You may have heard that Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed is “having a lot of trouble putting [the Democratic] coalition back together,” or that “Democrats [are] struggling to unite behind El-Sayed,” or that “Democrats are still struggling to unite behind El-Sayed,” or that “El-Sayed faces resistance ⁠from some voters who would ordinarily be inclined to support a Democrat,” or that “Democratic divisions could hurt El-Sayed.” It’s a prominent narrative that is driving political discourse in the closing weeks of the tight Michigan Senate race. 

There’s only one problem with this narrative: It has zero empirical basis. It’s a total confection of US media and the pro-Israel lobby that isn’t supported by any data whatsoever. Two recent polls, one from Marist and one from RedBox Research, make it clear that El-Sayed’s support among Democratic voters in Michigan is both extremely high (95%) and the exact same percentage as Republican candidate Mike Rogers’ support with Republicans. And a new poll from Mitchell Research CBS complicates the narrative even further, finding that support for El-Sayed among Democrats is, in fact, 3 points higher than Rogers is among Republicans, at 94% versus 91%, respectively. 

If El-Sayed and Rogers have the exact same percent of party dissent—or, as is the case in the CBS Detroit poll, Rogers has more—then why are there countless stories highlighting, handwringing, and scandalizing the trivially small dissent for only one of the candidates? Where are the breathless profiles of Republicans refusing to vote for Rogers? Where are the NPR and CNN segments focusing on “Republican divisions”? 

There, of course, aren’t any, because this narrative wouldn’t advance an ideological agenda. 

The “Michigan Democrats are divided” narrative has been pushed by local and national media alike, from Bridge Michigan to Reuters to Michigan Advocate to the New York Times, who reported Thursday (again, falsely), “Democrats in Michigan… remain far more divided than party leaders had hoped to be going into the election.” The Bulwark’s Sarah Longwell said on Wednesday that El-Sayed is “having a lot of trouble putting [the Democratic] coalition back together again” after his defeat of Hayley Stevens in the Democratic primary in August. The AP insisted that “Democrats are still struggling to unite behind El-Sayed” which, again, is outright false: El-Sayed has the support of 95%of Democrats. 

An April IMEU poll found that Michigan Democrats think Israel is committing genocide in Gaza 66%to 14%, at a ratio of almost 5-to-1.  Does this seem like an issue Michigan democrats are “divided” over?

For another point of reference, El-Sayed’s support among Democrats of 95% is higher than other high-profile centrist Democrats, including Roy Cooper of North Carolina (94%), Sherrod Brown of Ohio (93%), Kathy Hochul of New York (85%), and even with Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania. El-Sayed is even doing better with top Democrats in his own state, with Michigan gubernatorial candidate Jocelyn Benson winning only 91.8% of Democrats versus El-Sayed’s 93.1%, according to a Michigan State Department of Political Science survey published on Thursday. Yet one is hard pressed to find any “divided Democrats” stories about any of these candidates. 

The theme of “Democratic divisions” in Michigan, like the attendant assertion that Israel is “dividing Demcorats” more broadly, is a wholly concocted media narrative, pushed by the pro-Israel lobby and its media allies to create tensions and the appearance of a meaningful split where none exists. As I noted in the Intercept in June, the percentage of Democrats who have a positive view of Israel, 13%, is lower than the percent of Democrats who believe in young earth creationism or those who back a full abortion ban or Christian prayer in public schools. Yet these traditionally right-wing views are never said to be “dividing Democrats” because, by and large, they clearly are not. 

Just the same, Israel doesn’t really “divide” Michigan Democrats either. An April IMEU poll found that Michigan Democrats think Israel is committing genocide in Gaza 66%to 14%, at a ratio of almost 5-to-1. Does this seem like an issue Michigan democrats are “divided” over? If it is, there are dozens of other traditionally 5-to-1 issues—from marriage equality to climate change to prayer in school—that they are also technically “divided” over, but they are never discussed in these terms because they are fringe opinions among liberals. 

The myth of widespread liberal zionism among Democrats is too big to fail, so it continues in zombie form, propped up by an elite liberal class that simply needs it to exist.

