By Carl WeinschenkIt’s a bit after 10 AM on August 5 and the news media has called the Michigan Democratic Senate primary for Abdul El-Sayed.
Here are some takeaways:
The first–and most important to VTT–is that every vote does indeed count. El-Sayed was a heavy favorite going in. As of right now, he is ahead by a bit more than 1%. That’s about 13,000 votes out of more than 1.4 million cast. How many folks stayed home because they felt El-Sayed had it won? How many of Haley Stevens’ supporters didn’t vote because they thought it was a lost cause? We’ll never know.
It’s also important to note that money doesn’t buy happiness–or Senate seats. Axios reported that Stevens, the establishment candidate, had a 12:1 spending advantage. It didn’t get her over the finish line.
Another illustrated by the Michigan senate primary is that that the Democrats truly have a big tent. Like it or not, it is getting bigger.
The traditional media like dramatic stories about the travails of the Democratic party. The tendency to label the Democrats as hapless and (sometimes) loveable losers even has a name. They are “Democrats in Disarray” or simply “DID” stories. It’s tiresome.
I think there is some higher-level context suggested by the results last night (and this morning). The GOP no longer is a functioning political party. This means that the Democratic party by default will becomes broader. This suggests that the debates in primaries will be sharper. The Michigan primary seems to be an example of this.
The Michigan Democratic Senate Primary and the Insurrection
Another thing to consider is that the Democrats are paying the price for not doing what they needed to do during the Biden years. The party’s priorities in the shadow of Trump’s lawlessness in general and the insurrection in particular were to reassert the rule of law. They knew it was important do this carefully and in a way that respects everyone’s rights, especially the accused.
Doing the job properly required a tremendous amount of investigative and judicial work to be done in a relatively short period. This gave Donald Trump enough latitude to stall and play the system (two of the few things he is good at). He skated, and when he became president again, of course, all was lost.
I see why the Democrats took this approach. It was important from the civic and political perspectives. They needed to show that America is a nation of laws. The worst thing the Democrats could have done was to cut corners in their pursuit of Trump. But they ultimately failed to bring Trump to justice. This broke the faith with the party’s rank and file.
This is the political world the next generation of Democratic officials is entering. Folks running for office now know the whole sad tale. These newbies tend to be younger and not willing to politely follow the lead of those who dropped the ball when Trump was a vulnerable private citizen. Seniority means less today than it did a decade ago.
Just as the Tea Party and then MAGA didn’t kowtow to traditional conservatives, Democratic Socialists and other non-traditional politicians are reimagining party politics and amassing more power more quickly than younger generations did in the past. The victory of Abdul El-Sayed is an example of this.