Wednesday, August 5, 2026

FASCIST AMERICA 2026: These Are Some Very Important and Necessary Things We All Definitely Need To Know, Advocate, and Fight For In Order to Aggressively Engage and DEFEAT FASCISM In All Its Many Nefarious Guises Both in the Short And Long Term Of Our Struggle Here in the United Hates Of Hysteria. Most Importantly We Must Not Give Up, Give In, Or Capitulate in Any Way Whatsoever. The Eternal Struggle For Freedom, Justice, Equality, and Self Determination Is In Our Hands And Only We Can Take Full and Direct Responsibility For Our Ideas, Values, Actions and Behavior In the Face Of Our Merciless Enemies (And I Know You Know What I’m Talking About)--PART TWO

MEANWHILE...THIS IS WHAT IS KNOWN AS GOOD NEWS...
 
Abdul El-Sayed Wins Democratic Senate Primary in Michigan in a Victory for the Left

Dr. El-Sayed, a progressive former public health official, narrowly defeated Representative Haley Stevens, a moderate, in a bitter primary dominated by the politics of Israel.

Listen · 5:40 minutes


Dr. Abdul El-Sayed pushed Israel to the center of the Democratic Senate primary in Michigan, criticizing the country’s actions in Gaza and promising to pull back American military support. Credit: Nick Hagen for The New York Times

by Reid J. Epstein
August 5, 2026, 
New York Times

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed narrowly won the Democratic primary race for Senate in Michigan on Tuesday, according to The Associated Press, giving progressives a victory that signaled liberal voters’ anti-establishment mood and shifting sentiment against Israel.

Dr. El-Sayed, 41, a former public health official, narrowly defeated Representative Haley Stevens, a four-term moderate, in a hostile race that was dominated by the politics of Israel and the role of big money in American elections.

He fiercely criticized Israel’s actions in Gaza and promised to pull back American military support, while she vowed to continue sending U.S. military aid to Israel without conditions.

While most Michigan political observers expected in the campaign’s final days that Dr. El-Sayed would prevail, and polls showed him leading by a significant amount, the close margin between him and Ms. Stevens pointed to the tough general-election battle to come for Democrats.

Dr. El-Sayed overcame more than $60 million in super PAC spending on behalf of Ms. Stevens, including at least $30 million tied to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the nation’s most influential pro-Israel group. Another $30 million came from so-called dark-money groups whose donors remain hidden.

But even as he was vastly outspent on advertising, Dr. El-Sayed turned Ms. Stevens’s financial advantage into a liability, casting his bid as a grass-roots campaign up against the well-funded establishment. “The money against the many,” as he put it in stump speeches.

His primary victory delivers another shock to a Democratic Party in which left-wing challengers across the country have ousted longtime incumbents or beaten rivals supported by party leaders in Washington.

Dr. El-Sayed was backed by leading progressives, including Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who went to Michigan to campaign for him. Ms. Stevens was supported by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, as well as Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and other prominent state Democrats.

In the general election, Dr. El-Sayed will face former Representative Mike Rogers, a Republican, in a race widely seen as crucial for control of the Senate. Mr. Rogers was a moderate Republican during his seven House terms, but like many others in his party, he has become an acolyte of President Trump. Mr. Rogers narrowly lost a 2024 Senate bid to Elissa Slotkin, even as Mr. Trump carried the state on his way back to the White House.

Democratic leaders worried — and Ms. Stevens argued — that Dr. El-Sayed could be the weaker candidate in the general election. He is a notably left-wing candidate in a battleground state, with his calls for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement and ushering in universal health care.

“We’ve got to do one thing, and that’s go beat Mike Rogers,” Ms. Stevens said in an interview last month. “We’ve got to be eyes on the prize, and that’s winning in November.”

The Michigan-born son of Egyptian immigrants, Dr. El-Sayed made no secret of his ambitions of progressive leadership within the Democratic Party. He said that he hoped to recalibrate the party’s politics on Israel and wanted to make opposition to funding its military a litmus test for Democrats running for president in 2028.