That’s because it’s a playbook––a PR tactic––not an actual reflection of political reality. In this playbook, our media obsesses over a trivially small percent of anti-El-Sayed Democrats in Michigan while never mentioning Republicans disillusioned with Rogers despite their polls being statistically equal. As Michael Arria at Mondowiess notes in his analysis of this manufactured “division,” polls consistently “upend the narrative that Democratic voters are split on El-Sayed.” So why does it persist? 

It persists because the myth of widespread liberal zionism among Democrats is too big to fail, so it continues in zombie form, propped up by an elite liberal class that simply needs it to exist so they can appear humanitarian, worldly, and sophisticated while continuing to back—albeit with the occasional wristslap—a genocidal state currently experiencing political paralysis because their nominal liberal wing is simply too racist to give Arab parties any power whatsoever. 

The rebellion against El-Sayed in Michigan, such as it exists in reality, is largely driven by ideologically motivated donors and party elites, namely those whose primary issue is bipartisan support for Israel. But it’s tacky to point this out, to note that this opposition is largely coming from a small number of actual voters and is being amplified way beyond its objective news value because influential zionist advocacy groups are pushing it to media organizations and their internal allies. This is awkward and uncomfortable to discuss, so, like with the nonexistent “Democratic divisions over Israel,” it has to be reframed as some organic dissent among “voters” or “Democrats” when, in reality, the number of El-Sayed holdouts is statistically trivial. This isn’t to say media cannot focus on issues that matter to a small number of voters. What gives the game away is that this is literally not being done for Rogers, or other high-profile centrist Democrats, despite party dissent for these candidates being greater or roughly the same. 

So where are the articles profiling angry Republicans refusing to vote for Rogers? Where are the countless CNN and PBS segments detailing their grievances and pundits demanding Rogers “reach out” to them? Where are the glib, unsourced throwaway lines in the New York Times about how “Republicans in Michigan remain far more divided than party leaders had hoped to be going into the election”—since, again, this is statistically just as true for the GOP as it is for El-Sayed? There aren’t any, because this angle doesn’t discipline Israel critics and drive up the negatives on a candidate most media elites clearly want to see underperform or, if at all possible, outright lose. 

h/t Brian Tashman for exquisite poll watching.  

On election night, Tuesday, November 3, at 10 p.m. ET, Robby Soave and Christian Britschgi go live for Freed Up to react to the midterm results as they roll in. Expect the same smart, unserious, happily unhinged riffing Freed Up is known for, with plenty of roasting, a few real debates, and no shortage of jokes at the politicians' expense. Skip the doomscrolling and spend the night with two libertarians who'd rather laugh than panic.

Watch here: https://youtube.com/live/yBFGLqfumrw

The post <em>Freed Up</em>: Live Midterm Reactions appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Early voting is still ongoing in Washington, D.C.'s elections, but everyone already knows who the winner of the mayoral race is going to be. 

In June, Councilmember Janeese Lewis George won a commanding 54 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary. In one of the bluest cities in America, that all but assures she'll be the next mayor. 

She will replace retiring three-term Mayor Muriel Bowser, who has developed a reputation for a go-along-to-get-along administration, neither a bold good-government reformer nor a progressive activist. 

Her successor is more ambitious. Lewis George is a card-carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America in the mold of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (whose endorsement she sought). Her campaign platform called for more childcare subsidies, more housing subsidies, more rent control, more taxes, and, perhaps most importantly of all, a more confrontational approach to President Donald Trump. 

For the past several months, District politicos have been furiously trying to read the tea leaves on what a Lewis George administration will look like in practice. 

Will D.C.'s precarious fiscal situation and tense relationship with the Trump administration force her to moderate? Or will she stick to her ideological guns come hell or budget crisis and federal takeover of the city? 

Budget Blues

When it comes to spending, Lewis George has the biggest ambitions and the least room to maneuver. 

As D.C.'s Democratic mayoral primary was wrapping up, the District was also in the midst of a bloody fight over its FY 2027 budget. 

