Question 1): It’s been three weeks since President Donald J. Trump endorsed U.S. Rep. John James (R-MI 10) for Governor of Michigan. Now, a poll from a firm called OnMessage Inc. shows James with a commanding 25-point lead in the Michigan Republican primary. The survey of 800 likely GOP primary voters, conducted June 28-30, shows James at 46%, millionaire businessman Perry Johnson trailing at 21%, and former Attorney General Mike Cox at 14%.
The poll arrives on the heels of back-to-back endorsements from U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, dean of Michigan’s Republican Congressional delegation, and state House Speaker Matt Hall. Also on board are two of James’s former rivals who dropped out of the race — Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt and former state House Speaker Tom Leonard. Likewise are U.S. Reps Lisa McClain and Jack Bergman; the Fraternal Order of Police; the Police Officers Association of Michigan; the Associated Builders and Contractors of Michigan; Americans for Prosperity; and ex-Secretary of State and Congresswoman Candice Miller, now the Macomb County Public Works Commissioner. We can even add in Kid Rock and Ted Nugent.
So, with all this going for John James, is the Republican primary effectively over?
Answer 2): Most likely, although some feel James didn’t impress anyone in this past week’s two TV debates between the three GOP candidates, but he didn’t have to. As it was, he avoided any missteps mainly by rarely answering charges hurled against him by his opponents and the canned studio audience, and, on the rare instances when he did, he prevaricated. He failed to appear at the post-debate “spin room” after the first debate, but who knows about that? Perry Johnson and Mike Cox obviously got under his skin by ganging up on him on issues like the AI kill switch mandate and data centers, and in Grand Rapids (on WOOD TV) James made one snarky rejoinder that the Johnson campaign is trying to make something of: “Perry, I know when you were born, black people could still be bought and sold in this country, but no one owns me.” Johnson seems to think this was James playing the “race card,” but if so it’s likely to hurt James more with senior citizens.
Still, some 68% of Michigan Republican primary voters are aware of Trump’s endorsement of James. Following the June 22 Trump endorsement, James’s lead doubled from 13 points to 25 points in a single week. Trump’s endorsement carries way more sway over GOP base voters than Perry Johnson’s millions, especially since Johnson’s ads feature a creepy candidate with a “4747” campaign slogan that is simply not credible as a plan for governance. Johnson’s ads would be far more effective if he was in them personally as little as possible. Former A.G. Cox might be the best Republican general election nominee against Democrat Jocelyn Benson, but his pockets aren’t as deep as Johnson’s and he’s now gambling precious campaign cash on ads attacking James for profiting from his ties to the MEDC and China — accusations that aren’t getting traction largely because of a lazy, distracted news media that has forgotten how to fact-check. In essence, James’s campaign strategy — skipping debates, ignoring his opposition, relying on his edge in name recognition, and now his endorsement by Trump — seems to be working, at least so far. He’s simply running out the clock. One note: Maybe Perry Johnson ought to fire his ad agency and/or his campaign manager; while his TV ad presence has been consistently terrible, Johnson himself, in the debates, seemed to be a “happy warrior” — personable, articulate, and focused.
*******************************************************
Question 2): The decision by state Senator Mallory MCMORROW (D-Royal Oak) to stop campaigning for the Democratic nomination to the U.S. Senate a week ago ends a spirited run that saw her very much in the mix until the past six weeks. She had been matching her two primary opponents in polls and in hard-dollar contributions in the campaign’s early stages. She had a social media following built up from her viral speech on LGBTQ+ rights two years ago, followed by a prime time stint at the Democratic National convention. She drew notable crowds this year in her numerous microbrewery visits.
But then she was captured on video being a little too “cute” dancing around at the Democratic state convention (maybe to show how much more appealing she was than the other female in the race, Haley Stevens). Also, ancient social media posts were unearthed in which McMorrow seemed to diss Michigan and Michiganders.
Is it as simple as that, though? What was the real reason for the fall of McMorrow? And where will her support go? What percentage of McMorrow voters will instead vote for Stevens? What percentage will vote for Abdul El-Sayed? How many have already voted absentee for McMorrow, or may vote for her because her name will still be on the August 4 ballot?
