Occasionally, a Senate election can significantly influence the trajectory of a political party. One notable instance occurred in 1991 when Pennsylvania’s Harris Wofford, advised by the outspoken James Carville, defeated a more prominent Republican candidate in a special election by pledging to enhance healthcare access. This victory laid the groundwork for Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign the subsequent year.
Should Abdul El-Sayed build on his recent win in the Democratic Senate primary by securing victory in Michigan’s general election this fall, he could establish his own influential model. Despite a tighter-than-expected margin in the primary, El-Sayed’s campaign exemplifies a strategy that could help Democrats nationwide confront the political challenges posed by Donald Trump.
The media has frequently characterized the Michigan Senate primary as a conflict between progressive challengers and establishment centrists, often overlooking the unique aspects of El-Sayed’s campaign. Similar to Zohran Mamdani and other democratic socialists who have succeeded in House races across New York, Pennsylvania, and Colorado, El-Sayed advocates for ending unconditional U.S. military support for Israel. However, unlike Mamdani, who often frames the discussion around human rights and international law—such as his recent video calling for the arrest of Benjamin Netanyahu—El-Sayed’s stance is more nationalistic. He seldom discusses Israel without tying it to domestic issues that Washington has failed to address.
In a recent conversation with New Yorker editor David Remnick, El-Sayed was asked about his stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead of choosing sides on the contentious one-state versus two-state debate, he emphasized his priority on domestic issues, stating that he is more concerned about U.S. financial resources being allocated for Israeli military aid rather than addressing local educational needs in Michigan. He expressed his belief in equal rights, peace, and self-determination for both Palestinians and Israelis but asserted that it is not his role as an American policymaker to determine the nature of peace in the region. Instead, he emphasized the necessity of ensuring that resources are directed appropriately to address the needs of children in underfunded schools.
By consistently linking U.S. military aid to Israel with unmet domestic needs, El-Sayed is developing a progressive version of an America First narrative. In 2016, Donald Trump capitalized on the discontent felt by many Americans after years of unsuccessful military engagements in the Middle East. Now, amid the backdrop of Israel’s actions in Gaza and Trump’s military endeavors in Iran, El-Sayed is shifting the discourse. The distinction lies in their approaches: Trump combined nationalism with imperialism, claiming the Iraq war was misguided due to the U.S. attempt to impose democracy on countries uninterested in it; he suggested that the U.S. should have seized Iraq’s oil. In contrast, El-Sayed is merging nationalism with progressive ideals. He criticizes military assistance to Israel (and Egypt, where his father was born) for violating human rights abroad while simultaneously diverting crucial resources away from Americans in need. This perspective does not only appeal to the American left; last summer, conservative activist Charlie Kirk pointed out that many young conservatives are questioning the U.S.’s current relationship with Israel and want assurance that their leaders prioritize American interests. A May poll from the Institute for Middle East Understanding revealed that Republicans under 45 prefer candidates who advocate for reducing taxpayer-funded arms sales to Israel by nearly two-to-one.
El-Sayed’s campaign also provides valuable insights for Democrats beyond reclaiming nationalism from the GOP. He demonstrates how to turn the financial advantages typically held by Republicans into a liability. During the final five weeks of El-Sayed’s primary campaign, outside Super PACs supporting his opponent, Representative Haley Stevens, outspent his campaign on television advertising by more than twelve times. While most candidates would struggle to overcome such a financial disparity, El-Sayed transformed it into a strategic strength. He repeatedly highlighted Stevens’ financial backing from AIPAC, which accounted for much of the external funding supporting her, using this association against her. Additionally, he connected her to other unpopular special interests, including a well-timed ad featuring her contributions from DTE Energy, a utility company criticized for its high rates and frequent outages.
El-Sayed’s relentless focus on the origins of Stevens’ funding effectively turned her financial advantage into a political liability. In a Michigan focus group, when asked about their discontent with Stevens, voters consistently cited AIPAC and concerns regarding corporate influence.
Although El-Sayed directed this strategy against a fellow Democrat, the Democratic Party as a whole may face similar funding disadvantages against Republicans in the upcoming fall elections and potentially in 2028. Under Donald Trump, the federal government has become a lucrative source for corporations and billionaires, who significantly benefit from his administration and reciprocate with campaign donations. Notably, Elon Musk recently pledged to invest at least $100 million in support of Republican candidates this fall. Overall, reports from MSNOW indicate that the Republican National Committee, along with the Republican House and Senate campaign committees and GOP-aligned Super PACs, have raised nearly $600 million more than their Democratic counterparts.
El-Sayed’s campaign illustrates a potential strategy for how Democrats can counteract this financial imbalance: by making the issue of money central to their messaging. By drawing attention to Stevens’ ties to AIPAC and the implications of her funding sources, El-Sayed showcases a method for Democrats to navigate the complexities of modern electoral politics.
