Stevens is chiefly to blame for Michigan's Democratic Senate meltdown, but El-Sayed and structural factors share responsibility
Source: Ian Prasad Philbrick. "Michigan Senate: Haley Stevens' endorsement of Mike Rogers over Abdul El-Sayed is a heel turn for the ages.." November 2, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The author argues that Haley Stevens is mainly to blame for the Michigan Democratic mess because she endorsed the Republican after losing the primary, contradicting her own earlier warnings. But he says Abdul El-Sayed also made avoidable mistakes in how he handled controversies and reached out to Stevens' supporters, and that bad luck and a bitter, polarizing primary set the stage.
Conclusion
Although Haley Stevens is the primary culprit for the Michigan Democratic meltdown, because her endorsement of Republican Mike Rogers is indefensible in substance and timing, the blame is shared: El-Sayed's tactical missteps and the poor match of egos and the polarizing Israel/Gaza issue also contributed, and the disaster was avoidable.
Premises
- Stevens endorsed Republican Mike Rogers after pulling out of a unity rally, doing more damage to her party's nominee than Republicans have, in a tight race crucial to Democrats retaking the Senate.
- Stevens' action contradicts her own prior statements: she had endorsed El-Sayed and warned that Rogers would rubber-stamp Trump's agenda and threaten abortion, health care, and workers' and voting rights, and nothing has changed except the candidate she supports.
- Her stated rationale (antisemitism in a pro-El-Sayed ad) is undermined by her backing Rogers, whose campaign leans on Islamophobia, and by her calling the decision 'personal and private', which makes it look petty rather than principled.
- El-Sayed made tactically questionable choices: he long refused to distance himself from Hasan Piker (who said the U.S. 'deserved 9/11'), his 'hurt people hurt people' remark after a synagogue attack was poorly received, he responded defensively to the ad dispute, and he disinvited Stevens from the unity event.
- A nominee focused on winning would have courted the 47.6% of primary voters who backed Stevens, yet El-Sayed is underperforming the Democratic gubernatorial nominee (5 points vs. about 9) and struggles with core constituencies such as Black voters.
- The disaster was avoidable and has structural causes: Peters' retirement, Whitmer and Buttigieg declining to run, a compromise candidate (McMorrow) dropping out, a nasty primary fought over Israel/Gaza and AIPAC, and tensions left to simmer.
Assumptions
- The primary job of a candidate is to win, so it is legitimate to ask a nominee to make sacrifices and conciliatory gestures toward party factions.
- A losing primary candidate has an obligation to back the party nominee, particularly when stakes are high and when the candidate previously endorsed the nominee.
- Stevens' stated reasons are not her real reasons, or are insufficient to justify endorsing a Republican.
- Blame can be meaningfully apportioned among multiple actors, and an actor's reasonable defensiveness does not eliminate responsibility for tactical errors.
- Michigan's difficulty is anomalous relative to other contentious primaries (e.g., Crockett would never endorse Talarico's Republican opponent), implying something distinctive went wrong.
- The gap between El-Sayed's polling and the Democratic gubernatorial candidate's polling reflects his own shortcomings rather than structural factors such as his religion, ideology, or the attacks against him.