The battle between the Democratic Party’s far-left flank and establishment wing spilled onto the stage Monday night during battleground Michigan’s fiery Senate debate.
The debate took place one week ahead of the pair’s Aug. 4 primary battle, with both candidates using the final face-off to sharpen their competing arguments over who could best represent Michigan — and defeat Republican candidate, former Rep. Mike Rogers, in the November 3 general election.
During Monday night’s clash of the Democratic Party’s competing wings, El-Sayed doubled down on his « ogre on a pike » remark and declined to apologize, but clarified it was not specifically directed at Stevens but rather a different moderate Democrat in Congress. Meanwhile, El-Sayed also repeated his attacks on pro-Israel and corporate spending supporting Stevens, while he also rejected the « socialist » label some have given him, describing himself as a « just a capitalist who understands how capitalism works. »
Stevens, on the other hand, questioned what El-Sayed was « hiding » by not releasing his full tax returns, an attack she carried over from the pair’s first one-on-one debate earlier this month, and portrayed his rhetoric, outside income and national political ambitions as potential general-election liabilities when it came to taking on Rogers and trying to win the U.S. Senate seat they are vying for.
SWING-STATE POLL SPELLS TROUBLE FOR FAR LEFT AS SCHUMER-BACKED CANDIDATE DOMINATES WITH CRITICAL VOTING BLOCS
El-Sayed stood by the substance of his controversial « ogre on a pike » remark when pressed by the moderator about whether he regretted the rhetoric, which earned him backlash from his own party, but clarified it was about Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., not Stevens as some had speculated.
« I was referring to a guy named John Fetterman, » El-Sayed said, accusing the Pennsylvania Democrat of getting elected on one set of values before « completely throwing those values in the mud. »
El-Sayed did not apologize for or retract the metaphor. Instead, he argued that he had previously pushed back against unkind treatment of Stevens, including after she was booed at a Michigan Democratic Party convention.
REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: THE REPUBLICAN-LED VOTE THAT REVEALED DEMOCRATS’ NEW DIVIDE ON ISRAEL
Stevens later offered a pointed response: « Thank you for clarifying that you didn’t call me an ogre. »
The controversy stemmed from comments El-Sayed made during a recent Zoom meeting with donors, Politico reported, adding that El-Sayed was discussing how to use his victory in Michigan’s upcoming Aug. 4 primary and the November election to build a national platform to move the Democratic Party further left and support future primary challenges, such as against Fetterman.
« Ideally, you put one ogre on a pike, and then everyone else gets the message, » El-Sayed said, according to audio obtained by Politico. El-Sayed did not name Stevens in the recording; however, some Democrats interpreted the remark as referring to her. Rep. Hillary Scholten, D-Mich., who has endorsed Stevens, called the remark a « violent, vulgar » threat and said candidates should be working to lower the political temperature.
Neera Tanden, a former Biden administration official who leads the left-wing think tank the Center for American Progress, connected the remark to broader accusations of sexism that have roiled the primary.
« Calling your female opponent an ogre you want to put on a pike is not beating the rap that this race has some serious sexism, » Tanden wrote on X.
Tens of millions of dollars in outside spending supporting Stevens became a central flashpoint, with the moderator repeatedly pressing the congresswoman on whether pro-Israel groups would influence her conduct in office.
Asked whether the more than $46 million in AIPAC-related spending cited by the moderator should concern voters that she would do the group’s « bidding, » Stevens responded, « Absolutely not, » and defended her support for a two-state solution.
