QUESTION 1): Does an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) endorsement help or hurt a particular candidate in the August 4 Democratic primary for U.S. Senate?
ANSWER 1): It certainly doesn’t seem to be hurting U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI 11) right now, or in her previous runs for Congress. An AIPAC endorsement typically comes with a certain amount of cash, and Stevens has received significant financial backing from AIPAC and its network. In the 2022 election cycle, AIPAC bundled over $940,000 for her Congressional re-election campaign, and reported donations and bundled funds have continued to grow into her 2026 Senate run. She describes herself as a “proud pro-Israel Democrat” and an unwavering “Zionist.” She has opposed calls to label Israel’s military response in Gaza a genocide and has criticized the United Nations for what she characterizes as biased targeting of Israel.
Needless to say, Stevens’s close ties to AIPAC have made her a frequent target for progressive and Arab American activists, particularly supporters of Abdul El-Sayed, one of Stevens’s Democratic primary opponents. For example, during the Michigan Democrats’ spring endorsement convention on April 19, pro-Palestinian delegates heckled Stevens and chanted “shame on you” during her speech, while cheering El-Sayed.
In her 2026 U.S. Senate race, Stevens faces primary opponents — both El-Sayed and state Senator Mallory McMorrow — who have sworn off AIPAC donations and criticized U.S. policy in Gaza, further highlighting Stevens’s pro-Israel positioning as a key dividing line in the state. However, McMorrow in the last few years has taken money from AIPAC as well as donors who have contributed to AIPAC, drawing scorn from El-Sayed for trying to have it “both ways” by straddling the combustible issue.
Some Democratic activists see AIPAC as the kiss of death, even if a particular candidate isn’t a progressive Democrat. True, the impact of being beholden to AIPAC can be quite negative in some special elections around the country, but special elections are not regular primary elections. The Aug. 4 Michigan Democratic primary is just that — a PRIMARY where all registered voters can cast ballots. There’s scant evidence that being pro-Palestinian or anti-Zionist yields much campaign cash to candidates, but t
The difficulty for Democrats is that their party is polarized between Zionists and pro-Palestine/anti-Semites. August 4 will be a test of whether older, more mainstream Democrats will turn out in force to vote for Stevens, as opposed to far fewer, younger, pro-Palestinian delegates with skimpier wallets at the 4/19 conclave.
Plus, Stevens just picked up endorsements from former U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow and ex-Governor Jennifer Granholm, and Stevens is in the midst of a month-long $6 million media blitz fueled at least partly by AIPAC money.
Of course, we should keep in mind that Arab-Americans and/or Muslims (they’re not necessarily the same) make up only about 4% of Michigan’s population at most, although the percentage of such voters in a Democratic primary is much higher. Whatever it is, that’s just a fraction of the electorate, be it primary or general. However, it’s probably twice as big as the Jewish population, and El-Sayed is the best retail politician in the bunch.
All that said, will AIPAC or the Jews vs. Arab/Muslim divide really be a determining factor in what happens Aug. 4, or will other issues take precedence?
************************************************
Those who are familiar with the “Uncommitted” movement from 2024 realize that the movement was not monolithic. For every Arab-American or Muslim-American that joined that movement in 2024 there was at least an equal number of activists that opposed the Biden administration policy in the Middle East and openly opposed Kamala Harris in her presidential run in 2024 for her slavish support of Israel.
Should Stevens receive the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination, they will be hundreds of thousands of Michigan Democrats who either will vote for Mike Rogers or not cast a ballot for either in November.
Republicans, therefore should want to see Haley Stevens receive the Democratic Party nomination. Many feel Abdul Elsayed as the preferred opponent as nominee – but the problem is that Democrtas as well as Republicans are beginning to perceive Elsayed as the most honest candidate in the race.
Haley Stevens’ imprudent ongoing pro-Israel rants (e.g. “I see Israel in my dreams”) that are being uploaded to YouTube – and have been for the last several years – are annoying most grassroots Democrats. As are her massive acceptance of political action committee donations from corporate big business interests.