Bowser had proposed some $450 million in cuts to bring the budget into balance as required by law. The D.C. Council, with Lewis George's enthusiastic support, rejected those cuts and filled the gap by tapping one-time revenues and the city's fiscal reserves. 

Bowser let the budget bill become law without her signature in late June, warning in a letter that the council's rejection of her cuts would leave an $837 million fiscal cliff come the next budget cycle. 

Lewis George, by now the presumptive mayor, clapped back with her own statement calling Bowser's proposed cuts "devastating" and "irresponsible." 

In the run-up to the general election, she's promised to balance the budget and enact her new spending programs without having to raise taxes on working and middle-class residents. 

This will allegedly be accomplished through "forensic" audits of government departments to identify inefficient spending.  

As we learned with DOGE, however, the fraud, waste, and abuse fairly often fails to deliver the money needed to cover new permanent spending programs or tax cuts. 

In this way, Lewis George's position is similar to that of fellow DSAer Mamdani in New York, who came into office with grand spending pledges, fiscal gaps to close, and only so much room and power to raise taxes. 

Mamdani, at least, has a relatively friendly partner in the form of New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who's assented to some new taxes and state aid to the city's budget. 

Lewis George is likely to benefit from a Democratic takeover of Congress, which will be more likely to assent to local tax increases. But for her first two years in office, she'll still be left dealing with a Republican president who's proven remarkably willing to interfere with local D.C. policy. 

The Trump Question

The most thankless task a D.C. mayor can have is appeasing a Republican president. In his second term, Trump has made this task more thankless still. 

In August 2025, he surged federal law enforcement personnel and National Guard members onto D.C. city streets and placed the city's Metropolitan Police Department under federal control as part of a showy anti-crime crackdown in the District. 

Under the Home Rule Act, which established D.C.'s elected municipal government, Trump was well within his rights to federalize MPD for a period of 30 days. But the president made a number of comments about how he might try to extend his control over the police department for longer still. 

The move outraged the liberal city. Protests were held. Sandwiches were thrown. Stickers and yard signs demanding the feds back off appeared everywhere. 

Bowser, whose control of MPD was being usurped, largely tried to calm everybody down. At a press conference on the day that Trump announced federalization of the police, she described the move as "unsettling and unprecedented."

But she also vowed to cooperate with the administration and even said that increased police presence in some areas could be a "positive." 

Her "tenor will be appropriate for what I think will be appropriate for the District," she said at that August press conference. 

If the goal was to avoid prolonged federal control of MPD, the mayor's tenor worked. After 30 days, the mayor regained control of the department. 

But that even-handed approach was not what the city's left wanted to hear. 

Lewis George called it an "outrageous action" and vowed to fight the "weaponization" of Home Rule. 

In a Democratic primary in which voters were eager to vent their frustration at the new administration, this undoubtedly helped her. 

In the days before the primary, Trump threatened an end to Home Rule if Lewis George won the election. "Residents said to me, 'If Trump doesn't like you, I love you,'" she told a reporter in response. 

Here too, there remains an open question whether Lewis George will continue to play the role of Trump foil once in office. Fighting the administration at every turn would cause the new mayor a lot of headaches. It was also, to a large degree, what she was elected to do. 

Thus far, Lewis George has been somewhat cryptic about what her posture toward the White House will be. 

"I'm willing to work with this administration to the benefit of D.C. residents, and I'm willing to stand up to this administration when it comes to just that," she told Fox 5 in late October. 

View From the Top 

Mayor of D.C. is generally not a great job to have for a left-wing ideologue to have. You have to balance your budget. You can't print money. Taxpayers and capitalists can escape your redistributive schemes by moving a couple of metro stops away. We don't even have any agricultural land to collectivize. 

Bowser, like her last couple of predecessors, understood that paying for a large city government required keeping economic growth up and keeping the occupant of the White House happy. 

Neither will be an easy task for the next mayor. 

The city's economy is already in a slump. Unemployment is up. Housing development is down. And Trump has threatened time and again to end D.C.'s Home Rule and run the federal government directly. 

One would hardly choose a DSA member with a long list of expensive new programs to fund and an eagerness to "fight" as the ideal mayor for the moment. 

