Hello, Democrats? Are You Listening?

0:00Today, opportunity could begin here and take you anywhere. At HSBC, we're here as your banking partner to help shape what's next. And we're there to help you navigate new markets from Seattle to Singapore, London to New York. HSBC brings strategic insights and a global perspective to give you an edge wherever you go. HSBC, we're here.

0:30Jamelle Bouie:You know, a guy like Abraham Lincoln impressed people not because he was erudite. It's because he was six foot four. He was tall. He was a giant, strange looking man who also happened to be like, you know, an erudite, like interesting guy. But the importance of presence, of rhetorical skill, of attention grabbing. These are classic old fashioned political skills.

0:57Give me a word that sums up this midterm cycle for you and why. Jamel?

1:04Jamelle Bouie:A word. A word. A single word. I don't know if I have a single word. I mean, I actually think it's been a little less exciting than people think, but this is a cop out. Interesting. It's been an interesting election cycle. I'll allow it. Michael? Dynamic. I need two words, lift and drag, lift and drag. The lift is obvious. The Democrats are showing up in primaries in numbers greater than anyone expected in states like Texas and North Carolina and Michigan. And that's a measure of some enthusiasm that I think qualifies is lift. And drag is just the man in the White House, a Republican consultant, refers to him as the anchor.

1:54He is a weight on all that they're trying to do. So lift and drag. Sorry, I need two. I'm a beginner. That's OK. Well, it's like poetic license. That's what we're all about. My friends, these insights are coming to you from my regular co-conspirator, columnist Jamel Bowie, and from our brilliant opinion colleague, politics editor Michael Duffy, who is making his roundtable debut. I'm Michelle Cottle, obsessive cover of National Politics, and I'm going to go with a midterm word, ulcer inducing, which I think really needs no explanation, but it does give us, I think, the perfect segue into our top topic of discussion this week, the Michigan primaries and the ongoing fight for the soul of the Democratic Party.

2:41So obviously this is not a new fight. We've had insurgent progressives and moderate pragmatists locked in a tug of war for years. This cycle, it's gotten red hot and it's bubbling up in some battleground areas you might not have expected. This most definitely includes Michigan, where the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate came down to a brutal, expansive brawl between the left's Abdullah Saeed and the center's Haley Stevens. And it ended this week with El Saeed squeaking out a one-point victory. Now, Michael, you spent an awful lot of time talking with folks in Michigan while working on The Choice, which for those unfamiliar is basically Opinion's voter guide to some of the cycle's key races.

3:31How surprised are you that the race wound up so close. Well, Michelle, I'm no oracle. You know, like you, I watched El Sayed on the stump and in debates and in interviews, and you couldn't help but be amazed by his energy and his charisma. And I can see why people thought it was going to be a stampede. We did hear all the time when we were talking to people for the choice about a sort of a crying, you know, out for change that he offered. But I have to admit, going into the final week, I thought Stevens was going to pull it out. Chiefly because primary voters in Michigan are whiter and older and more moderate than Democrats generally, and she's their kind of people.

4:18And the worse the polls seemed to get for Stevens, the more center she got. She kind of dug further in, and I thought she must know what she's doing. As it happened, as you say, El Sayed marshalled incredible margins in places like Ann Arbor and Grand Rapids and got enough in Detroit that he could pull it out. But the significance is the one you mentioned, which is that progressive populists have been winning in blue places like New York and New Jersey and Colorado, but they haven't really until this week won in a purple state or swing state like Michigan. And that is a huge deal. One more note about Michigan that's important, I think, is that Michigan Democrats have a habit of rejecting their party's choice and its ideas about how to win.

5:09Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton there in 2016. 100 ,000 Democrats voted against Joe Biden just two years ago. And of course, if you go back to the medieval times where I began in 1988, Jesse Jackson wiped the floor with Michael Dukakis in that year. So they have a habit of doing this to their parties, the establishment's choice. And this is part of that tradition. So, Jamel, you said last week that for Democratic voters right now, fight, expressions of anger are maybe more important than policy or ideological splits. How did this factor in specifically that you saw in Michigan?