Mallory McMorrow may be the best candidate the Democratic Party leadership can hope for to win the nomination for U.S. Senate – but in recent weeks even she has taken hits in the media for her reported wealth and failure to satisfy water bill obligations.
Recent polling shows that the Democratic U.S. Senate race is a three-way dead heat – but against Mike Rogers as the presumptive GOP nominee, all three Democratic Party candidates are falling behind Rogers. Mike Rogers is the one bright spot Michigan GOP leaders can tout as someone who is running a decent campaign.
The April 19th, 2026 Democratic party state convention in Detroit should have been a wake-up call to the Democratic Party leadership that foolishly supports Haley Stevens in her bid for the U.S. Senate nomination. An unheard-of 7,000 state convention delegates appeared – primarily youth and minority members – and they booed and heckled Stevens unmercifully.
The Arab-American News has also reported that Rep. Stevens’ local Congressional office has been targeted by demonstrators. In short, she is a highly controversial candidate largely perceived by grassroots Democrats as being captive to pro-Israel and corporate interests who have purchased influence via PAC donations she has cheerfully accepted.
Rep. Stevens has risen the AIPAC wave to success in her U.S. House bids – but now that is boomeranging against her – it is time for Haley to “pay the piper”.
The AIPAC Tracker website claims Republican gubernatorial candidate John James has received over $ 1.5 million from AIPAC. While AIPAC contributions are unlikely to become controversial in the Republican primary, they could become quite provocative in the General. November 3rd in Michigan is beginning to look like March 5, 1933 in Germany.
The race for governor does not implicate foreign policy considerations to any great degree as a federal office does – so whatever John James receives from AIPAC is largely irrelevant except to the extent he remains in U.S. Congress.
John James is in my 10th District and represents me in Congress. I know from his campaign appearances that he supports the State of Israel 100% along with the military aid it receives since they oppose “terrorism”. His pro-Israel rantings are contrived and driven by his receipt of campaign donations – everyone gets that.
I attend virtually all campaign appearances and debates involving the MI10 GOP candidates AND NOT ONE WILL PUBLICY ENDORSE MILITARY AID TO ISRAEL:
(A) Justin Kirk labeled it “a difficult question”;
(B) Mike Bouchard, Jr. when asked merely averred Israel was a “stabilizing force in the Middle East”;
(C) Robert Lulgjuraj indicated he was accepting no PAC monies from anyone.
Right now a poll published by a joint Arab-Jewish Israeli peace organization revealed that 74% of israelis recently will accept or tolerate an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel if that means a final peace is attained.
The Institute for National Security Studies published recent poll finding showing 47% of Israelis believe that Israel is losing or has lost the Iran war already. Retail gasoline prices in Israel are over $10 per gallon and the war has drained $3 billion per week from the Israeli economy. Israeli media reports report daily casualties being sustained in Lebanon and ongoing disciplinary problems against Israeli soldiers for war crimes against Christians.
In sum, the situation is ripe for a peace agreement. If Republicans do not negotiate a peace agreement between Israel/Iran/Lebanon and Palestine and Americans are paying $5.00 per gallon of gasoline in November, they can expect to lose their majority in Congress this fall.
“The race for governor does not implicate foreign policy considerations to any great degree as a federal office does – so whatever John James receives from AIPAC is largely irrelevant except to the extent he remains in U.S. Congress.”
The Track AIPAC website has a page on the Michigan Congressional delegation (I believe this is a different, but allied, site to AIPAC Tracker.). James as a congressional candidate was only given $ 268,000 by AIPAC, placing him behind Scholten and McDonald Rivet but far ahead of the rest of the Michigan delegation.
So why would AIPAC bestow $ 1.2 million more on gubernatorial candidate James than congressional candidate James? And none on Benson?
