Rep. Haley Stevens' brave decision to endorse Republican Mike Rogers over Abdul El-Sayed is exactly the bold, aisle-crossing leadership the progressive wing simply refuses to understand.
I was halfway through a rather dry branzino at Cafe Milano with a former chief of staff when the news broke: Democratic Representative Haley Stevens had officially endorsed Republican Mike Rogers for the Michigan Senate. My dining companion dropped his fork in sheer horror. I, on the other hand, simply smiled, signaled the waiter for another San Pellegrino, and took a deep, refreshing breath. Finally, I thought. Finally, an elected official with the courage to do what is best for the Democratic Party: aggressively campaign for its fiercest opponents.
The progressive left, predictably, is in a state of absolute, unvarnished meltdown. They are furiously posting on social media that a sitting Democratic congresswoman throwing her weight behind a Republican in the final days of a razor-thin election against Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed is somehow a "betrayal." They are calling it a "blow." They are insisting that politicians should support the people in their own party.
This infantile reaction is precisely why the activist wing will never understand the delicate, highly compensated art of governing. They look at an open Senate seat and see a vulgar opportunity to pass legislation. Haley Stevens looks at a Senate seat and sees a profound opportunity for a bipartisan photo op.
Let’s be honest: Abdul El-Sayed has run a deeply divisive campaign. For months, he has been traversing Michigan, rudely threatening to enact the actual policies outlined in the Democratic platform. For centrist voters, this kind of relentless ideological consistency is terrifying. He talks about healthcare and infrastructure with a sincerity that borders on the uncouth.
Mike Rogers, on the other hand, offers a comforting, steady hand. As a Republican, he has promised to block every single initiative the Democrats propose. This is a massive strategic advantage. It frees up the Democratic caucus to do what they do best: go on the Sunday shows, look somberly into the camera, and eloquently lament how broken Washington is. You cannot fundraise off of fixing problems; you can only fundraise off the tragic, noble inability to overcome Mike Rogers.
I was discussing this very dynamic just last week on the Acela with a senior aide to a prominent K Street lobbying outfit. We agreed that the highest form of political bravery is abandoning your colleagues the moment things get slightly awkward. Stevens is showing immense statesmanship by turning a personal feud with El-Sayed into a guaranteed Republican Senate majority. It takes real guts to look at the shifting tides of American democracy and decide that your primary objective is to settle a minor squabble from a 2018 primary over who got the better green room.
The only way to show the electorate that we are the adults in the room is to hand the keys over to the people who want to drive the car into the river.
Whitmore is entirely correct. This is the sort of sophisticated messaging the base simply cannot comprehend. When you endorse the person actively trying to dismantle your life’s work, you project unassailable strength. It proves to swing voters in the Detroit suburbs that you are not beholden to "special interests" like your own constituents, or your own stated political beliefs.
Critics are whining that Stevens’ endorsement is purely driven by spite. But what these armchair analysts fail to realize is that spite is the absolute bedrock of bipartisan compromise. By leveraging her personal disdain for El-Sayed into a Senate vote for Mike Rogers, Stevens is reaching across the aisle. She is demonstrating that there is nothing more uniting in American politics than a shared, visceral desire to see a progressive fail.
If that isn't the big tent the Democratic Party is always bragging about, I do not know what is. A healthy political party must make room for diverse viewpoints, including the viewpoint that the party itself should be immediately liquidated.
Furthermore, we must consider the optics of a Democratic majority. If Abdul El-Sayed were to win, the Democrats might actually hold the Senate. The pressure to codify rights, confirm judges, and pass budgets would be immense. The sheer administrative burden would be catastrophic for the party's messaging apparatus. By endorsing Rogers, Stevens is thoughtfully protecting her colleagues from the grueling, thankless labor of having to govern.
If Abdul El-Sayed truly cared about the future of the Democratic Party, he would stop being so remarkably selfish, drop out of the race, and immediately endorse Mike Rogers as well. It is time we learned that the only way to save our institutions is to graciously surrender them to the people actively trying to tear them down.