5:52Jamelle Bouie:My read of Michigan is that that's very much part of what drove El-Sayed's rise, the sense that he was someone who represented a more aggressive posture. And it's interesting. I mean, I think a lot of people talk about this. It's always in terms of policy and ideology. And one of my touchstones is that ordinary voters don't actually know that much about either policy or ideology. They don't really have strong views either. What they have are a set of senses, of suppositions, a set of intuitions for which policy stances can either validate those or tell them that the candidate is off base, right?

6:36Jamelle Bouie:And so like LCA being for Medicare for all, right? What that says to a voter is this is a guy who wants to do big things, or this is a guy who's aligned with these particular people, or this is a guy who just isn't presenting himself like a typical Democrat. And that's the thing that matters. Like the policy stance is like a proxy for all these other things that people may not necessarily be able to articulate, but they feel. I'd say the same is true for his stance on Israel, his opposition to aid, military aid for Israel, his pro-Palestinian politics. There are plenty of voters who I think feel very sincerely and seriously about that, and El-Sayed does as well.

7:12Jamelle Bouie:But I think for a lot of voters, it's a kind of, oh, this guy sees with his own two eyes what I see, and it becomes a proxy for I can trust his judgment. Right. He saw the videos from Gaza. He came to the view that I came to. I can trust his judgment. And so I think all of those things are happening simultaneously and help explain why it is that El Saeed was able to mount this really impressive challenge to Stevens, who just had a ton of money. I mean, El Saeed's outspent by like an order of magnitude. So he's running a campaign for which he has much fewer resources and really does have to kind of rely on his charisma, on sort of hustle, just like being out there in a way that I'm not sure Stevens necessarily had to until the end.

8:07Jamelle Bouie:Right. Yeah. And and that to me, I think it goes a long way to explaining what happened here. And it's worth saying that Stevens nearly won. So like she the combination of resources and the fact that she is like an established candidate, people know her. You know, she's a known quantity and she has like a discrete base, right? And one thing that's interesting to me about all of this is what left-wing insurgent candidates in other similar states can take away from this particular race. Because this is going to look much more like the kind of arena or the kind of battleground that left-wing insurgent candidates are going to face if they're going to try to really win in other places than a New York, right?

8:55Jamelle Bouie:than like a big city. It's going to look much more like Michigan than it is like New York City. All right, you brought up money. I want to talk about that just for a little bit. This wound up being the most expensive Democratic, you know, city primary race in history. More than 60 million poured into Stephen's campaign and more than half of that involved an issue that has become increasingly divisive in the Democratic Party, and that's Israel. AIPAC and its affiliated groups dropped over 30 million. in Stephen's campaign. And, you know, money's generally considered the lifeblood of politics, but increasingly, there's a growing sense that APAC money is toxic in Democratic races.

9:38So, Jamel, given Tuesday's results, which, I mean, include former DSA House member Cori Bush's failed attempt to take back her seat from West Bell, a moderate Dem who was supported in the primary by AIPAC. But where do you think this particular dynamic stands?

9:58Jamelle Bouie:I think among political elites, Israel is divisive. But if you look at Democratic voters and polls of Democratic voters, large majorities agree that we should stop giving military aid to Israel. In a lot of ways, El Saeed represents where actually like the typical Democratic voter is. And the Democratic establishment and Democratic elites are like catching up to that. But the ground in terms of public opinion has shifted really quickly. And I think that actually accounts for some of the disorientation that like establishment Democrats clearly feel. Like this happened very fast, like in a matter of like two years.

