Tonight, Michigan gets a debate with implications far beyond its borders. Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Abdul El-Sayed will face off in their first U.S. Senate debate—a contest over who we are as a nation and where we go from here.
For Rogers, it is an opportunity to press the questions that have followed El-Sayed’s campaign: How does his anti-establishment message square with his fundraising? Where does he stand on national security? And what would his energy agenda mean for families already struggling with the bills?
El-Sayed presents himself as a trailblazer challenging corporate and billionaire influence. That branding deserves scrutiny, especially when the campaign’s financial support complicates the sales pitch.
Rogers has specifically challenged El-Sayed over a California fundraiser hosted by a member of the Soros family, arguing that it conflicts with his message about getting big money out of politics. Calling yourself anti-establishment does not exempt you from explaining who helps finance your campaign.
Rogers has also raised questions about El-Sayed’s positions on terrorism and his political associations. Those are serious accusations, and tonight offers an opportunity to put specific questions directly to the candidate.
National security deserves more than insinuations from one campaign or evasions from the other. Voters should hear precisely what Rogers alleges and precisely how El-Sayed responds. The stakes are too high for ambiguity.
Then there is energy. El-Sayed’s comments about pipelines and fossil fuels raise another practical question: What replaces the infrastructure that currently heats homes, fuels vehicles, and keeps Michigan’s economy moving?
Working families do not pay their heating bills with campaign slogans. They need reliable energy at a price they can afford. Any candidate proposing major changes owes voters a clear explanation of the costs, the timetable, and the consequences.
If gas prices are a motivating factor this election, promises about an energy transition deserve a harder look. The bill eventually arrives, even when the campaign leaves it out of the brochure.
But Michigan’s Senate showdown comes amid a broader debate-season spectacle: candidates accepting invitations, rejecting them, and discovering that the hardest part of running for office can be answering questions without a campaign aide holding the microphone.
Start in Minnesota, where KSTP offered statewide candidates a televised forum. The Republican candidates’ participation gave them an opportunity to make their cases—and left conspicuous gaps where their Democratic opponents could have been.
Voters deserve an explanation when candidates decline a major broadcast invitation. A campaign may have its reasons, but those reasons should withstand the same scrutiny as its policy proposals.
An interview, a rally, and a polished advertisement each serve a purpose. None offers quite the same test as sitting across from an opponent who can challenge your answer in real time.
Move to Arizona. Andy Biggs accepted the Citizens Clean Elections debate invitation, while Katie Hobbs declined. Biggs’s campaign made her absence a central issue, arguing that an incumbent should be willing to defend her record publicly.
An empty place on the debate stage is a powerful campaign image. The candidate who appears gets to make a case on affordability, water security, and individual freedom. The absent candidate leaves those arguments unanswered in that forum.
Holding the job should make defending the record more necessary, not less.
In Ohio, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Amy Acton declined to debate Vivek Ramaswamy, citing what her campaign described as false attacks against her and her family.
That objection deserves to be stated accurately. It also invites a straightforward response: If your opponent is spreading falsehoods, a debate provides an opportunity to challenge them with the whole state watching. Refusing the invitation leaves voters without that exchange.
Texas presents a different situation. James Talarico’s campaign said he paused in-person events because of a flu diagnosis. That explanation should not be recast as proof that he was hiding from voters. Once he returns, however, the expectation remains the same: Candidates seeking national office should make themselves available for substantive questions.
When candidates do meet, the exchanges can be revealing. In Maine, Susan Collins challenged Troy Jackson’s legislative effectiveness, focusing on the reception his proposals received in Augusta.
The question behind that criticism is fair: What did the candidate accomplish, and what does the record suggest about the ability to build support?
Length of service is one measure of experience. Results are another. Voters deserve enough detail to distinguish between the two.
The exchange over voter identification offered another opportunity to examine the candidates’ differences.
Election rules deserve clear answers. Candidates should explain how they would verify eligibility, protect legitimate voters’ access, and maintain public confidence in the results. Those responsibilities belong together.
Back in Michigan, Tom Barrett pressed congressional opponent Will Lawrence over statements concerning immigration and amnesty. Lawrence’s effort to characterize the remarks as hypothetical did not satisfy Barrett.
When you are running for Congress, voters are entitled to ask which ideas would become votes. If a past statement was hypothetical, explain the actual position. If that position has changed, explain why.
A campaign cannot expect voters to treat ambitious proposals as serious when they are popular and merely theoretical when they become inconvenient.
Michigan’s gubernatorial contest delivered another pointed exchange when John James challenged Jocelyn Benson over her family’s financial connection to a controversial data-center development.
Benson’s husband, Ryan Friedrichs, worked for Related Companies and participated in the Saline Township project. Reporting found that he earned $370,000 from his employer last year, with his responsibilities including work on that development. The company says he received no project commission or compensation specifically from the data center, and reporting found no evidence supporting claims that he could personally make millions from it.
Those distinctions matter. So does the broader question James raised: How should voters assess a candidate’s promises about an industry when a household income comes from a company involved in it?
That is precisely the kind of issue debates should expose. Campaign language can be carefully polished. Follow-up questions tend to leave fingerprints.
Taken together, these contests offer voters a useful test. Who accepts scrutiny? Who explains a disputed position? Who answers a question about donors, family finances, immigration, or energy without retreating into a rehearsed slogan?
Republicans who accept these invitations earn an opportunity to make their case. Democrats who decline them owe voters an explanation. And everyone who steps onto the stage should face the same expectation: Answer the question and defend the record.
Tonight, Rogers and El-Sayed get that opportunity in Michigan. The Senate race deserves a direct exchange about the country’s security, the state’s economy, and the policies each man would support in Washington.
The questions are ready. The microphones will be on.
Let’s see whether the answers show up, too.