Answer 2): McMorrow’s once-promising campaign collapsed primarily because she was up against two Democratic candidates who proved to be better positioned, one with a huge ongoing cash advantage and the other with a fanatic, highly motivated progressive base.
McMorrow tried to thread the needle between the two main factions of the Democratic Party — the more traditional moderate center-left “establishment” (Stevens) and the energized far left (El-Sayed). McMorrow’s team just wasn’t able to keep up with the looking-for-change base of the charismatic El-Sayed or the institutional support (meaning big AIPAC and Super Pac corporate bucks) of an incumbent Congresswoman. Stevens benefited from $30 million in outside paid media in just the past month before Morrow even got on the air.
As for which of the two remaining candidates benefits most from McMorrow’s exit, the only poll taken (by a firm called Tavern Research) since her withdrawal shows a mild uptick for Stevens to the point where the race now looks to be statistically tied.
Of course, some have already voted absentee for McMorrow. Those ballots have been out for more than two weeks in most communities. McMorrow may wind up with up at least 5% when all the votes are counted. For people who vote based on gender, Stevens will get those. On the other hand, there is an anti-establishment vibe running through the Democratic Party and anger at Congress for not doing more to push back against the Trump Administration. Many Democrats have become so radicalized about Israel that a number of McMorrow’s supporters will go in El Sayed’s direction.
There may also be a personality factor. McMorrow had a lot of support among younger voters, and those may find the hard-charging El-Sayed more appealing.
Contrast that with Stevens herself. Here’s what former state Rep. Leslie Love (D-Detroit) told MIRS newsletter: “Taking this back to Mackinac Island (site of late May’s Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce annual policy conference), Mallory was amazing. El-Sayed killed it. Haley looked lost in the sauce. The conversation around the water cooler was that Haley looked out of sorts. Now, there are people in the Mallory camp who will want a strong candidate who will fight and kick some butt, and El-Sayed comes across stronger.”
Stevens did come on strong in her debate with El-Sayed last Tuesday, challenging him on financial disclosure and allegedly false claims he’s made that, as Wayne Co. health director, he erased $700 million in Medicaid debt. She’ll also profit from the mounting attacks on El-Sayed from a panicked Democratic establishment playing the “misogynist” card and pouring millions into TV ads designed to take him down.
There are 23 days to go. Stay tuned.
******************************************************
Solid analysis. May you live in interesting times.
Bill,
I agree with you completely
3 weeks and 3 months to go. Things are settling down in Plymouth Township.
There is no question that John James and Haley Stevens have massive institutional backing and are on the “inside track” to receive their nominations. Both have massive campaign finance backing.
I do not see John James losing his primary election on August 4th, 2026.
The Democratic Party has never nominated a Muslim for U.S. Senate in history. The GOP nominated Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania in 2022. Michigan’s college students, Arab-Americans and progressives in general are solidly and enthusiastically behind Dr. Abdul El-Sayed.
One astute observation cited above is the intangible factor of Haley Stevens’ demeanor and personality, as cited by Leslie Love and quoted in the TBR article: “She looked loss in the sauce”.
She has been blundering by her emotional retorts at questioners during debates and interviews; there have been uploaded pro-Israel videos that feature her that Arab-Americans have found to be inflammatory and insensitive to Palestinian suffering. her cheerful acceptance of GM and Ford PAC funding has cost her an important UAW endorsement. Haley Stevens has been inarticulate and appeared bumbling to neutral observers during campaigning.
Overall, Haley Stevens, whose claim to fame was her role in the “Cash for Clunkers”, does not appear to constitute politically adequate material to be the standard-bearer of the Democratic party in a U.S. Senate race. I respect the competence and fight that Mallory McMorrow and Dr. El-Sayed have put up in their respective campaigns – however the GOP will have a field day in the upcoming general election campaign should Stevens win the primary election on the Democrats’ side.
Mallory McMorrow would have likely been the strongest candidate to face Mike Rogers – and Dr. El-Sayed would be a more formidable candidate than Haley Stevens in the general election.
I hope – as a GOP activist – that Haley Stevens receives the Democratic Party nomination for U.S. Senate in Michigan.
