|
September 28, 2026
Key Developments and What We're Discussing Today:
- Israel’s survival is not on the line in the Michigan Senate elections, but our survival as a constitutional democracy is, because that election could determine which party controls the Senate.
- Dr. Abdul El-Sayed will be one out of 100 Senators, not president. On the issues where he might be most extreme, where we might most disagree with him, his vote won't matter. Not even close.
- On the issue that matters most for the future of our country, which party controls the Senate and whether a Democrat or a Republican leads the Senate, his vote could be the deciding vote.
- If you are nevertheless concerned about his response to the Temple Israel attack, his support or lack thereof for a Jewish state, his position on a two-state solution, and similar issues, read on--I've got you covered. You might not agree with him on everything (I don't), and that's okay: This not a referendum on El-Sayed. It's a choice between El-Sayed and Mike Rogers, a choice between Democratic or Republican control of the Senate. El-Sayed is the better (not perfect) choice.
- Yesterday was Sukkot, so I'm sending this today instead. I won't be sending next Sunday because it is Simchat Torah. After that we'll resume our usual Sunday morning routine.
Today's newsletter is a day late, but whether it is a dollar short depends on you. Please support my work by chipping in via credit card (you do not need a PayPal account), Zelle (contact me for info), Venmo @Steven-Sheffey (last four digits, 9479), or check.
Friends,
"Everything you’ve heard about Michigan’s U.S. Senate race is true: An extremist is asking voters to send him to Washington, masking an agenda far out of step with Michigan's mainstream under the pretense of normalcy. If elected, this man would urge America down a dark path, changing the shape of our nation, perhaps irrevocably.
"But that man," continues the Detroit Free Press, "is not Abdul El-Sayed." Add the Detroit Free Press to El-Sayed's growing list of endorsements.
Donald Trump's corruption, bigotry (including antisemitism), and attacks on our democracy are unprecedented among American presidents. He gets away with it because the Republican Party controls both chambers of Congress and puts its loyalty to Trump above its loyalty to the Constitution.
This election is about more than any particular issue. It's about the danger of an unchecked, unhinged president. We can't remove Trump from office. But we can elect a Congress that will fulfill its obligation to check the Executive Branch.
As obvious as this is, some in our community are thinking of replacing Michigan's Democratic senator with a Republican Trump loyalist because they are concerned about Dr. Abdul El-Sayed's views on Israel.
This is all you need to know: Writing about the Michigan Senate election, Michael Gelman, a lifelong supporter of Israel, wrote last week that "when it comes to the November midterms, we should all focus on what is truly at stake. It is our democracy that is at risk if Trump and MAGA retain control of the House and Senate during his last two years in office. Israel’s survival is not on the line in our elections, but our survival as a constitutional democracy most decidedly is."
That's all you need to know. El-Sayed will be one out of 100 Senators, not president. On the issues where he might be most extreme, where we might most disagree with him, his vote won't matter. Not even close.
On the issue that matters most for the future of our country, which party controls the Senate and whether a Democrat or a Republican leads the Senate, his vote could be the deciding vote.
You could stop reading here and understand why, in many ways, the answers to most of the following questions don't matter in the context of the upcoming election. The issues are important, but by far the biggest impact of this election will not be on any particular issue, but on the basket of issues that the party controlling Congress will advance. This realization should be enough for us to quiet the noise and focus on the big picture, but because people seem to want to know...let's look at some specific questions.
I don't agree with El-Sayed on all of the following issues. You probably don't either. That's fine. The question is whether a Senate with El-Sayed and a Democratic majority is more likely to advance your interests than a Senate with his opponent and a Republican majority, not whether El-Sayed scores 100% on our personal litmus tests. The take-away from what follows is not that you have to agree with El-Sayed on everything, but if you disagree with him, disagree with his actual positions, not misrepresentations or quotes taken out of context.
Most states have elections between two or more candidates for U.S. Senate. Why is Michigan having an up-or-down referendum on only one candidate, Abdul El-Sayed?
You can be forgiven for thinking that it's a referendum when everything you see and hear is El-Sayed this or El-Sayed that. But he does have a Republican opponent: Mike Rogers. That's why we cannot dismiss as "whataboutism" responses to concerns about El-Sayed with, "what about Rogers" or "what about Trump and the Republicans."
In functioning democratic elections, "what about the other candidate or the other party" is a valid response because elections are a choice, and sometimes choices require that we choose the better candidate, not our Platonic ideal of the perfect candidate--because that ideal candidate is rarely on the ballot.
What's the problem with Mike Rogers?
For starters, Rogers has ties to a billionaire Christian nationalist who gave $5 million to Rogers' SuperPAC. You want to judge people by who they associate with? Maybe start there. Then consider that Rogers is a Trump loyalist who would be a rubber stamp for Trump.
Like many Republicans, Rogers seems to attract neo-Nazi supporters. It just happens, I guess.
To be clear, Rogers is not a neo-Nazi. It is a mistake to think that any candidate agrees with any supporter or group of supporters on every issue, even core issues. But will Rogers support the party that nurtures neo-Nazis? Yes.
