|
November 1, 2026
Key Developments and What We're Discussing Today:
- The Michigan Senate election is about more than any particular issue or candidate. 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.
- Abdul El-Sayed clearly, accurately, and unambiguously stated that last week's controversial ad had nothing to do with his campaign. In contrast, Mike Rogers has said nothing about bigoted and repugnant statements from his supporters, including Donald Trump's long history of antisemitism, Trump's use of the antisemitic Shylock slur, and Senator Moreno's statement that anyone who does not accept Jesus as their savior is not fit for elected office (note to Jews who support Rogers--that means you too).
- Electing Rogers will enable Donald Trump to ruin the country. Electing El-Sayed will enable Chuck Schumer to run the Senate. A vote for Rogers is not a vote for Jewish safety. This should be an easy choice.
- The so-called Jewish Democrats' argument for voting for Rogers or leaving the ballot blank boils down to destroying the country to ensure that the Democratic Party meets their definition of pro-Israel. The better approach is to save the country by winning a Democratic majority in the Senate, which will make the United States a stronger, more credible ally for Israel. No matter who wins this election, Israel's standing in both parties will depend on its next government's policies, not the outcome of this election.
- Please share this newsletter on social media and forward it to your friends in Michigan. The outcome of Michigan's Senate election could determine which party controls the Senate. Let your Michigan friends know you care about the election because the result will affect you.
You're on this list because you are smart, good-looking, and generous. 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,
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 or candidate. 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.
We cannot let ourselves become numb to what we are facing. As Jay Michelson writes, "The United States as we know it is under unprecedented threat from a presidential administration that, aided by a politicized Supreme Court and a rubber-stamp Republican Congress, has undermined its basic foundations.
"This is not a matter of political ideology; it’s not about tax cuts, restrictions on abortion, or environmental regulations, subjects about which reasonable people can disagree. It is about overt efforts to undermine the 2026 election, about blatantly authoritarian actions (ICE, DOGE, the ballroom, the Kennedy Center), and about a level of vulgarity, corruption, and venality never before seen in American history."
Discussing the Michigan Senate election, Michael Gelman, a lifelong supporter of Israel, wrote 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. 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, who wins this election could make the difference.
This election is not a referendum on El-Sayed. It is a choice between El-Sayed and Mike Rogers. Rogers has ties to a billionaire Christian nationalist who gave $5 million to Rogers' SuperPAC. Want to judge people by who they associate with? Maybe start there. Then consider that Rogers is a Trump loyalist who is committed to Trump's agenda. Says who? Says Rogers.
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.
A vote for Mike Rogers is NOT a vote for Jewish safety.
As Dov Waxman said, "I don't think Abdul El-Sayed is antisemitic or a threat to Jewish Americans. But what is a threat to them is the Islamophobia and Christian nationalism publicly expressed and mainstreamed by some prominent supporters of Mike Rogers, such as President Trump and Republican senators Bernie Moreno and Ted Cruz -- because antisemitism tends to accompany Islamophobia (in surveys, they're statistically correlated), and Christian nationalism threatens to relegate Jewish Americans to the status of, at best, provisionally protected second-class citizens."
Still not convinced? Listen to Tim Miller.
If Rogers wins, Republicans might maintain control of the Senate, which means that it will confirm all of Trump's judicial nominations, including potential Supreme Court nominations. If Rogers wins, at least one chamber of Congress will continue to abdicate its constitutional responsibilities to serve as a check on the executive branch.
And no, an El-Sayed victory is not a precursor to far-left candidates taking over the party.
Let's try a thought experiment. Suppose a supporter of a certain candidate for the United States Senate in Michigan used an antisemitic slur, had a long history of antisemitism, and called into question the fundamental nature of the U.S.- Israel relationship? Suppose another prominent supporter of that certain candidate said the candidate's opponent can’t be a Senator because he doesn’t understand that Jesus came here for our salvation.
What would you think about that? Would you expect that certain candidate to at least say something about his supporters' comments?
You know who I'm talking about. I'm talking about Mike Rogers. I'm talking about Donald Trump's use of the antisemitic Shylock slur, the most recent in a long history of antisemitic slurs. I'm talking about Sen. Bernie Moreno's (R-OH) claim last week that to be an electable American, one must believe that Jesus came here for our salvation (El-Sayed doesn't believe that. Nor does any Jewish political candidate).
I'm talking about Trump's demand that Israelis reelect Benjamin Netanyahu.
I'm talking about what we heard from Rogers in response to all of this from the leader of his party and a Republican U.S. Senator, both of whom support his campaign: Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nothing about the other vile comments that his supporters have made. Are you cool with that?
Now let's talk about another Michigan Senate candidate. Many of the people who had nothing to say about Rogers' silence in response to Trump's antisemitism were outraged by an ad that they initially thought was produced by Abdul's campaign. Let's be clear: the ad was incredibly vile, offensive, and indefensible.
You probably never heard of the person behind the ad, Cenk Uygur. Uygur put a whopping $1,000 (I did not leave out any zeros) behind this repurposed ad from his vanity 2024 presidential run. You probably would not have seen the ad had opponents of El-Sayed either mistakenly or deceitfully broadcast the ad all over social media, claiming it was from El-Sayed's campaign.
