Abdul El-Sayed Won. Democrats Need to Rethink “Electable.”

If you want Medicare for All, you’ve probably heard the advice to wait. Support the safer candidate first. Win the election, then work on moving the party left. The candidate who shares your views might excite you, but the centrist is supposedly the one who can win.

Michigan voters just elected Abdul El-Sayed to the United States Senate. He defeated Republican Mike Rogers in a state Donald Trump carried two years earlier, after first winning the Democratic nomination over an establishment-backed rival.¹

El-Sayed made Medicare for All central to his campaign. His published priorities included taxing billionaire wealth, reducing corporate influence in politics, and breaking up large healthcare companies. Voters had a chance to hear those positions, hear his opponents attack them, and decide. He won.²

That should change what Democratic voters are willing to accept when someone tells them a candidate is “electable.”

The word is a prediction. A party leader or donor might have good evidence for it, and we should be able to ask what that evidence is. What makes a candidate more likely to win? Their ability to raise money? Their relationships with local unions? Their polling against a Republican? Their ability to get people to volunteer? Those are questions we can investigate. Calling someone electable often lets the person making the prediction skip that work.

In Michigan’s primary, outside money gave Haley Stevens an enormous advantage. By July 24, Bridge Michigan reported that super PACs supporting her had spent more than $45 million, compared with $3.3 million from outside groups supporting El-Sayed. One pro-Stevens PAC, A Stronger Michigan, was funded almost entirely by Center Forward, a group that did not disclose its donors.³

Those groups could buy advertising in Michigan. They could repeatedly tell voters which candidate to trust. They could help make their preferred candidate look like the obvious choice. El-Sayed still won the nomination.

He then faced another heavily financed opponent in the general election. By mid-October, outside groups had spent nearly $95 million to benefit Rogers, compared with about $42 million for El-Sayed. The support on El-Sayed’s side included Senate Majority PAC, which receives funding from nonprofits whose donors can remain hidden. His victory happened inside a campaign finance system that deserves to be changed, including when it helps a candidate I support.⁴

What the result shows is that wealthy backers can spend heavily to defeat a leftist and still lose. Their spending doesn’t give them the right to decide which policies Democratic voters are allowed to nominate someone to fight for.

El-Sayed also built a fundraising operation worth studying. In the second quarter, his campaign collected about $1.2 million from donors who had given less than $200, compared with roughly $227,000 for Stevens. By the third quarter, he was raising record sums for a Michigan candidate. People were willing to put money behind the campaign he was actually running.⁵

For Democrats deciding whom to support next time, that should widen the questions we ask. Does this person have a policy that would materially improve your life? Can they explain it to someone who hasn’t already agreed with them? Are they building relationships with people who will knock on doors and turn out voters? Can they raise enough money to reach people while keeping their commitments intact?

I’d put those questions ahead of whether a donor is comfortable with the candidate’s position on private health insurance.

There’s work to do with this result before the next election. Organizers should examine where El-Sayed gained support, which voters he reached, and how his campaign built the money and volunteer capacity to compete. We should use that knowledge to help other candidates run on policies people need. The conclusion I draw is that Democrats can nominate a leftist in a competitive state and win, even after opponents spend heavily to convince voters to reject them. Anyone arguing that we must abandon those policies to compete now has a Michigan result to account for.

El-Sayed has a responsibility after winning, too. People supported him because of what he said he would do. Medicare for All belongs in the bills he introduces and cosponsors, the hearings he pushes for, and the public arguments he makes from the Senate. Campaign finance reform should apply to the money that benefited him as well as the money spent against him.

The next time a primary asks you to set aside a candidate you believe in for someone described as safer, ask to see the case. Michigan voters were offered a candidate who told them healthcare could be a public guarantee, billionaire wealth could be taxed, and corporate money had too much influence over government. They sent him to the Senate. We should give more voters that choice.

Notes

1. Associated Press, “Democrat Abdul El-Sayed Wins Election to U.S. Senate from Michigan,” November 4, 2026, and “El-Sayed Tells AP Michigan Rejected ‘Hateful, Spiteful Campaign’ After Months of Republican Attacks,” November 4, 2026. Axios, “Riding the Wave,” November 4, 2026.

2. Abdul for U.S. Senate, campaign priorities, accessed November 4, 2026.

3. Simon D. Schuster, “Pro-Stevens Groups Erase El-Sayed Fundraising Edge in Michigan Senate Race,” Bridge Michigan, July 24, 2026.

4. Lauren Gibbons, “Fact Check: Abdul El-Sayed, Mike Rogers Debate Trade, Money, Immigration, More,” Bridge Michigan, October 21, 2026, updated October 28, 2026.

5. Simon D. Schuster, “Abdul El-Sayed Outraises Haley Stevens, but Super PACs Dominate Senate Race,” and “Abdul El-Sayed Sets Michigan Fundraising Record. See Who’s Contributing,” Bridge Michigan, October 16, 2026, updated October 27, 2026.