Michigan’s Democratic Senate Primary Needs a Non-Aggression Pact 

Bruising primaries do not always produce weakened nominees. They can usefully vet and stress-test candidates, toughening them up for the general election. Barack Obama in 2008 and Bill Clinton in 1992 are famous examples of Democratic presidential candidates who survived having their dirty laundry aired during the primary season. 

But a divisive contest can hobble a nominee. Ask Hillary Clinton.  

Whether the Democrats’ toughest Senate primaries this year will help or harm nominees won’t be known until November. So far, James Talarico in Texas and Graham Platner in Maine appear in good shape for their fall campaigns, with both leading in the most recently sampled polls (although neither race has been tested in the past month, and Texas Republicans have yet to settle on their nominee). The Iowa primary between Josh Turek and Zach Wahls, both state legislators, is sharp, yet an April poll has each slightly ahead of the presumptive GOP nominee. 

On top of that, Democratic Senate candidates in North Carolina and Alaska are leading in what limited polling we have. (Former North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper became the Democratic nominee without serious primary competition. Alaska’s ranked choice voting system does not have party primaries, but the Democrats have coalesced around former Representative Mary Peltola.) 

The polling data in these mostly red states is in line with the Democratic overperformance we have consistently seen in off-year and special elections since Trump retook office, with the Democratic lead in the generic congressional ballot, which recently cracked six points in the Real Clear Politics average, pointing to a Blue Wave midterm election. 

This makes the Senate poll data coming from Michigan so concerning for Democrats.  

Two sets of general election polls, sampled in late April and early May, give the presumptive Republican nominee—former Representative and 2024 Senate nominee Mike Rogers—a slight edge over all three leading Democrats: Abdul El-Sayed, State Senator Mallory McMorrow, and U.S. Representative Haley Stevens.  

Unlike the contests mentioned above, the Michigan seat in play this November is held by Democrats. (The incumbent, Gary Peters, is retiring.) While Trump won Michigan in 2024, Rogers narrowly lost to Democrat Elissa Slotkin. Michigan Democrats hold all statewide elected offices, and this year’s likely Democratic nominee for governor is leading in polls (despite a third-party campaign from the former mayor of Detroit, who is a Democrat-turned-independent). This is not a red state and shouldn’t flip red during a Blue Wave. Failing to hold it will make the Democrats’ uphill Senate fight—requiring a net gain of four seats on mostly Republican turf—much steeper. 

Why are the three Democratic Senate candidates in Michigan lagging? They are beating the Mackinac Island fudge out of each other.  

Each unofficially represents an ideological faction. El-Sayed is the Democratic Socialists’ candidate, backed by Senator Bernie Sanders and supportive of single-payer health care. McMorrow is the progressive populist, backed by Senator Elizabeth Warren and supportive of a public health insurance option. Stevens is the moderate, tacitly backed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and, while nominally supportive of a public option, doesn’t lean into it nor mention it on her website’s issues page. 

And as I covered last week, the three are divided on Israel. El-Sayed would end all military aid to Israel (in fact, he “opposes directly funding foreign militaries” everywhere). McMorrow would stop selling Israel offensive weapons and has the support of the “pro-Israel, pro-peace” J Street PAC. Stevens defines herself as a “proud pro-Israel Democrat,” and is backed by AIPAC PAC. 

Their differences have fueled a nasty three-way slugfest in which each exploits the other two’s vulnerabilities. Stevens and McMorrow have attacked El-Sayed’s embrace of the controversial influencer Hasan Piker. El-Sayed and McMorrow have hammered Stevens’ ties to AIPAC. El-Sayed and Stevens mocked McMorrow as a transplant who mocked Michigan in deleted tweets. McMorrow’s campaign criticized El-Sayed for claiming he’s a “physician” when, despite earning a Doctor of Medicine degree, he hasn’t practiced. El-Sayed’s campaign has accused McMorrow of belatedly copying his positions. 

No closely contested primary is a love fest. And primary voters should have the opportunity to see candidates deal with crises and carry themselves under fire. But with the three dragging each other down in general election polling, the law of diminishing marginal utility has kicked in.  

Worse, this primary isn’t even close to over; Michigan Democrats don’t vote until August 4. After 12 more weeks of this circular firing squad, while Rogers flies unscathed under the radar, whoever survives the primary may be too damaged—and the Democratic electorate too divided—to win. The opportunistic Rogers, who moved from publicly urging Trump to concede the 2020 election to welcoming election deniers into his campaign, is no pushover. The former congressman lost the 2024 U.S. Senate race by less than half a percentage point.  

No doubt Rogers has his flaws. He owns a Florida mansion, and Democrats have long pointed to it to argue he isn’t really a Michigan resident. In March, he clumsily downplayed the gas price spike caused by Trump’s war against Iran, telling a voter at a campaign event, “We’re gonna be fine, we got plenty of oil.” But such missteps make the Democrats’ weakness in polls against him all the more glaring. Rogers shouldn’t be faring better in Michigan than the Republican incumbent in deep-red Alaska.  

What can Democrats do? Convince El-Sayed, McMorrow, and Stevens to abide by an unofficial non-aggression pact. Of course, they will continue to clash, but they can do strictly on substance, without the sneering and snark that have colored the race. 

The three can’t turn back time. They shouldn’t disavow anything they have said on the record. But those points have been made and do not need belaboring.  

Notably, the attacks haven’t produced a clear primary frontrunner. The Real Clear Politics average, encompassing four polls conducted in the past month, gives El-Sayed a small 4.5-point lead over both his rivals, but with an in-no-way-intimidating 24 percent of the vote. That’s not nearly enough of a lead to prompt either McMorrow or Stevens to drop out.  

Moreover, every poll taken pegs at least one-third of the primary electorate as undecided. The Glengariff Group poll shows at least 40 percent of Democrats “never heard” of any of them (for McMorrow, it’s 60 percent), and that number is probably higher among the general electorate. The more they attack each other, the more voters will be introduced to them in the worst possible way. 

This is a classic collective action problem. Convincing candidates to play nice is inherently difficult, especially as tensions rise as we approach Election Day. No candidate will want to disarm first. An intervention from state party officials, including Governor Gretchen Whitmer, will probably be necessary. (I presume intervention from national Democrats is unlikely to be as welcomed.)  

Having punched each other into a statistical three-way tie, El-Sayed, McMorrow, and Stevens should be able to see that there is nothing to be gained from more fisticuffs. Each has an incentive to introduce themselves to wide swaths of voters on positive grounds. As committed Democrats, they have a shared goal of maximizing the party’s chances of winning in November. Having taken their best shots against each other, it’s time for them to make their best pitches for themselves.