One point to note: These tracker sites claim to identify directed contributions which only appear as individual contributions on campaign finance reports. Not certain how this is achieved, but an AI crawl of official campaign reports should be able to perform this trick.
Something is up.
The John James/1.5 million dollar figure ascribed to AIPAC has been circulating on social media for awhile – it has never been credibly verified.
Significant amounts of John James’ campaign funding for Michigan governor has been derived from a number of committee sources, including PACs linked to DeVos family members, and large donations linked to prominent Michigan business leaders, such as Han Kassab and David Fischer.
There is no need to donate any campaign funding at time to Jocelyn Benson. She is a shoo-in to trounce Chris Swanson in the August primary.
Maybe in the fall when Benson faces a GOP nominee.
There is undoubtedly some truth to Bill’s claim that “The difficulty for Democrats is that their party is polarized between Zionists and pro-Palestine/anti-Semites”, but I don’t think that fully explains where we are. In my case, given world history, I support having a Jewish state, and was shocked by the October 7 attack. But Netanyahu and the current Israeli administration have lost the sympathy and support much of the world had for Israel after the October 7 atrocity by its way over the top conduct in Gaza and incursions in the West Bank. I believe what Israel has done may increase it’s security in the short run, but threatened it in the long run. My opinions don’t fit with the alternatives Bill lists and I am far from alone in that regard in the Democratic Party.
Back in 2016, there was very little opposition when the Michigan Republicans at a state convention in Lansing added a plank to their platform supporting the State of Israel.
Today there is debate withing the party on how to address the ongoing Israel/Gaza crisis and even the vehement Christian Zionist wing of the party is distancing itself from the conduct and statements of Israel’s government.
I applaud the Michigan Democrats who have been vocal in calling out obvious bought-off politicians like Rep. Haley Stevens who have led America down a pro-Israel abyss.
A couple points:
1) You can cite any number of polls you want; the two-state solution is dead. We just can’t say it. Woops, I just did. Yes, any sane Israeli will accept a 2-state solution given any likelihood of peace with the Palestinians. Any chance of that? With the Palestinian founding documents clearly and plainly stating their very existence is predicate upon the elimination of the Jewish/Zionist state? Not a chance.
1a) Palestine has a state. It’s called Gaza, as established in 2005 by forceful Israeli evacuation (at great national cost), by PM Ariel Sharon in an attempt to comply with the tenets of the 1995 Oslo II accords which were stuck due to Palestinian and worldly intransigence.
1b) The only reason Israel hasn’t taken the last 40% of the Gaza strip they don’t already control? The Quixotic hope upon hope that after years living like rats in a sewer might bring the Palestinians to their senses to accept peace with Israel. Not a chance.
2) The liberal population of Jews in the US have a divine appointment with destiny. Having been the main progenitor of Communism in Russia, especially via the counter Bolshevik revolution (No? Check Lenin’s and Trotsky’s pedigree even if you don’t want to dig too deep into Stalin’s pedigree).
2a) Western Jews want desperately to reject the nation of Israel and Zionism in particular. But as nation after nation has allowed their antisemitic sub-populations kick Jewish heads in, Aliyah candidates grow and grow year after year. Now the epicenter of the Jewish population resides in Israel, not in the diaspora. This has shifted Jewish politics significantly toward the center-right. This trend will continue until the western Jews wake up and realize their Kumbaya, Pie in the Sky, dreams of a US-esque, melting pot, nation will transpire in the Middle East just isn’t happening.
2b) While I wish the Abraham Accords, post Iran, would bring about a framework of peace in the Middle East, I just don’t see it happening any time soon, so I’m not holding my breath. However, since the various peace treaties between the nation states have been signed, I haven’t seen any pop-up wars occurring either; even between close but unsigned nations (I obviously don’t include Hezbollah dominated Lebanon as being close).
3) So, the upshot is . . . more and more Jews within the US are turning to the Republican party for solutions. I’ll leave the religious implications alone for now.