10:35Jamelle Bouie:And it's taken time for people in the leadership class, I guess, to adjust. And I'd say that with regards to AIPAC, I mean, And AIPAC has become a bit of a boogeyman here. Honestly, I think the big issue is that AIPAC supports Republicans too, right? And so it's like you have this well-resourced political action group that will spend millions of dollars either to defeat more left-wing Democrats or to defeat Democrats in the general election. And you can do one, but not the other. You know what I mean? Like if you don't want to be so toxic to Democratic voters, you can do one. Right. You can be like, OK, we we are on this side of an intra party factional battle.

11:23Jamelle Bouie:But then you can't also be like and then we're going to defeat the winner of the factional battle. We're going to try to in the general election. I think that does really makes people very upset when it seems that you're just that it's all in bad faith. I'll put it that way. So, Michael, did you have money thoughts either on AIPAC in particular or just more generally the eye popping amount spent here? Well, the key number here is nine to one. Stevens outspent El-Sayed by a huge lopsided portion. And normally, you might see a two to one outspend or a three to one outspend, but you almost never, I'm not sure I've ever seen a nine to one ratio.

12:02It's like that old saying when someone says, it's not about the money, it's about the money. I think the thing that was powerful for El-Sayed about money is all the things it represented. Whether ASPEC spent$30 million or$30, Elshed was able to turn Stevens into a tool of special interest. When you're bought off by DTE and Blue Cross and Big Pharma and Big Tech and APAC, don't be surprised that there's a pro quo that comes with that quid. That money doesn't just fall off trees. $60 million from outside organizations in this race didn't just come from nowhere. It dovetailed with his larger complaint that he made over and over during the campaign about the Democratic Party being in the pocket of corporations or unseen special interests.

12:47And they were way too willing to go along to get along, far too complacent about money politics. And that was a very animating cocktail for Democratic primary voters. And, you know, we should note also here that Stephen's defense against this stuff and Jamel's right was almost nonexistent. She almost seemed to own it. She didn't even fight back. She didn't say, I'm not a tool. I'm not captured. I think he kept using the word bought. And he wrapped her into a larger shroud of unseen interests who were really ruining politics. But I think there's even one more thing at stake here or at work that is important that isn't really about foreign policy or Israel or anything like it.

13:28And that is when he, you know, went after not just, you know, military aid to Israel, but all aid to Israel, he was tapping into what I think a lot of Americans, particularly Democrats, feel is a sense of misplaced priorities. Why are we spending on this when we could be spending on that? And he said, he had this great quote, you know, why are we buying bombs and tanks for other countries' wars instead of rebuilding schools? And you don't have to be an expert on foreign policy or the Middle East. And most people aren't just Jamel Notes to say, hey, yeah, that sounds right to me. And when neighborhoods and roads and bridges and schools are falling apart, that is an extremely resident angle.

14:10And he made the most of it. We'll see if I'm fascinated by that exact kind of dynamic, because this is something that Republicans have been doing frequently. The whole, you know, in the Trump years, the whole, you know, why are we going to do military adventurism even and spend over there? Why are we worrying about them when we should be worrying about the white working class back here at home? And then you also look at all these polls over the years that show that American voters tend to have a very inflated sense of how much money is actually spent on foreign aid. And I cannot remember the specifics, but they think it's exponentially more than what we actually spend on a regular basis.

14:56So I do think it's interesting that that has crept into the Democratic Party as well and taken hold, whether it's Israel that drove it or kind of some larger force. And I do think this is going to be a real problem because young people in particular are really fired up about this. It's not surprising to me that Stevens was kind of favored by older voters and younger voters were kind of more responsive with El Saeed. I was going to say one more thing about the Israel piece in this race, and that is it was almost a taboo topic in Washington. It was a taboo topic in Washington. No one could talk about this.

15:34He just kept signaling over and over that I'm going to go on offense and stay there. I'm going to stay on my front foot. And that really was a signal, I think, to voters that this is someone who isn't scared of a fight, isn't cowed by power, and is willing to take on the Trump White House and all of its extra constitutional stuff. So I just think his choice of targets here was also strategic.

