El-Sayed primary win intensifies Democrats’ debate over 2028

Guardian column highlights spending and resistance facing progressive candidates

Abdul El-Sayed’s victory in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary has prompted debate over the Democratic Party’s approach to progressive candidates, according to a Guardian opinion column published by Nesrine Malik. Malik connected the result to the party’s possible 2028 presidential nomination contest and to Zohran Mamdani’s victory in New York City.

The column described El-Sayed as a Muslim son of immigrants who broke with nearly all the tenets of establishment Democratic Party politics. Malik argued that his lack of establishment endorsement and political experience could be viewed by voters as evidence that he was unconnected to the existing political system.

Campaign spending was central to Malik’s account. She wrote that El-Sayed was outspent by more than nine to one and described the contest as the most expensive Democratic congressional primary ever. Malik said Chevron and Philip Morris helped fund Haley Stevens, El-Sayed’s opponent, with more than $60 million. Nearly half of that funding came from a super PAC backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, she wrote.

Malik also discussed the role of Israel in the primary campaign. She wrote that El-Sayed’s detractors repeatedly emphasized “Israel having the right to exist,” while El-Sayed focused on whether Israel should receive U.S. tax dollars. The column quoted El-Sayed as saying, “The question is quite secondary to whether they have a right to our tax dollars.”

The column did not present the primary result as proof that progressive candidates can win general elections or reproduce the result outside primary contests. Malik wrote that El-Sayed and other progressive candidates would face attacks from Republicans, including portrayals of them as radical.

The column quoted Donald Trump describing “full of shit” candidates as bringing “death, squalor, poverty” and “a life of hell.” Malik also wrote that progressive candidates can be framed as an uncertain choice because they lack the depth of a long party record and the familiarity associated with a longstanding national presence.

Malik identified Third Way, a leading centrist group, as another source of opposition. She wrote that the group had raised millions to discredit democratic socialists through social media and by mobilizing activists against candidates such as El-Sayed. Third Way’s leader said, “We are preparing for the next war that is coming.”

According to Malik, Third Way is concerned that democratic socialism could gain momentum through the presidential nomination process and produce a candidate Republicans could defeat. The column also described El-Sayed and Mamdani as politicians whose outsider identities are combined with participation in the countries they have adopted.

Malik wrote that progressive candidates face opposition from the Democratic establishment, the political right, lobbyists and corporate interest groups. She argued that progressive voters are built into coalitions rather than existing as a fixed bloc, and that the Democratic Party’s response to candidates such as El-Sayed could affect whether they are treated as viable candidates or dismissed as “freak radicals destined to fizzle out.”

The column examines the political implications of El-Sayed’s primary victory, which MSI previously reported secured him the Democratic nomination and set up a November contest against Mike Rogers.