4) With respect to AIPAC . . . as became evident with the ill-considered JCPOA . . . money is fungible. As a result, money is money. Yes, AIPAC, is and will continue to be an incredibly big factor in US and Michigan politics. It’s just too bad all Jews have not woken up yet. But it is inevitable. Jews have played a deciding factor in much of U. S. politics. If they swing decidedly to the Republican party, it could set up a decisive entity to actually get good things established in America once and for all.
Returning to another foreign themed post: ‘MINNESOTA SOMALI SCANDAL: COULD IT HAPPEN IN MICHIGAN?’. One of our commentator claimed on 26 January: ” [A] comment [of 10x25mm] is an insult to Scandinavians whin [sic] assimilate immigrants just fine.”
Reuters today has an exciting, above the fold, post:
‘Sweden prepares prisons for 13-year-old gang killers’
By Simon Johnson and Tom Little
June 2, 2026
The Scandinavians have done such a good job of assimilating immigrants that they are now establishing prison wings for 13 year old killers. Another social benefit of societal submission to Islam.
Israel is under an apartheid government system similar to the regime in South Africa that had been ruling until he early 1990s.
The former apartheid government of South Africa had the support of the Nixon and Reagan administrations as well as the conservative Margaret Thatcher government in the United Kingdom for several reasons:
(A) they were seen as an ally of NATO with an effective and well-armed military;
(B) they were also perceived as a bulwark against Communist encroachment;
(C) they were fighting the “terrorist” African National Congress.
Observers indicated that the colonizing Afrikaaners were no different than the English who colonized America and dismantling the apartheid system was tantamount to America ceding itself back to American Indian tribes. Dutch Calvinism, some argued, justified the apartheid system of racism.
Today, Israel, like South Africa faces a Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions movement which punishes the nation via its national economic growth.
Today, the apartheid system of South Africa is dismantled and will never return. The “terrorist” ANC became the new government and white South Africans have continued to this day to dominate South Africa’s economic structure even though elected officials are no longer predominantly Afrikaaner.
Israel’s apartheid system will likewise eventually collapse. AIPAC and its influence in American politics is only delaying the inevitable. American political leaders support Israel for the same reasons politicians had supported the apartheid government of South Africa.
Any politician in Michigan who continues to lavish unconditional support to the policies of Israel’s extremist government do not deserve to be elected to any office. Israel’s actions have made it a pariah state around the world.
“Israel is under an apartheid government system similar to the regime in South Africa that had been ruling until he early 1990s.”
Your premise is entirely fallacious. Apartheid was a system of racial minority political control which severely limited the civil rights of the majority. In South Africa, blacks rose to 75% of the population by the end of the apartheid era, but had no political representation in the primary Parliament, courts, or executive branch.
Israel is 75% Jewish, and another 10% of Israelis m/l are not Islamic (Christian, Druse, Ba’hai, unaffiliated). Israeli citizens of all ethnicities and religions legally hold the same core civil and political rights: citizenship, voting rights, access to courts, public health and education. The Knesset has 10 Arab members, out of 120 total members. This could be considered underrepresentation, but is actually a consequence of fractured Israeli politics. Nineteen different political parties have representatives sitting in the Knesset.
One authotative treatise has astutely pointed out:
“…………..by 1973, economic and military alliance between Israel and South Africa was in the ascendancy, The military leadership of both countries was convinced that both nations faced a fundamentally similar predicament, fighting for their survival against the common enemy of the PLO and ANC,
“Within less than a decade, South Africa would be one of Israel’s closest military and economic allies.
“Whilst Israel would occupy the position of South Africa’s closest military ally and Israel and become the most important foreign arms supplier to the South African Defence Force…………………”
The State of Israel had no compunctions in its partnership with the apartheid government of South Africa, despite worldwide condemnation of the racist system.