A potentially telling moment came in October, when Lewis George called for delaying consideration of a bill that would have eventually allowed autonomous Waymo taxies onto city streets. The jobs of existing drivers were too important, she said. 

People who are already nervous about a left-wing mayor saw in the announcement a signal that she would not bow to reality and sensibly moderate once in office. 

For an already troubled city, that would spell more trouble ahead.

The post After 11 Years of Muriel Bowser, D.C. Readies Itself for Its First Socialist Mayor appeared first on Reason Magazine.

If candidates take benefit cuts off the table — or if they insist on taking taxes off the table, they are not leading; they are misleading you.

If candidates take benefit cuts off the table — or if they insist on taking taxes off the table, they are not leading; they are misleading you.

Americans may not much care who holds power in Jerusalem, but they should.

Americans may not much care who holds power in Jerusalem, but they should.

On Thursday’s edition of CBS’s “The Takeout,” host and CBS News Chief Washington Correspondent Major Garrett stated that he doesn’t hear a lot about what Democrats’ actual agenda is. While speaking with Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA), Garrett asked, “Is this

The post CBS’s Garrett: ‘I Don’t Hear Much About the Agenda’ for Dems appeared first on Breitbart.

With Republicans likely headed for a good ol' fashioned ass kicking in next week's midterm election, it doesn't seem too premature to ask the next big question: What are the Democrats going to do once they have a congressional majority?

The New York Times reports that Democrats will move quickly on four items that are "consensus items among their members that are basic enough to bypass time-consuming committee consideration and go straight to the floor."

Two of those items are really good ideas: ending President Donald Trump's tariffs and ending the war in Iran (or ordering Trump to "seek authorization from Congress to continue it"). Both would restore proper congressional authority in areas where Trump has expanded executive power, with terrible results.

The other priorities, however, include reversing Medicaid spending cuts included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and extending some Affordable Care Act health care subsidies that expired last year. Both would require higher spending at a time when the federal government is already running $2 trillion annual deficits and the national debt is at a record high.

But that's probably a pretty good summary of what Democratic control of Congress for the next few years will look like: a mix of critically important reforms to combat Trump's big-government agenda and, well, the Democrats' own big-government agenda.

Over at National Review, John Puri has an extensive list of "truly frightening" policies Democrats could pursue after the midterms, including stuff like bypassing the filibuster to borrow more heavily, arbitrarily restricting commerce, handing out taxpayer money to political allies, and promising "free" money for everyone. Gosh, I sure hope none of that happens (again).

More seriously, there are also likely to be some major investigations into corruption and other executive branch misdeeds. Trump's family and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth are likely to be among the main targets. Hegseth could "face impeachment—which would make him just the third Cabinet secretary in history to face such a sanction," The Atlantic reports.

No wonder Hegseth is reportedly looking for an exit strategy.

Of course, there are plenty of caveats to this. Most importantly, Trump will still be the president—and will be able to veto anything the Democrats pass through Congress. There's also the Senate's filibuster rules. Even the biggest of blue waves is highly unlikely to deliver a 60-seat majority.

Though they may dream big, Democrats will face some serious constraints on their policymaking agenda. They will face fewer obstacles in blocking, unwinding, and investigating Trump's unlawful and corrupt actions—and that's where I, for one, hope they will spend their efforts.

---

Scenes from Washington, D.C.: "On Sept. 16, Leo J. Terrell threatened to choke a Justice Department intern with a computer charger."

So begins The Harvard Crimson's scathing and deeply reported takedown of Terrell, the former talk radio host and Fox News contributor who is now the senior Justice Department official running the Trump administration's crackdown on elite universities (which is ostensibly an effort to police antisemitism but seems more like an excuse to use federal taxpayer dollars to fight a culture war).

The computer cord incident "was one of a series of episodes described by Billa and three other interns, all Jewish," the Crimson reports. "Terrell isolated them from the rest of the Justice Department, berated them over minor mistakes, and repeatedly threatened their jobs or careers."

