I’ve been thinking about how the Senate race in my home state seems to signal one of two things: either the death of the Democratic Party as we once knew it, or another dangerous turn for America if voters don’t stop this movement in its tracks.
Abdul El-Sayed, the son of an Egyptian immigrant who served as a Muslim imam, has won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in Michigan.
He did it without reaching 50 percent of the vote.
After a bitter, dog-eat-dog primary, El-Sayed narrowly defeated establishment Michigan Rep. Haley Stevens. His nomination should concern Americans across the political spectrum—not because of his ethnicity or religion, but because of his political alliances, rhetoric and apparent contempt for parts of the state he now seeks to represent.
El-Sayed will face former Michigan Congressman Mike Rogers in November. Rogers spells out just how consequential—and frankly bizarre—this matchup could become.
El-Sayed’s faith has been a visible part of his campaign. He has repeatedly used the Arabic phrase “inshallah,” meaning “God willing,” when speaking about his political ambitions.
Religious language is hardly foreign to American politics. Candidates regularly invoke God on the campaign trail. But voters are entitled to ask how any candidate’s worldview will shape the way he governs—and whether his priority will be representing all Michiganders or catering to the coalition that delivered his nomination.
That question becomes even more important when revisiting El-Sayed’s comments about one of Michigan’s most beloved destinations: Mackinac Island.
People travel from around the world to visit Mackinac Island because it is a protected American treasure—a living piece of Michigan history and a reflection of the culture that helped shape our state. Yet El-Sayed appeared eager to voice his disgust with it.
The recording dates to his 2018 campaign for governor. Michigan’s governor has access to a beautiful historic residence on Mackinac Island, where El-Sayed could have stayed at taxpayer expense had he won, even as ordinary visitors pay dearly to experience the place he disparaged.
Here’s a simple message for any politician who feels contempt for Michigan’s history: You are free to leave. What this state does not need is a senator—or a governor—who sneers at the people, places and traditions he is asking to represent.
El-Sayed has resisted calling himself a democratic socialist, but he has been endorsed by prominent figures from that movement. Labels aside, there appears to be little meaningful distance between many of his policy goals and theirs.
Longtime Democratic strategist James Carville sees El-Sayed’s victory as another nail in the coffin of the Democratic Party he once knew. Carville is particularly alarmed that El-Sayed campaigned alongside radical political influencer Hasan Piker, who has faced widespread condemnation for saying that America “deserved” the September 11 attacks.
This is James Carville—the strategist widely credited with helping Bill Clinton win the presidency in 1992 and restoring the Democratic Party’s national competitiveness. Now he sounds ready to jump ship.
Other longtime figures on the left, including democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, apparently consider that a feature rather than a bug.
It is a strange and frightening day for the Democratic Party when Hasan Piker’s brand of politics carries more influence than James Carville’s. That is the transformation Carville fears, and Michigan’s primary suggests his concerns are not misplaced.
Still, El-Sayed’s victory was hardly overwhelming. He defeated Haley Stevens by less than one percentage point despite expectations that he could win by a margin of 10 to 19 points.
His coalition may prove even weaker in the general election. After the votes were counted, El-Sayed had failed to carry any of the 15 Michigan districts with the lowest shares of college graduates.
That is not a minor statistical footnote. It is a warning that he has failed to connect with the working-class families who form the backbone of Michigan. His campaign has yet to demonstrate that it understands their lives, much less knows how to represent them.
None of that means his candidacy should be underestimated. Political movements that begin with narrow but intensely motivated coalitions can gain power when the broader public assumes they cannot win.
Stephen Miller has compared the present ideological struggle to the Cold War.
I don’t believe Miller is overstating the stakes. But the strongest case against El-Sayed should rest on his own record, associations and policy agenda—not on treating every Muslim voter as part of a single political movement.
Some activists who supported his campaign have used deeply troubling language about America and its future. Their statements deserve scrutiny, especially when they reveal hostility toward the country whose institutions they hope to influence.
El-Sayed’s critics see his candidacy as one piece of a much larger political project—one involving candidates who place ideological or sectarian interests ahead of a shared American identity.
The warning signs are no longer distant. They are appearing inside our political institutions, and Stephen Miller again captures the concern.
This is not just another Senate race. It is a stress test of whether Michigan voters will seriously examine what candidates believe, whom they align themselves with and how they speak about the state they want to represent.
El-Sayed did not win by building a broad coalition of Michigan workers, farmers and small-town families. He won a deeply divided primary by mobilizing a narrow and highly motivated base. That may be enough to secure a nomination, but it is not the same as earning the confidence of an entire state.
When a candidate disparages a place like Mackinac Island, embraces figures associated with extreme anti-American rhetoric and struggles to connect with working-class voters, the public should pay attention. Those concerns should not be dismissed as mere discomfort with something new.
James Carville sees the writing on the wall for his party. Stephen Miller sees a far-reaching ideological struggle. El-Sayed’s supporters see an opportunity to transform Michigan politics. The question is whether everyone else is paying attention.
Michigan has a choice in November, and so does the country. Voters can treat El-Sayed’s nomination as another progressive experiment, or they can examine where that experiment leads when grievance politics, ideological extremism and contempt for American traditions are allowed to take root.
Some experiments end with the laboratory on fire.
El-Sayed may not be the beginning of something new, but his nomination is a clear signal that Michigan’s political foundations are shifting—one primary at a time.
If voters intend to draw a line, November is where they must draw it.