15:59Jamelle Bouie:Yeah. I mean, I just – I want to just add one more note to that. It was entirely possible for Stevens to win this race. And to me, one of the things I just like stuck out observing was how just flat footed she was setting aside all substantive things. You know, Michelle's from me said this a bunch. Some candidates kind of have the juice and some don't. And, you know, watching the two of them, you're like, I'll say that's a guy with the juice. That's a guy who sort of like is sharp and attentive and able to respond to dynamic political conditions like very quickly and assertively. And Stevens just couldn't.

16:37Jamelle Bouie:And I think voters pick up on that. Like, if voters can pick up on anything, it's that. They pick up on that immediately. So once upon a time, my position was that presidential races were just completely different because Americans vote for boyfriends, not candidates in a way that they don't down. But I think social media has actually changed that. So it's actually moving down the food chain. Who can do the viral hit? Who can do the Mondami and his man on the street interviews? Who looks good on camera? Who has charisma? I think that is taking root ever farther down the ballot. And I do think that that was one of Stephen's problems.

17:18is she was just she was much flatter than he was. And it is always and it's always been my position that like you, Jamel, the policy differences. I can't find voters usually who can tell me the policy differences between the candidates and their party on the trail. So I think this is something that we're going to be looking at for a while, for for better or for worse.

17:41Jamelle Bouie:Can I say just this is a very me thing to say? It's a very 19th century. This is how politics used to be. A guy like Abraham Lincoln impressed people not because he was erudite. It's because he was six foot four. He was tall. He was a giant, strange looking man who also happened to be like, you know, an erudite, like interesting guy. But the importance of presence, of rhetorical skill, of attention grabbing, these are classic old fashioned political skills. And I actually think it's a good thing that it's coming back into like people are recognizing the importance of being able to perform politics as much as being able to like be a good legislator.

18:22Jamelle Bouie:You need to be able to do both. But I think Democrats in particular have lost or forgotten the importance of political performance. If you're not a subscriber, we have some news for you. You can now explore The Times for free without paywalls during your first month on The New York Times app.

18:48We're going to be learning how the various demographic groups voted for a while yet. But one of the big political divides that we've been looking at, not just in Michigan, is between college-educated and non-college-educated voters. Michael, how were you seeing this split in the Michigan race? Well, you know, I'll say it ran as a classic liberal. He did well in these big college towns like Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo, Lansing. These are home of large universities or colleges. It's interesting. He's the first Democrat in something like nine years to win the whole state without winning any of the three counties around Detroit.

19:30Macomb, Oakland, or Wayne. That's really unusual and a really different path to victory. So he had a broad base. She did well among, as you would expect, Black voters and white voters in Detroit. But it was a different path to getting to a win than we've seen in Michigan for a decade at least. So I want us to look a little bit forward here and talk about what El Saeed needs to do now to unify the party after this kind of bruising primary. And I, you know, Jamel knows this. I'm of the mind that, OK, you shouldn't necessarily freak out about tough primaries. I know political types do, but I think it's good for the party if you can then turn it around and bring them back together.

20:19And the one thing I want to say before I ask you guys to take this over is I'm hoping that because El Saeed did not romp, he had a tough, scary close. I mean, he went into election day cocky. They were thinking they were going to blow this out. And that was nowhere near what happened. So I'm hoping that they will take this, develop a little bit of modesty or understand that they have a lot of work to do. And so I'm hoping we're looking at a little bit of course correction going forward in like specifically in response to how close this was. But Jamel, how optimistic are you that he can get this done?

21:07Jamelle Bouie:I'm pretty optimistic. In the immediate aftermath, like the next morning, both El-Sayed and Stevens issued very conciliatory statements that were basically like, primary is over, hard fought. You know, El-Sayed's like, thank you for the support. Thank you for the win. Stevens is like looking forward to assisting the nominee in November. And they both seem to recognize that like the primary is over, right? And the actual battle is to beat the Republican. It's not to engage in this factional infighting. I think you're right to suggest that this narrow win for Esayyad might be the best possible outcome for him because it's a reminder, it serves as a very important reminder that like first he doesn't represent some like overwhelming part of the party coalition in the state.