When he's not harassing his staffers, Terrell seems to be overcome with delusions of grandeur. A planned 15-city media tour in advance of the midterms "was supposed to be the centerpiece of Terrell's work" and would have put him on stage with singers, comedians, and professional athletes. One event has been held so far: "an Oct. 14 gathering at a synagogue in Southfield, Mich. with Terrell as the keynote speaker."

---

QUICK HITS

• Hackers stole $6.3 billion of bitcoin from the Binance crypto exchange. Another hacking attempt on Thursday targeted Polymarket.
• ProPublica has "tallied and cataloged every case we can find of an immigration agent reportedly detaining a citizen during the current administration—more than 500 cases from Inauguration Day through Oct. 21, 2026."
• Federal debt held by the public has surpassed the size of the U.S. economy for the first time since World War II. Unlike back then, however, the debt is being driven by entitlement spending, which means it is going to keep spiraling higher.
• Relatedly, five states are carrying more than $30,000 in debt per capita, according to a new report from the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason: New York ($37,006 per capita), New Jersey ($35,100), Connecticut ($33,189), Illinois ($31,582) and Hawaii ($30,759). All told, America's state and local governments are more than $6 trillion in debt.
• If you ever wanted a Mothman license plate (and who doesn't), that's now available in West Virginia.
• Patrick Stewart, the legendary actor whose range included everything from Shakespeare to starships, died at age 86.

In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be made to:
Johns Hopkins Alzheimer's Disease Research Center Fund   https://t.co/luC5CdcWDy
Alzheimer's Foundation of America Caregiver Resources    https://t.co/zvNptfyuNd

Photo Credit: Tommy Garcia pic.twitter.com/XNncEVq56X

— Patrick Stewart (@SirPatStew) October 29, 2026

The post What Will Democrats Do? appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Young men swung to Donald Trump in 2024. Polling shows they are now moving away — but to what? Sabrina Tavernise, a reporter for The New York Times, went to Michigan to find out.

© Luke Piotrowski/The New York Times

Forget California’s billionaire wealth tax. The economist Natasha Sarin believes there are better ways to make billionaires pay up.

© The New York Times

Next week's election is a pivotal one for Colorado, as voters will decide a pair of ballot questions that could secure the state's low-tax, small-government reputation—or shatter it.

Confusingly, there is a slim possibility that they decide to do both. More on that in a moment.

The two competing ballot measures could hardly be more different. The first, Proposition 136, would cap individual and corporate income taxes at 4.4 percent—the state's current flat rate.

The other, Amendment 87, would rewrite the state's constitution to allow for a progressive income tax. It would also set new rates, ranging from 7.4 percent on income over $500,000 to 8.4 percent on income over $1 million. And it would offer a modest tax cut to the lower end of the income spectrum: Individuals earning less than $100,000 would pay 4.2 percent, while those earning less than $25,000 would pay 3.7 percent.

Even with those offsets, Amendment 87 would be a massive tax increase. Both advocates and opponents agree that it would generate about $2–3 billion in additional annual revenue for the state government.

For now, the higher tax rates created by Amendment 87 would only apply to incomes over $500,000. Unsurprisingly, supporters of the measure are framing this as an opportunity to make the wealthy "pay their fair share."

There are two reasons why that argument is a bit deceiving.

As Jared Walczak, a senior fellow at the Tax Foundation, points out, "the new rates would be statutory, while the authorization for a graduated-rate tax would be enshrined in the constitution, permitting the legislature to adjust rates later." Lawmakers would not have to get permission from the voters to make those changes, so Coloradans would be trading away their flat income tax for a new model where income taxes could be hiked by the legislature at any time.

Second, the new rates are not indexed to inflation. As a result, "a household making $450,000 a year in today's dollars would be moved into a higher tax bracket within eight years if their earnings increased by 3% annually," reports The Colorado Sun, which crunched the numbers. Such "bracket creep" would also push more workers over the $100,000 threshold, nullifying the small tax cut for workers making less than that.

Politically, the progressive income tax proposal is dividing Democrats. The Colorado Democratic Party has endorsed Amendment 87 (along with many of its usual allies, like the AFL-CIO and the state's largest teachers union).