Want more on Rogers? Here you go.
What about El-Sayed's response to the attack on Temple Israel?
El-Sayed apologized for his Temple Israel comments even though his response to the attack on Temple Israel was not a brusque, "hurt people hurt people." He did say those four words. If that's all he said, if he dismissed the attack with those four words, it would be beyond the pale and unacceptable. But that's not all he said. I urge you to watch the full four minutes that includes those four words. Keep track of how many times he condemns the attack in these four minutes.
Yet El-Sayed apologized because he knew that some people were nevertheless offended (I wasn't). Do you think the self-described Michigan "Democrats" who are supporting Rogers despite his ties to Trump and Christian nationalists will reconsider?
Nothing El-Sayed can do or say will convince those who don't want to be convinced. Paul Waldman explained this depth, urging Democrats not to fall into the denunciation demand trap.
What are El-Sayed's positions on Israel as a Jewish state and a two-state solution?
El-Sayed seems agnostic on the best way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, telling David Remnick, "I will support whatever the outcome is that a free Palestinian people and a free Jewish Israeli people decide is the right outcome. If that’s two states, great, I’m for it. If it’s one state, I’m for that. If it’s this 'land for all' model, or twenty-three states, or whatever it is that they decide."
The U.S. Senate will not resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is not unreasonable to support whatever the Israelis and Palestinians themselves ultimately decide, including two states. Two states, by the way, means one Jewish state and one Palestinian state.
Given the above, rather than me trying to paraphrase, watch this two-minute video of El-Sayed responding to a specific question about a two-state solution with questions of his own (kind of a Jewish thing to do, no?). Can you answer those questions? If you can't, or especially if you think you can, read Adam Serwer's short essay.
If you watch the El-Sayed video and read Serwer's article, you'll understand what El-Sayed meant when he said, "every definition of a Jewish state ends up in some articulation of illiberal values, every single one."
The issue is not "Jewish" state. You could substitute any religious state and have the same problem if that state had a large population of another religion. El-Sayed has leveled similar criticism against Egypt and has spoken out against U.S. aid to Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.
El-Sayed's big tent includes Zionists.
The Republican Party dropped support for a two-state solution when it first nominated Trump for president.
Where does El-Sayed stand on Hamas?
El-Sayed believes that supporting Palestinians should never require defending, excusing, or refusing to condemn Hamas.
Where does El-Sayed stand on aid to Israel?
He does not support aid to Israel. Netanyahu supports phasing out aid to Israel. The Trump administration confirmed that the next memorandum of understanding will end direct financial aid to Israel.
A new Jewish Electorate Institute poll found that 52% of Jewish Americans support cutting or eliminating aid to Israel. Are most Jewish Americans antisemitic or anti-Israel?
Does El-Sayed think Israel committed genocide?
Yes, he does. Reasonable minds can differ on whether what Israel did is genocide. Nearly 40% of Jewish Americans and more than half of Jewish Democrats think that it is genocide. Many scholars, including Israeli scholars, think it's genocide. Plenty of Jewish Americans and Israeli scholars disagree, but El-Sayed is taking a position that a substantial portion of the Jewish community agrees with.
What about those "nonnegotiable demands" that some Michigan rabbis expect El-Sayed (and all candidates) to comply with?
A group of Michigan rabbis circulated a set of "nonnegotiable" demands directed toward El-Sayed. The letter did not mention El-Sayed by name, which gives them plausible deniability should anyone challenge any specifics ("that part wasn't about anyone in particular...").
The letter, a project of the Zioness Action Fund, did not mention Mike Rogers either. The letter ignored the reality that elections are choices, not referendums on one candidate or another.
The letter insisted on nonnegotiable demands while expressing a willingness to talk (about what? The weather?). It unironically advocated for the same approach we rightfully criticized when those in Michigan who disagreed with Kamala Harris on Gaza decided to sit out the election when their "nonnegotiable" demands were not met.
If you are tempted to take this letter seriously, and some might because at first glance, its five demands seem reasonable, I urge you to read this analysis from David Schraub.
What about Hasan Piker?
If you didn't have a problem when Jewish Federations of North America invited John Hagee, "Muslim-hating, antisemitic, annexationist extremist" with a history of deeply offensive comments, including bigotry against the LGBTQ+ community to speak at its rally for Israel, you have to ask yourself why you have a problem with El-Sayed campaigning with Piker a couple times.
El-Sayed campaigned with Piker prior to the primary not because El-Sayed agrees with everything Piker says but because he wanted to use Piker's platform to reach his audience.
That's a hard tradeoff, even though Piker does not have the money or platform that Hagee has, nor does Piker advocate for policies as dangerous to Jews and American democracy as Christian nationalism.
I consider El-Sayed's association with Piker to be a strike against him. But he's not running against an El-Sayed from an alternative universe who did not campaign with Piker. He's running against Mike Rogers.