This is not true and, even if it were, trade does not constitute apartheid on the part of Israel. The UK and US were still South Africa’s largest trading partners, by far, right up to the end of apartheid. South Africa’s trade with a number of black African nations also far exceeded its trade with Israel. Apartheid South Africa fed sub Saharan Africa after the collapse of Zimbabwe.
Note that well before the Arab invasion of Israel during 1948, South Africa was the seventh country that recognized Israel’s right to exist. Apartheid South Africa also provided refuge to at least 6,000 Litvak Jews (probably 60,000, but the records have been destroyed by ANC) on the eve of the Holocaust. No other country in Africa extended haven to European Jews during that period. These are the actual ties which bound Israel to South Africa.
Will Israel follow the path of the Republic of Vietnam – a corrupt regime propped up by $billions in military aid from U.S. taxpayers.
Vietnam’s military aid was largely cut off by Congressional Democrats despite President Ford’s valiant efforts and the NVA/VC embarked on their final offensive in 1975. Saigon captured in April of 1975.
Young Americans are cheering the Gazans.
Is America merely delaying the inevitable – the collapse of a corrupt Israeli government?
Far be it for me to test wits with the great Mark M Koroi, Esq. I am no lawyer, and do not play one on TV or radio. But let me attempt to cast a light on the apartheid argument, mentioned.
1) ‘Israel is under an apartheid government system similar to the regime in South Africa (SA) that had been ruling until he early 1990s.’ No, it is not. Calling Israel apartheid is a scurrilous accusation, not a descriptor.
1a) A few SA distinctives that are nothing like Israeli rule:
– The Population Registration Act (1950): Classified all SA citizens into racial groups. Israel treats all citizens the same regardless of ethnicity.
– The Group Areas Act (1950): Mandated physical separation of races in SA. Israel does not separate its citizens. It does separate from the Palestinians who have refused Israeli citizenship even after being offered. The “mandated” separation is due to civil defense, global and historical demands, as well as the preference by the self-imposed INESSE Palestinian groups. They do not wish to assimilate; they wish to remain separate and to conquer.
– The Bantu Education Act (1953): Established a racially segregated education system. The Israeli citizen education system is unified and includes all racial and ethnic groups equally. The Palestinian education system is segregated by preference and global pressures.
– The Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act (1959): Created “homelands” or Bantustans for black South Africans, confining them to specific areas. This is an instance of a country segregating its citizens into non-citizen mini states. In the case of Israel, it is a matter of segregating preferred non-citizen (often combatants), in protection of actual citizens, no matter their race or ethnicity.
– The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and Immorality Act: Prevented inter-racial marriages and sexual relations. There is no prohibition within Israel, but I would not recommend being positive LGBTQ+ or marrying an Israeli within Gaza.
1b) The main thing which made SA apartheid, apartheid, was its distribution of government funding and actions between the races. Monies were distributed 1/3 to whites, 1/3 to “coloreds” [sic], and 1/3 to blacks. Dividing the same amount of money between ~80+% blacks, ~8% whites and ~10 – 12% colored produced obvious disparities among the races. This does not occur amongst Israeli citizens. Polls show Arabic and Palestinian populations do not want to renounce Israeli citizenship. They are demonstrably happier. There are no ethnic or racial partitions amongst Israeli citizens. Palestinian disparity is due to their own choices.
2) ‘The former apartheid government of South Africa had the support of the Nixon and Reagan administrations as well as the conservative Margaret Thatcher government in the United Kingdom for several reasons:
(A) they were seen as an ally of NATO with an effective and well-armed military;
(B) they were also perceived as a bulwark against Communist encroachment;
(C) they were fighting the “terrorist” African National Congress.’
Not sure the point to all this was so I will not comment. It doesn’t apply to Israel.
3) ‘Observers indicated that the colonizing Afrikaaners were no different than the English who colonized America and dismantling the apartheid system was tantamount to America ceding itself back to American Indian tribes. Dutch Calvinism, some argued, justified the apartheid system of racism.’