21:53Jamelle Bouie:He represents nearly half of it and she represents nearly half of it. And so he needs to do the work to bring these two halves together and to provide a unified front going forward. And my sense is that like he would have done that anyway, but this really impresses upon him the necessity to do this. And I think it might tamp down on any inclination, any inkling of wanting to, you know, do a dance in the end zone. It's like, no, this was a close win. And so now we have to, don't spike the ball, you know, welcome your opponent back in the fold and then move forward. You know, my sense is that the background conditions of this year's election are favorable to Democrats.

22:43Jamelle Bouie:And so it's not like they don't need to do any work. They still have to work hard for it. You still got to hustle. But I don't think there's going to be a big split in the Democratic coalition in the fall. Michael? Well, and then there's Mike Rogers, the Republican he's going to face. And you can't count Rogers out. This is a man who just two years ago, I think, nearly beat the Democratic rock star Alyssa Slotkin. He lost by maybe 20 ,000 votes. the Republicans have already pledged to spend 45 or 50 million dollars on the state and that number will quadruple. This will be a very closely fought race.

23:22My guess is that when this race began Rogers hoped he'd face El Saeed instead of Stevens. But I'm guessing now they aren't thinking that. That this is a different candidate and much more mature and practiced and experienced guy who's proven himself to be extremely fast on his feet. It's received wisdom among some Michigan Democrats that Mike Rogers can be beat because they beat him before. But that strikes me as, you know, overconfidence. And in the choice, one of our panelists was a Lansing state senator named Sarah Anthony. And she'd been watching Rogers for 20 years and talked about him in the series as an extremely formidable and capable campaigner who could go to a farm in the morning and a UAW site at lunch and end up at a hunt club in the evening.

24:17And she said in our series, he's a genius. Now, he's a lot trumpier than he was when he was in Congress for 15 years, but you just cannot take anything for granted against him. So they have a lot of reasons, as Jamil said, to start from scratch and pretend they're behind from the beginning. How much do we think that voters there were thinking about electability in the fall? I mean, that's always a complicated calculation. I think one of the reasons Stevens did so well, and you can see this in some of the comments, is that people were concerned that perhaps she would be a better candidate in the fall than he would be.

25:00But it's hard to know. I think the grand experiment that was going on here, which will obviously have an impact going into 2028 based on what happens in November is I do get the sense that, as Jamel says, all the fundamentals are going in Democrats direction, especially with Trump being just wildly unpopular. So I think that there's a sense that the time is OK to play around a little bit and not worry so dramatically about just building the most generic Democrat who can reach the broadest coalition. But that makes a lot of Democrats nervous that you'll wind up with someone who winds up too extreme to appeal to something beyond the base.

25:44And I think that Michigan's Senate race is maybe the kind of exhibit A in all of this, and everybody's going to be watching it really closely. And let's not forget one more thing, which is this is a really late primary, August the 4th. They don't – voting starts in Michigan for the fall. It's crazy. They've made a decision to put this thing so late. They've made their unification problems a little harder. It was interesting that Mally Mimora was on the podium with El-Sayed after he won. But they are aware that there is a clock and they have to move fast. So one of the things that Republicans are looking at, the president is wildly unpopular.

26:22Rogers is a Trump ally. How do we think he is going to thread this needle going forward? Rogers has been on both sides of Trump. When he first ran, he was a fairly conventional, middle of the road, almost Bush Republican, strong on national defense. and he posed a challenge for Democrats because he was fairly centrist in his early incarnations. But after Trump took office, and particularly the second time, he's become Trumpier and has said things that are much more extreme. And that gives Democrats an opening to attack that they didn't have before. My hunch is that Rogers will come after El-Sayed on foreign policy, very much on the Middle East and Israel.