This Democrat agrees with your analysis. McMorrow would have been the strongest candidate against Rogers. I don’t know how the general election will go, regardless of who the Democrats nominate. Rogers has decent credentials, but his joining MAGA will cause him issues in the general election. If he could have avoided getting tied to Trump, and still gotten through the Republican primary (a big if, I know), I think he would be a huge favorite in the general.
Haley Stevens is being perceived as a pro-AIPAC stooge attempting to prevent the first Muslim from being seated in the U.S. Senate. This is somewhat unfair as she took great pains at the last debate with Dr. El-Sayed to emphasize her commitment to a 2-state solution in Israel and Palestine.
Of course, Stevens is an a Catch-22 situation as any receipt of AIPAC funding or contributions from Big Three interests will alienate Arab-Americans or auto workers.
Ms. McMorrow and Dr. El-Sayed took the moral high ground by refusing contributions from either AIPAC or any corporate PACs.
Nice article, Bill. I freely admit I have never heard of the two polling firms cited, so I cannot comment on their veracity, but if Tavern Research actually has a tavern…
As for question 1, John James has been playing a sort of game of rope-a-dope, expecting some sort of coronation. Since that did not happen, he’s had to actually work for it, which is always a good thing. Elective office should not be something one is bequeathed, but something one earns. Time will tell if his strategy was the correct one or not.
As for question 2, I never had a high opinion of McMorrow. She struck me as an empty pantsuit with some friends in high places as witnessed by the fact that the national Democratic Party thought highly enough of her to have speak at the 2024 convention hoping for a Barack Obama-type success for a state senator seeking a US Senate seat. Maybe it is a sign of the problems in their candidate selection. There were folks in the Democratic hierarchy who that that Graham Platner was straight from central casting. He ran in the primary and won and he got 72% of Maine Democrats to vote him despite the Totenkopf tattoo, crude and tasteless social media posts, a charge of sexual assault against an ex-girlfriend (if I lived in Maine, he would have lost me with the tattoo). Now – should he actually withdraw instead of just suspending his campaign – they have to find a candidate that won’t piss off the 72% of Democrat voters who voted for him, if only for him to not donate his leftover campaign money to charity.
McMorrow had different (and less odious) skeletons in her closet (non-payment of bills, questionable residency and voting, etc.) than he did, but Michiganders seemed to catch on as her polling numbers sucked. Maybe we’re just smarter than Mainers. But as to an earlier TBR, it seems that Mr. Mitchell’s numbers were right and there are some folks who owe him an apology.
Stevens, it seems, had the same “disease” as James, getting a late start actually campaigning hard to get the job she wants. I suspect the booing she received at the Party’s state convention – mostly over her support for Israel – convinced her that she needed to attack to win the primary. I agree she did well in the debate, but this is the candidate that Haley Stevens should have been in the early months of this year. Whether it is too little too late for her and James, you’re right. These questions should be answered in 23 days (assuming w can count ballots faster than California!).
Good and thouoghtful analysis Bill… I am an El Sayed voter in the DEM primary. I am a Black progressive voter with a liberal tilt as you may recall. I share your analysis with my friends from time to time and I am definitely an America First proponent in these trying times.
Have a great and fun election season!
– Howard
Commissioner Spence –
Given your recent medical issue, do you have any comment on El-Sayed’s wife, psychiatrist Sarah Jukaku, refusing to take Medicaid, Medicare, or any other public insurance? El-Sayed has made a number of inflammatory attacks on doctors refusing patients covered by Medicaid, claiming that they “discriminate” against “black communities” and perpetuate “long-held deep racism and structural racism.”
Leanne and David-I agree with your analysis- “you guys” are spot on
Track AIPAC, a group analyzing and exposing pro-Israel campaign finance influence in U.S. elections, made the following observations regarding pro-israel PAC contributions to her campaign:
(A) Haley Stevens’ campaign committee accepted $1,280,500 in direct contributions;
(B) an additional $18,945,100 in indirect expenditures have been made for her benefit as a candidate;
(C) the resultant total of $20,225,600 is the largest amount of pro-Israel PAC funding supporting any candidate in Congress.
