.
This style of politics should have no place in the party’s ranks, given the uphill battle they cannot afford to lose. Continued leftist infighting will be a detriment to the future of the United States, and party-traitors like Stevens need to be exiled and condemned, no questions asked.
If support for Palestinian liberation and corporate regulations are deal breakers for centrist Democrats, then whether they have an allegiance to their party or to their financial backers needs to be evaluated. Rank-and-file Democrats with the backing of the corporate establishment spent more time this election cycle calling progressive candidates too radical or antisemitic than attacking their Republican opponents.
This is because the Democratic Party’s marriage to liberalism and commitment to the “not Trump” approach has been threatened by figureheads like Bernie Sanders and Zohran Mamdani. The politics of liberalism and administration are one and the same. Liberalism is more concerned with maintaining control than facilitating change, because change would require taking away power from the actors who get them elected.
For the same reason Trump refused to accept the results of the 2020 elections, centrist Democrats will do their best to squander efforts from their left-flank politicians.
But time and time again, despite the sheer amount of resources establishment democrats pour into these elections, progressive candidates continue to see wins at the ballot box.
Why?
A million dollars from some super-PAC and $1 from a million donors are not the same. Grassroots campaigns focused on working-class politics will always speak to the people more than endorsements from the establishment. The Democratic Party must uphold the implication this election cycle has had on what the identity of the party should be.
But let’s make one thing crystal clear: Democrats like Stevens employed every dirty trick in the book. From Islamophobic attack ads on El-Sayed (made possible thanks to an unprecedented $30 million AIPAC), to baseless accusations of anti-semitism, Steven’s campaign and many others didn’t engage in good-faith politics against left-flank candidates.
Forgive, but don’t forget; now the Democrats are tasked with reclaiming democracy itself and preserving the future of America. Cornered rats squeal the loudest and bite the hardest, and given Trump and MAGA Republicans’ track record with elections that don’t go their way, Democrats must take immediate action as a collective to ensure the results of the election are upheld and result in substantial change.
Leading up to the election, at least 34 federal district court decisions have permanently blocked or temporarily stopped efforts by the Trump administration to interfere in elections, with rulings coming from judges on both sides of the aisle, including ones appointed by Trump himself.
The law is extremely clear; states have authority to regulate elections. This is a widely accepted fact, and the fact that the plain reading of the law is in contention is a cause for concern.
The federal administration has gone so far as to issue executive orders that instruct the US Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to voters on federal mail voter lists recently created by the federal administration.
A coalition of 23 states from California to Massachusetts is suing the federal government over this executive order, alleging it violates the states’ power to administer their own elections.
But understand the dynamics at play here; the executive branch’s intrusion of power has gotten so bad that states have to argue for the plain reading of the law to be upheld in court. A government that has to fight for its rules of democracy this much is one with a clear issue.
The Democratic Party faces a crucial test following the midterm elections. At the turn of 2027, the 120th US Congress will convene with new pieces on the chessboard. With all eyes on the king, the Democrats must take decisive action to put an out-of-control executive branch in check.
