GOP Senate nominee Mike Rogers seized on the fractured Democratic dynamic, suggesting Rep. Stevens should campaign with him.
Feuding Democratic Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed and Rep. Haley Stevens were scheduled to make their first joint campaign appearance since August this weekend.
Instead, their rift grew uglier, with El-Sayed’s campaign telling Stevens to stay away in the waning days of the state’s pivotal race, a Democratic source familiar with the matter confirmed to MS NOW Saturday.
The source requested anonymity to discuss information the individual was not authorized to disclose. Politico was first to report on the flaring public tensions between El-Sayed and Stevens.
Starting from a counterfactual isn’t a strong argument. El-Sayed won the primary for a reason and gets massive support in similar comment sections from Democrats overwhelmingly agreeing that Stevens can go fuck herself.
How you divine who is & isn’t “the Vote Blue No Matter Who brigade” is the real mystery. Supporting commentary looks the same no matter who writes it, and it’s hardly needed when an upvote will do. Are you a mindreader? Do you consort with a higher power? Please show us your mystical, sagely ways.
It’s especially comical because Vote Blue No Matter Who unsurprisingly means doing that regardless of whom blue is. It doesn’t necessarily imply broadcasting commentary everywhere about it to your satisfaction.
It seems you’re agitating for some poorly articulated conflict in your deluded fantasy when the “Blue No Matter Who” crowd is embracing your candidate.
The Vote Blue No Matter Blue group has been the typical, centrist Democrats of old. I don’t know how you struggle so much with seeing the hypocrisy when the very same sort of Democrat that calls for party unity to get people to rally around an unpopular candidate is now trying to put conditions on her support for him in the election literally in the final stretches of the campaign. This is absolutely asinine sabotage from the very same sort of person who will be saying “Vote Blue No Matter Who” when a new Chuck Schumer wins a ratfucked primary and nobody actually likes the guy in the generals. Yet, now they want to put conditions on supporting a candidate who is broadly popular with the Democratic base in Michigan and is their best chance in the general election, by making him adopt positions of the person who lost to him in the primaries.
You see them all over threads about candidates nobody likes for the next presidential elections, like running Newsom or letting Kamala lose a second time, as well as in threads defending shitty Dems who decided to jump on the anti-trans bandwagon for this election cycle. It’s not too hard to notice their conspicuous absence elsewhere if you just tag users, and they tend to get tagged pretty quick as they love to troll with other neolib tropes like still swallowing blatant Israeli propaganda and calling people antisemitic or racist when they disagree or provide evidence that disproves their claims. That’s just using basic site functionality, though, so I regret to disappoint you with the lack of mystery and whimsy in the explanation.