Ed Gallrein received over $15 MM in pro-Israel PAC expenditures in his primary election bid to defeat Kentucky U.S. Congressman Thomas Massie – who had supported an arms embargo against Israel.
AIPAC’s X account posted a photo of Massie after Gallrein’s victory under the heading “Every member of Congress has the right to criticize Israel – but only for a short time.”. The post was deleted later after receiving 31 million views. Rep. Massie went on to invite USS Liberty survivors to Congress to honor them.
My wife and I had already voted for Mallory McMorrow by absentee ballot. We wrote to our clerk to have those ballots “spoiled.” Before the Senate debate we were leaning towards Haley Stevens. She came across as a fighter who will focus on Michigan. Well spoken and she has the best chance of defeating Rogers. Representative Stevens allayed my concerns that she’d be too pro interventionist. Trump’s war of choice is a HUGE mistake. Whatever happened to make America Great? Why has he sucked us into the Mideast quagmire yet again?
I’m a moderate Democrat who does NOT favor abolishing ICE. Instead major reforms are needed. Sayed would be pilloried in a general election campaign because of some of his positions.
With our new ballots in hand we both proudly cast them for Haley Stevens!
“Trump’s war of choice is a HUGE mistake. Whatever happened to make America Great? Why has he sucked us into the Mideast quagmire yet again?”
460 kg of 60% enriched uranium, coming to 12 cities near you as Hiroshima power fission bombs.
And the USA is not any closer to getting it!
Thanks to Democrats who would rather be incinerated than support Donald Trump.
Really. If they were ever used the resulting retaliation would be devastating. It’s why the Soviet Union pulled their missiles out of Cuba. Assuming they might get one or two bombs The US has over 5,000 warheads, 14 ballistic missile submarines each with 20 launch tubes for Trident missiles with 5 warheads each for a total of 945 out of the 1,344 warheads currently deployed. Add to that the US ICBM capability and Air Force capability. It’s called MAD (mutualy assured destruction) for a reason.
Iran has no “global rocket” that could endanger America. They are literally half way around the world. Iran cries they are a victim of nuclear apartheid.
Israel exploited the “Atoms for Peace” program of President Eisenhower to surreptiously build a nuclear arsenal in the 1960s; they:
(A) purchased heavy water from the UK via a sham transaction in which they promised the water would only be used for peaceful purposes – the water itself was sold to Noratom, the Norwegian nuclear research agency and later transported to Israel;
(B) conducted joint research with the French government that constructed the Dimona reactor in the 1950s and gained incidental data from French detonation reports from atomic weapons tests in the South Pacific in the 1950s;;
(C) purchased yellowcake uranium from Argentina in the 1960s in a transaction that was discovered by Canadian intelligence services.
Israel has never allowed an IAEA inspection of the Dimona reactor plant.
South Africa went “non-nuclear” before the apartheid government was dismantled in the 1990s. So should Israel.
“Really. If they were ever used the resulting retaliation would be devastating. ”
The Iranians have a powerful suicidal undercurrent in their theology. They will not be deterred by retaliation. It will actually fulfill their quest for martyrdom. The only effect of potential retaliation on Iranian strategic thinking will be to insure that their attacks are simultaneous. You can bet that they will attack Tel Aviv, Tehrangles, Hymietown, and Washington, DC simultaneously.
“Iran has no “global rocket” that could endanger America. They are literally half way around the world.”
On March 20th, Iran launched two heavyweight ballistic missiles at Diego Garcia, 4,000 km from the nearest point in Iran. They now have the technical ability to hit any target in the Middle East and Europe with a 500 kg fission device carried by these missiles. They can probably reach the American East Coast if they can reduce their throw weight requirement to 100 kg. They spent a lot of time and effort developing pits at the Parchin Military Complex, so a 100 kg Iranian device is not beyond the realm of possibility. Become familiar with the rocket range equation.
Missiles are hardly the only means of delivering nuclear fission devices, in any event. Intermodal shipping containers, boats, and airplanes can be used. You might remember that 9/11 was a suicide attack, something the Iranians sanctify. The Iranians are very smart and do not suffer your limited tactical vision.