But Democratic Gov. Jared Polis has called the proposal "a huge blank check to politicians" that will "cripple our economy and reduce jobs."

In comments to a Denver TV station, Polis also highlighted how higher taxes in Colorado would make the state less competitive with its neighbors. "Utah has a very similar tax rate to what we have. If ours is double, we can't compete for businesses," Polis told Denver7. "It's game over. We will not be able to attract new employers to Colorado if the voters adopt this."

It's not just Utah. If the amendment passes, Colorado would have a significantly higher top income tax rate than any of its neighbors. (The current highest in that group is New Mexico, with its top rate of 5.9 percent.)

Under Colorado law, constitutional amendments typically need 55 percent approval to pass. However, Amendment 87 requires only a simple majority* because it technically repeals provisions in the constitution, rather than adding new ones. Similarly, Proposition 136—the one that would cap the income tax rate at 4.4 percent—requires just a simple majority.

It is possible, though unlikely, that both could pass. That would create a conflict, since the state's income tax can't be capped at 4.4 percent and also hiked to more than 7 percent on incomes over $500,000.

If that happens, the ballot question with the larger share of support would win, per state law. "In short, that means Amendment 87 would need to both win majority support from voters and surpass Proposition 136 in total votes to go into effect," explains the Denver Post, which has encouraged residents to vote against both ballot measures.

Accordingly, Proposition 136 must win majority support from the voters and surpass Amendment 87 (which needs 55 percent to pass, don't forget) to be implemented.

It is all a bit confusing, but the outcomes are worth watching. Colorado has long been a bit of an outlier among "blue" states for its relatively low taxes and booming population. It's now up to the voters to decide if that remains true.

*CORRECTION: This article incorrectly described how Amendment 87 could be passed into law. 

The post Jared Polis Warns Colorado's Progressive Tax Ballot Measure Could 'Cripple' the Economy appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The other Dan Sullivan in Alaska has drawn the most attention, but both parties are quietly trying to use little-known candidates in other battlegrounds to siphon votes, too.

© Becky Bohrer/Associated Press

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) on Wednesday stressed that Republicans could hold on to their control of the House if there’s strong voter turnout on Election Day. NewsNation’s Katie Pavlich asked Scalise if he was preparing for a Democrat-led House that would look to investigate President Trump and his family or impeach Trump for…

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) on Wednesday stressed that Republicans could hold on to their control of the House if there’s strong voter turnout on Election Day. NewsNation’s Katie Pavlich asked Scalise if he was preparing for a Democrat-led House that would look to investigate President Trump and his family or impeach Trump for…

When Abdul El-Sayed ran for governor of Michigan in 2018, progressive media hailed him as the next Barack Obama. El-Sayed did not appreciate the comparison. "I get compared to Obama because my name is funny, and I'm brown, and my politics are about inspiring us to believe in each other again," he told Vox at the time.

In El-Sayed's telling, Obama was a "fairly centrist, middle-of-the-road" Democrat. He did not intend that as a compliment. El-Sayed believed the administration's policies were not nearly progressive enough—indeed, he believed Obama had betrayed the agenda he ran on. The far-reaching financial, environmental, and labor regulations that Obama pushed through were not nearly enough for El-Sayed.

El-Sayed ultimately fell short in the 2018 Democratic gubernatorial primary. Eight years later, he's a much savvier political operative; now running for the U.S. Senate, he has welcomed Obama's support this time. Yet El-Sayed's commitment to a left-wing agenda has hardly diminished. If he defeats his opponent, former Rep. Mike Rogers (R–Mich.), he will be one of the most far-left politicians to win a statewide election in recent memory—and in a purple-ish swing state that President Donald Trump won twice.

Like his friend and mentor Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), El-Sayed is not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA); unlike Sanders, El-Sayed maintains that he is a capitalist rather than a socialist. Yet his political project has much in common with the DSA, and he has given every indication that he will align himself with DSA-affiliated members of Congress—veterans such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) and likely newcomers such as Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez, both of New York, who rode similar waves of populist resentment to victory over establishment Democrats.