Again, not sure the point to all this was so I will not comment other than to ask who the ‘observers’ were? The equivalent to today’s bombastic, slanted, biased, antisemitic, mainstream media today? Yeah, probably.
4) ‘Today, Israel, like South Africa faces a Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions movement which punishes the nation via its national economic growth.’ Is pointing this out supposed to amount to some kind of indictment of Israel? I’m not getting it. There is plenty written elsewhere citing the inanity of the BDI/S movement. I think Israel wears this accusation as a badge of honor.
5) ‘Israel’s apartheid system will likewise eventually collapse’. Can’t collapse something that is not there. You’re not holding your breath on this one, are you? I’d hate to think my favorite TBR lawyer friend did something to hurt themself.
6) ‘AIPAC and its influence in American politics is only delaying the inevitable. American political leaders support Israel for the same reasons politicians had supported the apartheid government of South Africa.’ Yeah . . . no. American support of Israel goes way, way deeper than support for SA. We could discuss this one over a beer with Mr. Sullivan some time.
7) ‘Any politician in Michigan who continues to lavish unconditional support to the policies of Israel’s extremist government do not deserve to be elected to any office. Israel’s actions have made it a pariah state around the world.’ Well, now you’ve done it. Now you owe every Jew who converts to be a Republican a beer. First round is on Mr. Koroi.
I do hope you’ve taken this reply in the good-natured way in which it was intended. Cheers.
A noted and respected authority (Wikipedia) has observed:
“Israeli apartheid is a system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination in the in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and to a lesser extent in Israel proper.
“This system is characterized by near total physical separation between the Palestinian and Israel settler populations of the West Bank, as well as the judicial separation that governs both communities, which discriminates against Palestinians in a wide range of ways.
“Israel discriminates against its Palestinian refugees in the diaspora and against its own Palestinian citizens.
“Elements of Israeli apartheid include the Law of Return, the 2003 Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, the 2018 Nation-State Law and many laws regarding security, freedom of movement, land and planning, political representation in the Knesset, education and culture……………….”
‘A noted and respected authority (Wikipedia) has observed:’ Yep, right up there with the usual MSM crowd in America . . . hopefully minus CBS and CNN soon, thank you David Ellison.
‘“This system is characterized by near total physical separation between the Palestinian and Israel settler populations of the West Bank, as well as the judicial separation that governs both communities, which discriminates against Palestinians in a wide range of ways.’ This note conveniently does not distinguish between Palestinian citizens and Palestinian non-citizens. It duly lacks any background mentioning that the separation was self-imposed by the non-citizen Palestinians themselves, after Jordan abandoned them, and then essentially codified by the UN in its feeble attempts at “protecting” them in their refugee camps. Walls went up later only in response to continued Palestinian infiltration into Israeli controlled areas to commit mischief and terrorism. It should also be noted Settlers settle mainly into area C which is undefined and open game for both Israelis and Palestinians.
‘“Israel discriminates against its Palestinian refugees in the diaspora and against its own Palestinian citizens.’ I have no idea what this is saying or what the context is. Just the way it is written, it doesn’t make any sense. Israel has no ‘Palestinian refugees in the diaspora’ and it does not discriminate against ‘its own Palestinian citizens’.
‘“Elements of Israeli apartheid include the Law of Return, the 2003 Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, the 2018 Nation-State Law and many laws regarding security, freedom of movement, land and planning, political representation in the Knesset, education and culture……………….”’ Missing, of course, is any mention of the fact if Israel did not limit Arab/Palestinian immigration, there would be no Israel. 8 million Israelis vs ~1.8 billion potential emigres is an untenable situation without safeguards. The other limitations can easily be attributed to civil order. There is no apartheid going on here.