Dr. El-Sayed is perceived as riding a white horse denouncing the undue influence of corporate PAC funding and the donations of AIPAC-related entities. On the other hand, he is viewed by some as Marxist in orientation and is, therefore, unelectable.
El-Sayed wants to abolish ICE and seeks a single-state solution (“From the River to the Sea………….”) to resolve the Israel/Palestine conflict.
The problems Dems may have in Michigan is if the strong vocal supporters of El-Sayed see their client lose in the primary to Haley Stevens, they will not support or vote for her in the general election. The acrimonious diatribe directed at Haley Stevens at the April 19th, 2026 Michigan Democratic Party convention was unprecedented (e.g. “You suck — get off the stage!!) and to rely upon such El-Sayed supporters in the general election to help Stevens is unrealistic.
On the other hand, if Stevens lost in her primary election bid, most Stevens supporters would likely cast their general election ballot for El-Sayed – unless they preferred Mike Rogers.
Back on January 2nd, one of our less honest commentators stated, in a response to me:
[Jack]”Smith did not wiretap. More lies told without accountability by a an anonymous coward. Read the transcript. He legally sought and obtained information on when calls were placed by members of congress and others who were telling Trump his lies about elections being stolen were factually incorrect, or who were calling Trump to ask him to recall his insurrectionists storm troopers. No content was revealed. But the timelines were key to show that Trump knew he was lying when he created the insurrection. I encourage all to read the transcript. It’s very illuminating. And not at all what the Trumpie Robots are being told to say.:
I told him in no uncertain terms that he was wrong, that Jack Smith did indeed wiretap, but the commentator persisted in his lie.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley revealed today that former Special Counsel Jack Smith spied on 44 members of Congress and actually read their text messages. He named every one of the victims of our NKVD NarKom wannabe, Jack Smith.
The lawmakers whose texts were read by Jack Smith’s team are:
1. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
2. Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)
3. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas)
4. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
5. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)
6. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah)
7. Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.)
8. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.)
9. Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)
10. Senator David Perdue (R-Ga.)
11. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)
12. Senator Martha McSally (R-Ariz.)
13. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
14. Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.)
15. Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
16. Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)
17. Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine)
18. Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.)
19. Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)
20. Senator Cory Gardner (R-Colo.)
21. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)
22. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.)
23. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)
24. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.)
25. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.)
26. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.)
27. Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.)
28. Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.)
29. Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.)
30. Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.)
31. Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.)
32. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.)
33. Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.)
34. Rep. Joshua Gottheimer (D-N.J.)
35. Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.)
36. Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.)
37. Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.)
38. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.)
39. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.)
40. Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.)
41. Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.)
42. Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho)
43. Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.)
44. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)
Once again, conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact. Why American politics has become poisonous, as the Democrats pull out all the stops to use Soviet style lawfare against their enemies.
And why commentators should use a nom de plume, another pet peeve of that dishonest commentator.
In a recent Detroit News poll, Haley Stevenns has pulled ahead of El-Sayed 48%-41%.
Only 500 persons were interviewed.
Abdulrahman El-Sayed released only two pages of his 2025 tax return, but they show $ 686,069 in total income, including $ 292,000 in ‘Additional Income’ and $ 262,000 in ‘Capital Gains’. The sources of his ‘Additional Income’ and ‘Capital Gains’ were not disclosed in the two pages released.
El-Sayed is in the top 1% of Michigan earners. Should boost his street cred among his fellow DSA communists.
He is a doctor with an Ivy League diploma.
That income is not surprising.
Hence the label “Champagne Socialist”.
You have described most of the Democratic National Committee.
There is a Marxist wing of the Democratic Party. Young, wealthy and wanting to socialize America. It began with FDR and Social Security and the push is on to take over America and turn it into a Marxist utopia.
Soros is a key ally of El-Sayed
Mike Cox just withdrew from the race today.
He cited the Trump endorsement as the death knell of his campaign. Cox now is endorsing John James.
Better late than never. Aric Nesbitt could have explained it to AG Cox a long time ago. And saved him a bundle of $$. It will be interesting if Cox gets a deal anywhere close to Nesbitt’s. Now, let’s see if the Q Guru can read the statistical tea leaves and save himself his own bundle. Or is he not finished buying himself some high-cost name recognition.