|
Jon Allsop
A contributing writer covering politics
|
Earlier this week, I wrote that, in the eyes of many pundits, the Democratic primary for Senate in Michigan had become “the Platonic ideal” of a clash between the Party’s establishment moderates, who were backing Haley Stevens, and its populist progressives, who were lining up behind Abdul El-Sayed. Fittingly, the result—a squeaker of a win for El-Sayed, who led by less than a percentage point when the race was called this morning—looks close to the Platonic ideal of an inconclusive outcome. Certainly, the slim margin defied a sense, in the final days of the race, that El-Sayed was running away with it—an idea that El-Sayed did little to dispel. But block out the recent noise, and even this narrow win looks like a noteworthy achievement, as my colleague Jason Zengerle suggested earlier today.
Photograph by Sarah Rice / Bloomberg / Getty
In any case, a blowout for El-Sayed still wouldn’t have settled the complex question of what direction the Democrats should take. Zoom out a little, and last night’s results offer more good news for progressives, two of whom, William Lawrence and Donavan McKinney, won congressional primaries in Michigan against opponents perceived as being more moderate. Conversely, Wesley Bell, a congressman in Missouri backed by establishment bigwigs, easily defeated Cori Bush, a former member of the “Squad” whom Bell had also beaten in a primary two years ago. Last night’s victory for Bell was also a notable win for the powerful pro-Israel group AIPAC—which suffered a notable defeat in Michigan, where it had heavily backed Stevens.
Zoom out further, to assess this primary season as a whole, and, while it’s true that progressives have made inroads against more established figures across the map, it’s also the case that Chuck Schumer and other Party leaders have landed prize recruits in several key races. If anything, the closeness of the Michigan race could serve to remind El-Sayed just how much work he needs to put into coalition-building ahead of November. Already, in remarks before the race was called, he was talking of mending fences.
In those same remarks, El-Sayed rejected the conventional framing of his race altogether; voters, he said, do not walk around wondering where exactly they stand on some “left-right spectrum,” but, rather, “how I can afford my rent.” I’d quoted him saying something very similar in my recent article, which questions whether factional labels—and the word “moderate,” in particular—are all that useful in understanding this moment in the Democratic Party; indeed, whether they mean anything much at all. Granted, to some extent political shorthand can be intuitive, or at least a necessary evil, and, if any race this cycle truly pitted a “moderate” against a “progressive,” it was Stevens versus El-Sayed. But even this matchup grew more complicated the longer I stared at it. Looking at the results, it’s possible to draw a range of conclusions—from “Wow, the Democratic establishment is cooked!” to “Wow, the Democratic establishment might not be quite as cooked as we thought!” One answer, above all, is clear—the infighting will continue. Next stop: Wisconsin and Minnesota.
For more:
|