Lastly, it should be noted that Israel did not wholesale displace the Palestinian population in 1967 when it took over. Much is said of the Nakba, or day of catastrophe, when 700,000 to 750,000 Palestinian Arabs were supposedly expelled from their homes in 1948. This is misleading on several fronts. First, little is mentioned of the much more efficient expulsions of almost 100,000 Jews in Jerusalem alone, not to mention little or no records of what happened in the West Bank, when Jordan and the Arab League conquered the West Bank at the same time in 1948. Second, little is also mentioned of the widespread alarm spread by
Jordanian Arabic radio that the Arabic/Palestinian inhabitants should “flee for their lives” because they anticipated ethnic purges to commence in retaliation for what the Jordanians were doing to the Jews. And flee they did, without much urging at all by the Israelis. Most property disputes later can be attributed to knowing or understanding whether any particular property was actually abandoned or was an open community property or unoccupied field. The rest has all been a legal dispute, ad infinitum. But calling it the Nakba has been a convenient litigation tool.
Candidates for U.S. Congress in Michigan have shied away from the Israel/Palestine issue this election cycle.
Obviously, Israel is neither a perfect state and supporting them has a level ofpolitical fallout.
Congressman Tom Barrett (MI-07) again voted in support of House Concurrent Resolution 86 on Wednesday, to require authorization from Congress before continuing military operations in Iran. This was a proxy vote against Israel, and by extension Trump.
The Democrats are seriously targeting Barrett from the left and all the Michigan government employees in CD07 will march in lockstep behind Maasdam or Brink, which ever wins the Democratic primary on August 4th.
Maasdam was Zero’s nuclear football flunky and Brink was Biden’s ambassador to Ukraine, so the General Election campaign in CD07 will be long on foreign policy and short on domestic policy.
Barrett is trying to establish an aura of independence to blunt the tens of millions of Democratic PAC dollars which will accuse him of being Israel’s foremost foreign policy advocate.
Israel will be on the Michigan congressional ballot, at least in CD07.
‘Israel will be on the Michigan congressional ballot, at least in CD07.’
Good. It should. Look at Haley Stevens “standing like a Stonewall”, ensconced as she is in the belly of Caesar’s party beast; she has the courage to speak truth to power. Republicans should be able at the minimum to do the same. Why mealy mouth your platform? I’ll take the ethically pure opposition every time. Makes presenting easily discerned contrasts to the voters. Beats the equivocators.
A key irony here is that Haley Stevens’ effusive love of Israel and her acceptance of corporate PAC funding would likely make her a better fit in the Republican Party as these positions dovetail with those of the GOP rank-and-file.
If she had attended the earlier GOP state convention instead of the Dems on April 19th, she would have likely received a reception laced with warmth and dignified respect.
Nice article, Bill, and a good appearance on OTR. Sorry for the delay in my usual response, but I was on vacation.
The AIPAC endorsement in the Democratic Party certainly hurts you at the convention when the most vocal (or committed) show up as Rep. Stevens was passionately, lustily and heartily booed there. She may have received more respect had she gone to the Republican convention. Much of this is from what is best described as progressive antisemitism. It calls itself anti-Zionist, where “From the River to the Sea, Palestine must be free” really means Jew-free, or Judenfrei in its original German. Jordan Acker got the same treatment – and would have gotten the same treatment even without the Guardian story issued two days before the convention. Throwing your faith under the bus seems to be a defensive position these days. State Rep. Noah Arpit is at least troubled by this, and it will be interesting to see if he has any backlash. His “X” account posts (or whatever they’re called now) were “wide-ranging” between him and the commenters. And State Senator McMorrow has flipped her position, much like her residence and voting patterns, a true Profile in Convenience. Or cowardice.
As for the other issues, there is not much difference between the three on most issues. Any of the three will score better than a 93% Democratic voting record in the Senate should any of them get elected. 93% is the percentage of Senator Fetterman votes with the Democrats and he is generally decried now by the Democratic faithful as a party traitor. So, if Stevens falls, the antisemites will claim victory.
The latest polling results – conducted by TIPP – have shown Mallory McMorrow plunging -to 13% against Elsayed and Stevens, who are almost in a statistical dead heat in the 30s.