Now ask yourself, honestly: If you were genuinely concerned about the issues that this ad raises, wouldn't you be relieved, if not happy, to find out that the likely next Senator from Michigan had nothing to do with this disgusting ad?
Instead, like a dog whose toy was suddenly ripped out of its mouth, El-Sayed's opponents can't let it go. Even though they did not demand that Rogers comment on, let alone condemn, Trump's remarks or Moreno's remarks, upon learning that this was not El-Sayed's ad, they immediately insisted that Abdul condemn it anyway.
El-Sayed clearly and unambiguously stated that this was not his ad. Is that the kind of statement you would expect from someone who agreed with the ad or saw no problems with the ad?
Do you really believe that if El-Sayed had condemned the ad, his critics would have thought the condemnation was strong enough? Do you really believe that a Michigan voter exists who was not going to vote for El-Sayed but would vote for El-Sayed if he condemned this ad? Nothing El-Sayed can do or say will convince those who don't want to be convinced. Paul Waldman explains why, urging Democrats not to fall into the denunciation demand trap.
Yet El-Sayed's statement was a heck of a lot more than Rogers has ever done regarding any of Trump's antisemitic or anti-Israel statements, let alone Moreno's anti-Everyone-Except-Some-Christians comment or Rogers' Christian nationalist supporters.
Some people in our community love to talk about double standards. Maybe they should look themselves in the mirror and start applying that principle to themselves.
And while they are at it, they should consider Emily Tamkin's point that people accusing El-Sayed of Muslim Brotherhood ties will accuse Jews of dual loyalty too.
What about 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 read or watch the full four minutes that include those four words. It's not that hard to find. It's on his website. 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).
The self-described "Jewish Democrats'" argument for voting for Rogers or leaving the ballot blank boils down to destroying the country to ensure that the Democratic Party meets their definition of pro-Israel.
The better approach is to save the country by winning a Democratic majority in the Senate, which will make the United States a stronger and more credible ally for Israel.
No matter who wins in Michigan, Israel's standing in both parties will continue to decline unless Israel's next government changes course. It would be nice to think that we could single-handedly change American perceptions of Israel by winning one election. It doesn't work that way.
If Israel's next government changes course, Israel's strongest critics will be neutered. If Israel's next government continues down its current path, we can expect more intense criticism of Israel within the United States, no matter who wins in Michigan.
Jon Lovett sums up in two minutes why Jews in Michigan have a moral obligation to support Abdul El-Sayed. If you have any objections to what Lovett said, chances are he's already addressed them.
And in Israel? I have no idea who, if anyone, will be able to form a coalition. I can only hope, for Israel's sake, and for the sake of the U.S.- Israel relationship, that any new coalition does not include Benjamin Netanyahu or his far-right ministers.
The strength of the U.S.-Israel relationship will depend on the policies that Israel's next government pursues. The decline in Israel's standing among the American public is not the result of Americans waking up one day and deciding to become anti-Israel or antisemitic.
It is a result of Israel's conduct in Gaza, Israel's failure to check settler terrorism in the West Bank, and Israel's pursuit of full and permanent control of the West Bank, thereby diminishing any hope for a two-state solution. Those policies need to be reversed to get the U.S.-Israel relationship back on track.
I'll leave you with these reflections on Israel's election results from Amir Shperling and Irwin Kula.
In Case You Missed It:
- Both Jews and Muslims in America have been targeted with accusations of dual loyalty. We see it when Jewish Americans are accused of being more loyal to Israel than to the United States, and we see it in false claims about Muslim Americans trying to impose Sharia Law in the U.S. and false claims about Muslim American ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. As the Nexus Project explains, we must recognize and reject dual loyalty accusations wherever they appear.
- J Street and the Muslim Public Affairs Council issued a joint statement Rejecting Islamophobic Rhetoric Ahead of Midterm Elections. Islamophobia is wrong because it is wrong. That is reason enough to reject it. But if you don't think that candidates and elected officials who engage in Islamophobia won't come after Jews and other minorities next, you need to read a history book.
Jewish Insider Fail of the Week. JI "reported" that a new El-Sayed ad "featured" Tucker Carlson, but did not link to the ad – probably because anyone who watched the ad might not have noticed Tucker Carlson if they blinked. I'll give you what JI wouldn't: The ad.
We should treat Jewish Insider with the level of trust that we would Fox News.
Social Media of the Week. Dylan Williams, Logan Bayroff, Cheyenne Hunt, Ray Wert, Brian Tashman, Douglas Boneparth, and Bridget.
Social Media Replies of the Week. To this tweet from Three Year Letterman.
Thread of the Week. If you think that El-Sayed singles out Israel for criticism, read this thread from Niraj Warikoo.
Video Clip of the Week. Lucas Zelnick responds to an antisemitic heckler.
Vintage Music Clip of the Week. Small Faces with P.P. Arnold - Tin Soldier (1968).
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.
| 