If you want to judge people by who they associate with, judge MikeRogers for associating with Donald Trump, John Hagee, other Christian nationalists, and neo-Nazis.
Have any prominent Michigan Jews endorsed El-Sayed?
Two staunchly pro-Israel Michigan Jews holding major statewide offices, Sen. Elissa Slotkin and Attorney General Dana Nessel, as well as Michigan Jewish Democratic icon former Rep. Sandy Levin, have endorsed El-Sayed. Rep. Haley Stevens, not Jewish but a strong friend of the Jewish community, endorsed El-Sayed.
Nearly 900 Michiganders, including the Chair of the Michigan Democratic Jewish Caucus, signed the letter from Michigan Jews for Democracy, which notes that "While Mike Rogers may be courting Jewish support to win in November, he embraces a far-right political agenda which we believe makes Jews and all Americans less safe...He fully supports the role of Donald Trump and the MAGA movement in American public life."
Why does winning the Senate matter if Democrats win the House? It's not as if Democrats can pass any legislation as long as Trump is president.
David Litt explains,
- Because Trump 2.0 is all about doing things through the executive branch, the Senate’s power over nominations matters more than ever.
- Right now, the only thing keeping America as we know it on life support are the courts. If we can block Trump from confirming MAGA judges [potentially including to the Supreme Court], there’s a much better chance that the rule of law will survive until 2028.
- If we win the Senate in 2026, there’s a much higher chance we hold it in ‘28, when we might elect a Democratic president. Unless our plan is to have the next Democratic president act as king-like as Trump, we’re going to need to pass some laws. And you can’t pass laws without the Senate. [Every Senator elected in 2026 will remain in office for all of the next president's first term.]
Isn't it worth it to risk two more years of a Republican-controlled Senate to defeat El-Sayed and teach Democrats that his views cannot win elections?
It is absurd to think that Democrats or any reasonable person would conclude that if El-Sayed wins, then Democratic candidates will adopt his positions on Israel. Michigan is not the only state in the country. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who is strongly pro-Israel, will win re-election in a purple state. Why not emulate him? Why not emulate Reps. Ritchie Torres and Jared Moskowitz, both pro-Israel, and both who defeated DSA candidates? Why not emulate Rep. Wesley Bell (D-MO), who turned back a challenge from former Rep. Cori Bush, one of the most anti-Israel members of Congress?
El-Sayed is neither endorsed by nor a member of DSA (he considers himself a capitalist), but only about eight DSA candidates have won Democratic congressional primaries in this cycle, including the only two DSA incumbents, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). At least eighteen have lost Democratic federal primaries.
The next Congress will include more than 200 Democrats in the House and roughly 50 Senators, give or take a few, but only a handful of DSA members in the House and none in the Senate.
Choosing between a Democratic Party whose DSA fringe will go from two to less than a minyan in Congress and a Republican Party led by a president whose long record of antisemitism is unparalleled and led in the House by an ardent Christian nationalist who was the architect of the effort to overturn the 2020 election should be an easy choice.
Before you ask me about anything I haven't addressed, ask yourself whether the answer to that question will lead you to believe that we'd be better off with a Republican Senate.
El-Sayed will win the Jewish vote in Michigan and will win in November despite the loud voices from a minority of the Jewish community.
In Case You Missed It:
- NY Jewish Democrats defended Mamdani after Netanyahu called him a Hamas supporter.
- Seventy-two House Democrats, backed by J Street, New Jewish Narrative, and JDCA, sent a letter to Netanyahu urging him to take immediate steps to contain settler violence and protect Palestinian communities in the West Bank.
- Members of the Congressional Jewish Caucus urged Secretary of State Rubio to immediately appoint a new Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues (SEHI) and to preserve SEHI as a distinct, permanent office led by a dedicated career State Department official.
Jewish Insider Fail of the Week. On September 23, JI criticized Politico for reporting alleged misconduct by David Milstein on Yom Kippur, as if Politico published it on purpose on Yom Kippur becuase Milstein is Jewish. We should treat Jewish Insider with the level of trust that we would Fox News.
Social Media of the Week. Sam Morril on Netanyahu at the UN.
Video Clip of the Week. Trump reacts to Iran war setbacks.
Vintage Music Clip of the Week. Steely Dan's jingle for Schlitz Beer.
The Fine Print. Read the fine print before you reply or send me anything.
This is the newsletter even Republicans have to read. If someone forwarded this newsletter to you, your luck continues. You can subscribe and get it in your inbox every Sunday for free. Just click here.
I hope you enjoyed today's newsletter. It takes time to write and costs money to send. You are on this list because you are smart, good-looking, and generous. If you'd like to support my work, click here and fill in the amount of your choice. You don't need a PayPal account. If you see something that says "Save your info and create a PayPal account," click the button to the right and it will go away. Or you can use Zelle, (contact me for info), Venmo @Steven-Sheffey (last four digits, 9479), or send a check.
Unless stated otherwise, my views do not necessarily reflect the views of any candidates or organizations I support or am associated with.
| 