Elsayed now leads Rogers by a 45%-44% margin.
The poll was taken in the third week of May.
A more recent poll by Lake Research Partners shows Abdul El-Sayed in the lead with 34% of likely Democratic voters, followed by Haley Stevens with 31% and Mallory McMorrow with 19% – 15% were undecided. Poll was taken in May 26th-28th range and published on June 1st.
It will be interesting to see what upcoming polls taken after the UAW endorsement of Dr. El-Sayed will show.
The Lake Research polling was taken well before the UAW voted to endorse Dr. El-Sayed.
The GOP has foolishly wanted El-Sayed to win the Democratic primary as a easy opponent to defeat in November when polling shows Mike Rogers now trailing him.
Rep. Haley Stevens has almost NO following among the Michigan college-age youth – nor the 300,000 Arab-Americans she has alienated by her massive AIPAC funding and inflammatory statements supporting Israel. These segments the Democrats need to beat Mike Rogers in the November general election.
Who is the best Dem nominee in the Senate race – clearly not Stevens.
A newly-formed super-PAC identified as the “Center For Democratic Priorities” reserved $5.3 million in ads to supprt Dr. Abdul El-Sayed’s chief rival, U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens.
Dr. El-Sayed’s campaign has heavily criticized this group, pointing out it is suspected as an AIPAC-linked shell organization.
On the other hand, there is no evidence that a pro-Palestine super-PAC “American Priorities PAC” will be supporting Dr. El-Sayed, despite the PAC spending $1.5 million in a successful candidacy of Dr. Adam Hamway – a pro-Gaza Democrat – in a New Jersey primary.
The UAW – which has 300,000 active and retired members – just endorsed Abdul El-Sayed for U.S. Senate.
The endorsement is a major blow to Rep. Haley Stevens – largely perceived as the front-runner already having gathered many labor union endorsements.
Shawn Fain has been an enthusiastic supporter of Hamas who feels their October 7th barbarics were no big deal. This got him and the UAW crosswise with New York’s Anti-BDS law as well as a reprimand from the UAW’s court ordered criminal activities monitor, Neil Barofsky.
The UAW-CAP endorsement of Abdulrahman El-Sayed is Shawn Fain’s thumb in the eye of Neil Barofsky. Barofsky responded by reinvigorating investigations of Fain for multiple retaliations against subordinates within the UAW for resisting his illegal demands..
The UAW in their endorsement statement had indicated that Dr. El-Sayed’s refusal to accept corporate PAC funding was a key reason for voting to endorse him over the other candidates.
Mallory McMorrow has gotten a handful of labor union endorsements – but the vast majority in this election cycle have gone to Haley Stevens.
McMorrow has – like Dr. El-Sayed – eschewed corporate PAC monies. Haley Stevens, on the other hand, has quietly received significant PAC funding from big business – including from Ford and General Motors political action committees.
To expect a labor union to endorse a candidate that accepts funding from an entity that the union opposes in collective bargaining sessions is silly. When Stevens’ campaign cashed PAC contribution checks from auto industry corporate interests, she should have realized that this would have damaged her standing with the United Auto Workers leadership and rank-and-file.
On the other hand, a UAW endorsement would have invariably boosted the campaign of Mallory McMorrow if the UAW had decided to endorse her instead of Dr. El-Sayed. She has been the moderate, reasonable candidate in the U.S. Senate Democratic Party primary.
This was actually the FIRST labor union endorsement that Dr. El-Sayed has landed.
10x25mm says
(Edit)Splendid hypocrisy. The UAW-CAP is a PAC as they stated on their FEC Form 1, ‘Statement of Organization’. Pot calling the kettle black.
Touche!
However it is OK if you are a labor union PAC. LOL
Actually, the 300,000 figure represents UAW members in Michigan only.
When you consider that this represents 3% of all Michigan residents the impact of this endorsement on the 2026 Dem U.S. Senate primary election could be massive.