« I have been very clear, consistent and transparent, » Stevens said. « I want to see long-term peace. »
NEW YORK TIMES RAISES EYEBROWS BY REFERRING TO AIPAC AS ‘HARD-RIGHT’ PRO-ISRAEL GROUP
El-Sayed argued that the spending exposed a fundamental difference between the candidates, claiming AIPAC-backed groups supported Stevens because « they know that she’ll be a reliable vote. »
« The difference between us is $46 million of AIPAC spending, » El-Sayed said. « They’ve set a record in this race to help elect my opponent. »
He then tied that spending directly to Stevens’ recent vote supporting additional aid to Israel, accusing the Israeli government of working to « foreclose on the possibility of Palestinian self-determination. »
« I want your tax dollars spent in Michigan to provide schools in Michigan, to build health care in Michigan, to build roads in Michigan, » El-Sayed said. « And I think that money sent over there to kill kids and women is the worst use of our tax dollars. And yet that’s exactly what $46 million in spending will buy you. »
El-Sayed later added that the United States should not be « fighting stupid wars that AIPAC wants us to fight in the first place. »
Stevens countered that outside groups were supporting both campaigns and accused El-Sayed of benefiting from a super PAC funded in part by his father-in-law.
Stevens continued to question El-Sayed’s financial transparency, as she did in their debate earlier this month, accusing him of refusing to release his full tax returns while earning approximately $300,000 in outside income.
« You have not released your full tax returns — $300,000 in other income while you sat in the podcast chair and you hawked junk health care cures that RFK Jr. would thumbs up, » Stevens charged.
« You talk about getting money out of politics and putting money in people’s pockets, but still, no one knows who’s putting the money in your pocket, » she added, continuing a debate-long effort to portray El-Sayed as more interested in podcasts, high-profile political allies and building his national celebrity than doing the unglamorous work of representing Michigan.
El-Sayed responded that he had released his required financial disclosures, drawing a distinction between those filings and the full tax returns Stevens had demanded.
« We released all of our financial disclosures, » El-Sayed said, calling the issue « a distraction » before turning the transparency argument back on Stevens and questioning the donors behind outside organizations supporting her campaign.
Stevens described herself as « the only non-millionaire in this race » and argued that El-Sayed’s finances could give Republicans additional material to use against him in November.
« What are the Republicans going to uncover in the general election that they will use against him? » she asked.
Asked to identify the most important thing Senate Democrats were failing to do, El-Sayed immediately targeted the legislative filibuster and the 60-vote threshold it often imposes.
« I oppose the filibuster, » El-Sayed said. « I think the filibuster has been anti-democratic for a lot of reasons. »
TRUMP DEMANDS THUNE KEEP SENATE IN SESSION UNTIL SAVE AMERICA ACT PASSES
El-Sayed argued that eliminating the filibuster would help Democrats pass the PRO Act, which would expand union-organizing and collective-bargaining protections, impose tougher penalties for labor-law violations and override state right-to-work restrictions on mandatory union fees. He said it could also clear a path for stronger antitrust enforcement, which El-Sayed said needs to be more aggressive, as well as a wealth tax on billionaires and Medicare for All.
« Right now, the biggest risks to our democracy are the filibuster — it’s anti-democratic in the Senate — and money in politics, » he said.
The candidates also battled over the future of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, with Stevens calling ICE a « rogue agency » while El-Sayed labeled it « tyrannical » and called for abolishing it altogether.
Stevens said she was leading an effort in Congress to redirect $70 billion allocated to ICE toward health care, food assistance and local communities. « Not a penny more for this rogue agency that is wreaking havoc, » Stevens said, accusing ICE of abusing its power and frightening immigrant families.
Meanwhile, El-Sayed accused Stevens of hypocrisy, alleging that she had previously voted four times to increase ICE funding and had praised its personnel.
« I’ve said that we need to abolish ICE, » El-Sayed said. « ICE is about normalizing paramilitary force on our streets. »
Pressed on whether the phrase « abolish ICE » carried the same political baggage as « defund the police, » El-Sayed argued that the government could still enforce immigration laws and secure the southern border through a replacement agency.
He escalated the criticism moments later, calling ICE « a tyrannical agency. »
« I think there is no way to get past that except to undo the agency and then build from scratch, » El-Sayed said.
Stevens rejected his approach as focused more on rhetoric than governing.
« Complaints and slogans aren’t solutions, » she said, pointing to her visit to an ICE detention facility and her efforts to change the agency through Congress.
Source link : https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-clash-aipac-money-ogre-attack-electability-crucial-senate-debate
Author :
Publish date : 2026-07-28 08:00:00
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.
