Skip to main content

Stevens and El-Sayed trade personal attacks and other takeaways from the Michigan Senate primary debate

(CNN) — The stark choice facing Michigan’s Democratic voters in the August 4 Senate primary was on display Monday night, as the two candidates closed their final debate by pitching themselves as best positioned to win a general election that could tip the balance of power in the chamber.

Rep. Haley Stevens name-dropped a powerful ally, two-term Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, for the fifth and final time that evening. She bragged that she’d won in a Republican-leaning congressional district northwest of Detroit. And she said she “will be Michigan’s workhorse.”

Her progressive rival, former public health official Abdul El-Sayed, vowed to be independent from corporate and foreign interests he said have too much influence in both parties.

“You’ve got to have something you’re fighting for,” he said.

El-Sayed and Stevens are facing off in the highest-stakes Democratic primary of the 2026 midterm elections — one that pits a progressive favorite against an establishment-backed moderate in one of the nation’s most important battleground states.

The winner will face Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers in November, as Democrats seek to hold onto the seat of retiring Sen. Gary Peters. Without doing so, the party’s chances of winning the net four-seat gain they need to claim the Senate majority would all but evaporate.

Here are three takeaways from their debate Monday night on FOX 2 Detroit:

Who’s the ‘ogre’?

The hourlong debate featured a series of personal barbs — but the candidates began a discussion about the bitter nature of the campaign with El-Sayed seeking to make clear that one of his sharpest attacks was actually not directed at Stevens.

On Monday morning, Politico reported that he’d said at a recent virtual donor meeting that he could advance the progressive movement by helping to “put one ogre on a pike” — comments many took as a reference to Stevens.

The “ogre” El-Sayed had in mind, he said Monday night, is actually Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman. El-Sayed said the freshman Democratic senator “got elected on a set of values, and is now completely throwing those values in the mud.”

On the subject of “unkindness,” El-Sayed pivoted to address television advertisements by a group funded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that cast him as having a history of disparaging women. The 41-year-old argues that the ad campaign takes out of context his past remarks about former first lady Michelle Obama; Whitmer, the popular Democratic governor who defeated El-Sayed in a 2018 primary; and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, who dropped out of the Senate race earlier this month.

“I’m the father of two daughters. I’m raising them to be stronger than any man. My wife is a doctor. My mother was the first tenured professor of engineering at her university. I was raised by strong women,” El-Sayed said. “To say that somehow, because I wrote an op-ed 15 years ago about what first lady Michelle Obama said, or I ran against Gov. Whitmer, that somehow I’m disrespecting anybody is just inconsistent with the truth.”

He also noted that he had urged supporters to refrain from attacking Stevens on personal terms.

Still, the congresswoman pounced, recounting some of those El-Sayed comments in her own words.

“Look, Abdul’s a great guy. He’s a great father. Only he can account for saying that Whitmer’s bought and paid for, or that, you know, no one cares about Debbie Stabenow, or that Mallory McMorrow isn’t smart enough,” she said. “That is certainly on him to respond to, which we certainly just did hear from him on that.”

El-Sayed responded that “in an effort to talk about civility, I just took another attack, and I just want you to ask yourself, what is it that you deserve from your politics now?”

Just before the moderator moved on to another topic, Stevens interjected one last time.

“Thank you for clarifying that you didn’t call me an ogre,” she said.

AIPAC’s divisive spending

Tens of millions of dollars in AIPAC-linked spending on TV ads targeting El-Sayed have played a critical role in the Michigan race — potentially damaging him, but also providing fodder for the progressive’s calls to get big money out of politics and his efforts to link Stevens to Israel’s war in Gaza.

Stevens said she would “absolutely not” do AIPAC’s bidding if she wins, but also said she does have differences with El-Sayed over the future of Israel and the Palestinian people.

“I believe in a two-state solution. He has attacked me by name for purporting that the people of Palestine and the people of Israel deserve to live side by side peacefully. The goal is always long-term peace,” she said.

El-Sayed said AIPAC supports Stevens because “they know she’ll be a reliable vote.”

He predicted that those watching the debate would see an ad or two during a commercial break at its half-hour mark attacking him.

“I believe in equal rights to peace, dignity and self-determination for Palestinians and Jewish Israelis alike. I believe that we should not be fighting stupid wars that AIPAC wants us to fight in the first place. And I believe we have a responsibility to keep our money here to invest here,” he said. “That really is the difference.”

Political insider vs. outsider

The clearest window into the differences between El-Sayed and Stevens came during a discussion about immigration policy. Both are critical of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions under President Donald Trump, but El-Sayed has repeatedly called for abolishing ICE.