El-Sayed's left-wing bona fides were evident during his debate with Rogers on October 8. The Democrat proposed giving the federal government vast new powers: up to 50 percent control over AI companies, a socialized health insurance program along the lines of Medicare for All, and price controls on the domestic oil industry. Asked what he would do to bring down the national debt and pay for all the new spending he wants, he had a simple, three-word answer: "Tax. Billionaire. Wealth."

El-Sayed's support for higher taxes exempts one important constituency: seniors. Like many Democrats—and Republicans such as Rep. Nancy Mace (R–S.C.)—El-Sayed wants to exempt retirees from property tax increases, a policy that critics have branded "total boomer luxury communism" because it forces younger, less wealthy Americans to shoulder ever more of the social burden. The new wave of leftist Democrats think that higher taxes on the 1 percent, combined with cuts to the military budget, would be sufficient to pay down the debt while vastly expanding the social safety net.

In fact, El-Sayed has proposed tying Pentagon spending to education, such that an increase in money for the military would necessitate more funding toward schools. Don't expect this to work the other way around: Under El-Sayed's plan, a decrease in Pentagon spending would not force the government to stop throwing so much money at failing schools.

Ann Arbor and Onward

El-Sayed was born on Halloween in 1984. He grew up in Bloomfield Hills, an affluent, predominantly white suburb north of Detroit. His parents divorced when he was young, and El-Sayed lived with his Egyptian father and white stepmother. In high school, he was captain of the football, wrestling, and lacrosse teams. He continued to play on a club lacrosse team at the University of Michigan, which he attended from 2003 to 2007. (We overlapped briefly, though I never met him: I attended Michigan from 2006 to 2010.)

That meant going to Ann Arbor, a progressive college town with a long history of radical activism. Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the prototypical '60s New Left student activist group, was founded in Ann Arbor in 1960; its first president, Alan Haber, still lives there. The White Panther Party, a sort of hippie counterpart to the Black Panthers, was based in Ann Arbor for a while; in the 1970s, the socialist Human Rights Party won multiple seats on city council. Liberalism, as well as radicalism, has thrived in Ann Arbor: The same year the SDS was born, future President John F. Kennedy came to the town to propose the international volunteer organization that eventually emerged as the Peace Corps. In the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, the student-run Michigan Daily naturally endorsed the inspirational liberal candidate, Obama, over the establishment favorite, Hillary Clinton.

Over the course of the next decade—as left-wing enthusiasm for the Obama project faded and was replaced by bitter disappointment—El-Sayed enrolled in Oxford University and then Columbia University, pursuing a career in public health. (He never completed a residency, which has led to some scrutiny, even from friendly media figures, regarding his decision to describe himself as a physician.) In 2015, the mayor of Detroit appointed him the city's executive health officer. He resigned that position in 2017 to run for governor. That pattern repeated itself a few years later: He was appointed health director of Wayne County, which includes Detroit, in 2022, and resigned in 2025 to run for Senate.

Unlike in 2018, El-Sayed's hard-left politics and contempt for the Democratic establishment were now well-calibrated to prevail in the primaries. He defeated a more moderate candidate, Rep. Haley Stevens (D–Mich.), in part due to her support for Israel—an issue that El-Sayed frequently discusses. The same phenomenon has played out all over the country, with establishment Democratic figures paying a huge price when perceived as indifferent to voter outrage over Israel.

What works in the Democratic primaries does not always do as well in the general election. But while El-Sayed's politics are well to the left of the state he seeks to represent, the president's unpopularity may be enough to push him over the finish line. El-Sayed is narrowly ahead of Rogers in the latest polling. The Republican has finally resorted to breaking with the president on key policy issues—he has said that he wishes to end some of Trump's tariffs, conceding that "Canada is not our enemy"—but it may be too little too late.

Moreover, El-Sayed's left-wing foreign policy positions, which are not necessarily antithetical to libertarian views, count for more in Michigan than in other places. The state has a significant Arab-American population that politicians have ignored at their peril. In 2024, dissatisfaction with President Joe Biden's failure to curtail Israel's war on Gaza prompted many Arabs in Michigan to cast ballots for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, or even Trump, over Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. Republicans have sought to portray El-Sayed as insufficiently supportive of Israel, but that doesn't always play well in Michigan—particularly at a time when dissatisfaction with Trump's blunders in the Middle East is strong among Democrats, independents, and even many Republicans.

