The battle between the Democratic Party's progressive and establishment wings was on full display Monday night during a heated debate for the Michigan Senate seat. Candidates Abdul El-Sayed and U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens, facing each other one week before their Aug. 4 primary, sharpened their arguments on who could best defeat Republican candidate Mike Rogers in the November general election.
El-Sayed defended his controversial "ogre on a pike" remark, clarifying it was directed at Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., rather than Stevens. The comment, made in a private donor meeting and later reported by Politico, suggested using Fetterman's election as a warning to other Democrats. El-Sayed accused Fetterman of abandoning his campaign values. He declined to apologize for the remark.
Stevens responded to the clarification by stating, "Thank you for clarifying that you didn’t call me an ogre." Earlier in the debate, Rep. Hillary Scholten, who endorsed Stevens, had called El-Sayed's remark "violent, vulgar."
Financial backing and foreign policy emerged as central flashpoints. Stevens faced repeated questions about the more than $46 million in spending by AIPAC-related groups supporting her campaign. She asserted that such funding would not influence her conduct, reiterating her commitment to a two-state solution for long-term peace. El-Sayed argued that this spending revealed a fundamental difference, suggesting that AIPAC groups supported Stevens because she would be a "reliable vote." He linked the funding to Stevens' recent vote for additional aid to Israel, criticizing the use of tax dollars for the conflict and stating the U.S. should not engage in "stupid wars that AIPAC wants us to fight."
Stevens countered by pointing to outside groups supporting El-Sayed's campaign, including a super PAC partially funded by his father-in-law. She also pressed El-Sayed on his financial transparency, questioning his refusal to release full tax returns while earning approximately $300,000 in outside income from sources that, she claimed, promoted "junk health care cures."
El-Sayed maintained that he had released all required financial disclosures and characterized the tax return issue as a distraction. He turned the transparency argument back on Stevens, inquiring about the donors behind the organizations supporting her campaign.
On policy, El-Sayed identified the Senate filibuster as "anti-democratic" and advocated for its elimination to facilitate the passage of legislation like the PRO Act, stronger antitrust enforcement, a wealth tax, and Medicare for All. He argued that the filibuster and money in politics pose the greatest risks to democracy.
The candidates also diverged on the future of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Stevens described ICE as a "rogue agency" and detailed her efforts to redirect its funding toward social services, stating, "Not a penny more for this rogue agency that is wreaking havoc." El-Sayed labeled ICE a "tyrannical agency" and called for its abolition, accusing Stevens of hypocrisy for past votes that he claimed increased ICE funding. He argued that enforcing immigration laws could be managed by a new agency built from scratch.
Stevens criticized El-Sayed's approach as rhetorical, contrasting it with her direct engagement with ICE facilities and legislative efforts to reform the agency.