Stevens said she is working in Congress to stop “abuses of power” by the Trump administration in its mass deportation efforts. “Not shouting into a bullhorn, not getting in front of the first camera I see, but doing the hard work,” she said, before criticizing El-Sayed’s work in recent years in more personal terms.

“My opponent here, Abdul — he is such a talented guy. He’s written three books. He’s had 300 podcasts. You know, he’s had all this attention,” she said. “But the deal is, is we don’t need a celebrity candidate. We don’t need a celebrity senator. We need somebody who’s committed to six years of hard, unglamorous work that’s going to stand up to this junk that is wreaking havoc and causing chaos right before our very eyes.”

El-Sayed responded that Stevens has voted to increase ICE’s funding in the past, arguing that stopping short of calling for the agency’s abolition is “exactly the kind of cowardice that we don’t need from Democrats.”

“So yeah, I’m going to take the bullhorn and I’m going to say that I think we need to abolish ICE because I am not afraid of what they’re going to say about me,” he said.

As for his podcast, which he hosted for “Pod Save America” parent company Crooked Media until last year, El-Sayed said: “Congresswoman, if you enjoy podcasts about public health, I welcome you to take a listen. You seem very concerned about that. I’m more concerned about the fact that people can’t pay for their gas, they can’t pay for their groceries.”

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Trump declines to rule out declaring a national security emergency to control the 2026 election

(CNN) — President Donald Trump in a new interview declined to rule out declaring a national security emergency as a means to try to assert more control over the 2026 midterm elections.It’s merely the latest warning sign that Trump could try to mess with the election not just by baselessly claiming voter fraud and challenging the results afterward — as he did in 2020, leading to a violent riot at the US Capitol — but by trying to unilaterally take control before votes are cast.In the interview, Wayne Allyn Root of Real America’s Voice pitched such a scenario to Trump. He suggested it as an alternative, given the Senate has failed to pass Trump’s coveted elections bill, known as the “SAVE America Act.”“If they never get the SAVE America Act done, you have the right to declare a national security emergency for elections,” Root said. He added that “if you declare a national security emergency as the president of the United States, they can’t challenge it. It can only be overturned by a two-thirds vote by both houses of Congress. So if you do this in the next month, we will get photo ID, proof of citizenship (for voter registration) and a limit to mail-in ballots.”It’s at this point that Trump cut Root off and coyly suggested such an option was indeed in play.“Let me just say that stranger things have happened, OK?” Trump said. “I’ll leave it at that.”Despite Root’s comments, it’s far from clear such a gambit would even work. And CNN has asked the White House for more detail on what the president meant.Trump often responds to hypotheticals by declining to rule them out — no matter how extreme the proposal might be. So it’s possible to read too much into this.But as CNN’s Jake Tapper has noted, there are plenty of signals that Trump at least aspires to try to exert more control over elections. And these methods often appear transparently geared toward helping Republicans.A major one is the administration’s threat to have the US Postal Service not deliver mail ballots for states that don’t comply with its demand that they hand over their voter lists. This is a request that even many red states have rejected, citing privacy concerns.Democrats are much more likely to use mail ballots, which Trump has baselessly connected to widespread fraud. So curtailing them could greatly help Republicans.(Federal courts have blocked this Trump executive order, and the administration recently appealed to the Supreme Court.)Trump has also gone to great lengths to try to substantiate his still-baseless claims of widespread fraud. That includes the administration seizing 2020 ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, and Trump’s recent primetime address about election security that some read as a statement of intent — a pretext for more direct federal involvement in elections, which are run by states.Ty Cobb, who served as White House counsel in Trump’s first term, said he interpreted the speech last month as a “predicate that he needs to declare an emergency.”And Trump has occasionally said things, like he did in the new interview, suggesting he would like to take control of US elections.Back in February, he urged his party to “take over the voting in at least 15 places,” adding: “The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”The Washington Post also reported in March that pro-Trump activists were circulating a potential executive order that claimed Chinese interference in the 2020 election gave Trump emergency authorities over the 2026 election. And Trump’s primetime address focused on China, despite the tenuous evidence.Trump’s intense focus on the “SAVE America Act,” which has never appeared to have a chance to pass but Trump has said is vital, could also be read as part of building the case for more drastic action.But whether Trump could take over elections himself, as Root posits, is far from certain.As CNN’s Marshall Cohen and Michael Williams reported in February, the Constitution makes it difficult for Trump to truly “nationalize” elections. Courts have overwhelmingly upheld the principle that states are in charge of elections.Presidents generally have more authority to act unilaterally when national security is involved — hence the significance of invoking China — but some experts are skeptical that Trump’s effort would pass legal muster.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story