The debate between Haley Stevens and Abdul El‑Sayed for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination in Michigan opened with a question about inflation, but it quickly veered into a broader fight over money, influence and who is actually looking out for Michigan.
Within minutes, the two were trading barbs and contrasting visions of political power in an hour‑long confrontation in which Ms. Stevens suggested Mr. El‑Sayed is more interested in being a “show horse” than governing.
She said Mr. El‑Sayed is chasing the political spotlight, while she is the proven and electable candidate in the race.
“We do not need a celebrity senator; we need a workhorse, and as the most effective lawmaker for Michigan in the House of Representatives, if you want a fighter and an effective leader for our state, that’s me,” Ms. Stevens said.
She also touted her working‑class credentials by stressing she is the only candidate in the race who is not a millionaire.
Mr. El‑Sayed fired back, warning that Ms. Stevens is benefiting from - and beholden to - outside corporate and foreign‑aligned interests, including pro‑Israel groups. He also dismissed personal wealth as irrelevant.
“The question is not whether or not you’re a millionaire. The question is whether or not you are bowing down to billionaires, and for too long in our politics, we’ve watched politicians beg for those dollars only to do their bidding when they actually get to office,” he said.
Mr. El-Sayed said this pattern “has been the story of my opponent. If you want politicians to be different, I’m the only one who’s never taken a dime from a corporation.”
He argued that voters who want an alternative to the status quo — and want to see more government spending directed at domestic programs such as Medicare for All — should look to him instead.
The exchange underscored the central tension of the race: Sharply different theories of political power driven by outside spending, foreign‑policy divisions, concerns about electability and the party’s direction in the era of President Trump.
With less than a month until the Aug. 4 primary, the debate gave voters a clear look at how the two are drawing contrasts as they vie for the chance to face former Rep. Mike Rogers in November.
Incumbent Democratic Sen. Gary Peters is not seeking re-election and the party likely needs to retain the seat to have realistic hopes of flipping the Senate.
The debate played out just days after state Sen. Mallory McMorrow dropped out of the race, sharpening the ideological contrast and setting the stage for a two‑candidate showdown between the party’s liberal and progressive wings.
Mr. El‑Sayed has led most polls and has the backing of high-profile figures of the party’s left wing, including such socialist icons as Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio‑Cortez.
He also has been endorsed by the United Auto Workers and National Nurses United, the largest union of registered nurses in the country.
Ms. Stevens, meanwhile, has the support of Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, former Sen. Debbie Stabenow, and Attorney General Dana Nessel. Emily’s List is also backing her.
Asked whether the Democratic Party has drifted too far left, Mr. El‑Sayed said voters are less concerned with ideological labels than with rising costs and failing public services.
He said both parties have been compromised by corporate money and that he would pursue an independent path focused on working‑class concerns.
Ms. Stevens rejected the idea that the race is about national party dynamics, saying her campaign is rooted in Michigan’s economic needs and her record of delivering federal resources.
She said she is focused on lowering costs and standing up to what she called the corruption and abuse of power coming from Mr. Trump.
Ms. Stevens, meanwhile, argued that Republicans are quietly boosting Mr. El‑Sayed’s primary candidacy because they view him as the weaker opponent in November.
“The GOP is spending thousands of dollars to prop up your campaign because they think it will make it easier for Mike Rogers to win if you are the nominee,” she said.
Mr. El‑Sayed rejected that claim, saying pro‑Israel groups would be comfortable with either Ms. Stevens or Mr. Rogers because both would be a “reliable vote” for Israel in the Senate.
He pointed to roughly $40 million in outside spending that has flowed into the race on Ms. Stevens’ behalf, arguing that the support raises questions about her independence.
In its most recent analysis, AdImpact, a nonpartisan advertisement tracker, said the race has seen $46 million in total ad spending and ad reservations, with 74% being pro-Stevens.
In the debate, the candidates staked out different positions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Mr. El‑Sayed called ICE a “paramilitary force” that cannot be reformed, calling for the agency to be abolished.
ICE, he said, is “younger than I am,” and the country has previously enforced immigration laws without undermining constitutional rights.
He said the country should spend on immigration courts to create a humane pathway to citizenship for people who have built lives in the United States, while maintaining a secure border.
Ms. Stevens rejected abolition and focused her criticism on what she called “Donald Trump’s ICE,” saying agents who have committed crimes must be held accountable and that federal dollars should be redirected to state and local law enforcement.
She said she supports a bipartisan border-security bill.
Asked about Iran and the war in Gaza, the candidates again drew sharp contrasts: Ms. Stevens emphasized her support for a two‑state solution between Israel and the Palestinians.
Mr. El‑Sayed criticized longstanding U.S. military assistance to Israel and called for conditioning that aid on compliance with international law.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.