Stevens endorses Rogers as Democratic divisions surface before the vote

Peltola staff role in Sullivan candidacy under investigation

The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens endorsed Mike Rogers, the Republican candidate for Senate, in Michigan. Damian Paletta, the newspaper’s Washington coverage chief, described the two days before the endorsement as “passive aggressive” squabbling that became “aggressive aggressive” between Stevens and Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed.

Paletta wrote, “In no place has the dysfunction been as apparent as Michigan.”

El-Sayed barely edged Stevens in the primary earlier this year, and Paletta said their differences had never been mended. He described the rift as one between the new guard and old guard, saying Democrats would have to contend with it after the election.

The dispute raised the question of whether Democratic leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries can keep Democrats united. Schumer issued a statement calling the endorsement a “despicable betrayal from Rep. Stevens.” Paletta said that, so far, it did not appear that the leaders had kept the party together.

Paletta said the Michigan rift could have wide-ranging implications for the federal budget, Israel policy and how Democrats confront President Trump.

Those internal problems emerged in an election that Paletta said was not really about a united message from Democrats. He characterized the contest as a referendum on President Trump, the Iran war, prices and, to some extent, an antitech backlash.

Problems also surfaced in Alaska, where Paletta described Dan J. Sullivan Jr. as a “mysterious vanishing Senate candidate” and a spoiler candidate. The extent to which staff for Democratic Senate nominee Mary Peltola helped install him was under investigation. Paletta distinguished Sullivan Jr. from Sen. Dan S. Sullivan.

Paletta wrote that whether the staff assistance amounted to a crime remained unresolved. He called the situation “a mess” while also raising the possibility that it could affect Alaska’s election outcome.

At the time of the report, polls in Alaska were scheduled to close at 1 a.m. ET Wednesday. Paletta said the dispute could affect the result, though its significance remained uncertain.

Taken together, the Michigan rupture and the Alaska investigation presented two separate strains for Democrats before Tuesday: a public break between party figures in a Senate race and uncertainty surrounding another Senate contest. Paletta’s assessment was that the major problems Democrats revealed in the past week would remain even if Democrats won broadly in a “Blue Wave” on Tuesday.