El-Sayed does have a possible Achilles heel on foreign policy: His association with the far-left Twitch streamer Hasan Piker. To many outside observers, the candidate's courting of Piker reads as a huge unforced error. Not only did El-Sayed seek the approval of an internet personality best known for praising authoritarian governments and evincing sympathy for terrorist groups, but he brought Piker to Michigan, put him in front of a camera, and made him a de facto representative of the campaign. For everyone except the toxically online, Piker is a bizarre and marginal shock jock, a man who says things like "America deserved 9/11." Piker is what happens when you pay too much attention to podcasts. He is also a reminder that while the insurgent left often claims to speak for ordinary, blue-collar working people, its agenda tends to be most popular with the affluent and elite-educated. In El-Sayed's showdown with Stevens, polls had her up 22 points with noncollege voters and 46 points with black voters. (Stevens herself is white.)

Yet El-Sayed prevailed, and he dealt with the Piker issue by shunting him to the sidelines. When asked about Piker, El-Sayed dutifully recites that a Twitch streamer from California has nothing to do with a Senate race in Michigan. (The obvious retort is Well, you brought him here.) He has also adopted right-coded language to explain why he should not be held responsible for Piker's inflammatory comments, telling Politico that he was over "this whole gotcha game, platform policing, cancel culture."

The GOP, meanwhile, may have gone overboard in the other direction. Rogers, a traditional Republican more in the George W. Bush mold than the Trump mold, is not exactly a right-wing firebrand, yet he could not stop himself from suggesting that El-Sayed has some sort of connection to Islamic terrorists. Just as Democrats should genuinely worry that linking up with people like Piker will cost them Jewish votes, Republicans should think more about whether reflexively calling Muslims terrorists is a bad strategy to win in Michigan.

After all, the form of radicalism that El-Sayed typifies is not really Islamic. It's not even foreign. It's the radicalism of left-wing economics, of making the federal government larger and more robust. He wants to prohibit corporations from buying houses and to punish companies like Airbnb over "housing dislocation." He wants to raise the capital gains tax, the inheritance tax, and the top marginal tax rates. He wants to give the Federal Trade Commission expansive new powers. He thinks higher education should be free for everyone. If he makes it to the Senate, El-Sayed will be a reliable vote for the Sanders agenda, including moratoriums on new data center construction, a much stronger Environmental Protection Agency, and, of course, Medicare for All. Indeed, one of El-Sayed's most frequent criticisms of Obama over the years has been that the Affordable Care Act did not go nearly far enough, and that it may have even been counterproductive to the mission of building a socialist health system.

Obama appeared alongside El-Sayed in Detroit on October 24. The candidate was savvy enough not to bring up his thoughts about Obamacare.

---

This Week on Free Media

I explain why it would be wrong to nationalize Elon Musk's companies.

---

Worth Watching

I finally watched You Can See Everything, Nathan Fielder's quasi-documentary about Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes. It was made with considerable technical skill, and there's plenty to like about it—but ultimately I landed in the same camp as Reason's Christian Britschgi. We will discuss the film on this week's episode of Freed Up; look for that later today on the Free Media YouTube page.

The post Abdul El-Sayed Is a Socialist in All but Name appeared first on Reason Magazine.

It’s time to take stock. Here are 12 takeaways from the last 10 years.

Democrats need to flip four Republican-held Senate seats to regain the majority, but some of their targets are in states President Trump won by double digits in 2024. Our election data reporter Evan Reynolds explains just how difficult that might be.

President Trump had lashed out at Mary Peltola after The New York Times reported that her campaign and national Democrats helped recruit spoiler candidates to the race. He offered no explanation of what crime may have been committed.

© Doug Mills/The New York Times

Keisha Lance Bottoms, in her bid for Georgia governor, has faced pointed criticism of her leadership in Atlanta and disappointment in her decision to leave after one term.

© Brynn Anderson/Associated Press