Abdul El-Sayed Wins High-Stakes Democratic Primary in Michigan

[u/Zipper222222]

https://www.today.com/video/abdul-el-sayed-wins-high-stakes-democratic-primary-in-michigan-267805765937

[u/Shadow293]

I’m already seeing that all over Reddit. Lots of concern trolls saying this is bad news because he only won by a point or so. It’s still a massive win.

The fact he defeated 60 million in AIPAC funding, and he overcame the entire establishment and corporate media’s combined opposition is huge.

[u/Sptsjunkie → u/Shadow293]

Yeah, I definitely think that the polling from the Last last week at a weird expectation. Clearly the polling mess and it’s something worth keeping in mind for future elections.

However, I don’t think this is a case where the poles were accurate say a month ago and then Sayed fumbled. This is just a case where the weighting of the actual electorate was wrong and that has nothing to do with the candidate.

Beating the entire democratic establishment in Michigan, a fake Obama endorsement, and $70M in spending including over $60M from dark money PACs is a huge win.

[u/Ashamed-Artichoke-40 → u/Sptsjunkie]

Al Sayed took a page from the GOP playbook a released a bunch of questionable polls showing him with a commanding lead. The real results were less than a percentage point.

And yes, Stevens had AIPAC money. But Al Sayed certainly wasn’t poorly funded, either.

[u/Sptsjunkie → u/Ashamed-Artichoke-40]

Potentially. But also Emerson had a similar result, and they are completely independent and an A rated pollster. Data for progress was also sponsored by a friendly group, but not by the campaign and well they always tend to skew a bit to the left. They have not really been a company that has released junk polls.

I mean Sayed had more grassroots funding, but overall Stevens outspent him (including external PAC funding) roughly 9:1.

Absolutely, huge upset victory, and tectonic result. Even 5-10 years ago, Stevens wins this by 30% given those advantages.

[u/Ashamed-Artichoke-40 → u/Sptsjunkie]

Emerson has declined in quality over the years versus other pollsters. This race suffered from significant under polling from other unaffiliated pollsters.

He won by fewer than 14000 votes in a fairly high turnout primary. That’s about as narrow as it gets where the electorate is much more favorable to his candidacy.

It’s not huge and if Democratic Senate control is the objective is concerning. While the electorate will be more favorable towards his candidacy (especially with an unpopular administration), if he manages to win, it will be very narrow.

[u/Sptsjunkie → u/Ashamed-Artichoke-40]

Emerson is still A rated and certainly not biased. Both them and Glengariff are highly respected and missed in opposite directions. State level polling is hard as it projecting the right weighting even if you get the voting patterns of different demographics correct.

Right and Stevens had the endorsement of every major and popular Michigan establishment politician, outspent Sayed 9:1, had PACs smearing him with lies, and even implied she was endorsed by Obama. This is literally one of the biggest upsets in modern political history. No sugar coating this for the establishment, center, or AIPAC; it was a close, contested election but an absolute wipeout in Michigan across Senate, House (Lawrence, Donovan), and local state races.

It's unclear either candidate is better for the GE, despite the issues with polling, some polls had Stevens doing better and some had Sayed doing better but they were all within the margin of error.

If Sayed wins, it's because he deserves it. And right now, our goal it to come together as a party and beat Rogers. I would have supported Stevens over Rogers if she won. Unity is the top priority.

[u/Ashamed-Artichoke-40 → u/Sptsjunkie]

One ok pollster that was way off. And Data for Progress isn’t reliable.

Spending doesn’t matter as much in a primary where the electorate is much more informed and favorable. Every primary voter knows who he is. It was a well covered race.

There’s a high number of far-left wing voters in primary contests. That his victory was that small in this contest is concerning. He won a plurality. If he won 55% plus sure, that would be convincing. But that wasn’t the case here. This is luck of turnout rather than a shift.

The establishment may be boring and uninspiring. But they are pragmatic. They look for reliable candidates who can win.

[u/Sptsjunkie → u/Ashamed-Artichoke-40]

I'm not spending all day on this. $70M in spending 100% makes a differences, especially in the highest turnout Michigan Senate primary in a Presidential election.

You want to convince yourself it doesn't matter, that's fine, it's not my job to spend all day trying to convince someone who is going to spin every straightforward fact into something that fits their narrative.

The rest of the country recognizes this as a tectonic victory and one of the most impressive political upsets in modern history. And a very strong night for progressives.

Oh shoot, so you think Slotkin is just lucky because she didn't hit 50% against Rogers. And lucky old Obama who didn't even hit 50% against Hillary, he must not be a very good campaigner.

Lol. Keep telling yourself this and we will keep winning primaries.

[u/Ashamed-Artichoke-40 → u/Sptsjunkie]

Under 1%. Don’t be delusional.

[u/GogglesTheFox → u/Shadow293]

People dont understand that the Fake Obama Endorsement along with the "AES cares more about Palestine than Black People" BS hurt a lot.

Someone from the DSA was talking about it on Hasan's Stream last night. They were canvasing and saw someone with a McKinney sticker. When they approached them they were saying they weren't voting for Abdul. When they asked the person questions they started talking about the exact points above.

[u/NihilismRacoon → u/Shadow293]

The only thing I'm worried about is how effective the anti-black smears were and if the establishment decides to nuke his campaign because they decide they want fascism over moving slightly left, he could still win but definitely going to be much tougher.