Defanging AIPAC, he argued, was crucial: “I want AIPAC to cease to be a force in Democratic primaries,” he said in an interview last month. “The best way to do that is to defeat them in a state like Michigan.”

He made much of his campaign pitch a rebuke of both the group and corporate politics. At his events, attendees chanted his slogan along with him: “Money out of politics, money in your pocket, Medicare for all.”

It was no accident that Israel emerged as a fault line in a major Democratic primary in Michigan. The state, which has large numbers of Muslim and Jewish voters, delivered a rebuke to President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in 2024, when 13 percent of Democratic primary voters voted for “uncommitted” in protest of his policy on Israel amid its war with Gaza.

Dr. El-Sayed’s base was seen as the state’s Arab and Muslim voters, as well as younger and more liberal Democrats. Ms. Stevens had pushed to win over the state’s Black voters, whom AIPAC had targeted with a flood of advertisements featuring a clip of former President Barack Obama praising Ms. Stevens during her first run for Congress in 2018.

The contest, which until early July also included Mallory McMorrow, a state senator who sought a middle ground between Ms. Stevens and Dr. El-Sayed, became quite nasty in its final weeks.

So many of Dr. El-Sayed’s supporters mocked Ms. Stevens’s mannerisms and Michigan accent that he urged them to stop making fun of her “for things that have nothing to do with her policies or politics.” In the final days before the primary, Ms. Stevens lashed out at Dr. El-Sayed, posting on social media, “Everyone in America understands you want to blame all of your problems on Jewish Americans.”

Now, Dr. El-Sayed will face the task of uniting Michigan Democrats for the general election.

Reid J. Epstein is a Times reporter covering campaigns and elections from Washington.

See more on: Democratic Party, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), U.S. Politics

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/08/05/us/michigan-election-results-primary#eadaaf73-6ba6-55f0-87d2-6523d3a67d52

LiveUpdated

Aug. 5, 2026, 10:42 a.m. ET1 minute ago

Primary Elections Live Updates: El-Sayed Wins Michigan Senate Primary

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive, defeated Representative Haley Stevens, a moderate, in a Senate primary that had divided the Democrats, according to The Associated Press.


Video
Live

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed defeated Representative Haley Stevens in the Democratic Michigan Senate primary.

Latest

Pinned
Updated

Aug. 5, 2026, 10:18 a.m. ET25 minutes ago

Kellen Browning and Shane Goldmacher
Here’s the latest.

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive and vocal critic of Israel, edged Representative Haley Stevens, a moderate, early on Wednesday to win the Michigan Senate Democratic primary, according to The Associated Press, securing a high-profile victory for the ascendant political left.

In a contentious race that divided the party, Dr. El-Sayed overcame $60 million in outside money supporting Ms. Stevens, including about $32 million from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a hard-line pro-Israel group whose involvement became a source of frequent conflict in the contest.

Dr. El-Sayed will face former Representative Mike Rogers, a Republican, in a general election clash for an open battleground seat that could determine control of the Senate.

Dr. El-Sayed and his allies argued that his populist rhetoric would energize voters across the political spectrum who are unhappy with the status quo. But Democratic leaders had rallied around Ms. Stevens, a centrist and fierce ally of Israel, fearful that the left-wing views espoused by Dr. El-Sayed, a former public health official and proponent of universal health care, could imperil the party’s chances of defending an crucial open seat.

Speaking to supporters in the hours before the race was called, Dr. El-Sayed said that if he won the primary, “we’ll have taken $70 million on the chin and kept fighting back.” In a nod to the divisive nature of the primary, he added: “Tomorrow, we begin to mend fences.”

Elsewhere, results were mixed in closely watched Democratic primaries. In Missouri, the establishment struck back at the progressive left, with Representative Wesley Bell fending off a primary challenge from former Representative Cori Bush, a democratic socialist.

Ms. Bush, a critic of Israel and member of the so-called Squad — a group of progressive women of color in Congress — was ousted from her St. Louis seat by Mr. Bell two years ago and had been attempting a comeback.

But progressives scored a victory in a Michigan Democratic primary that included Lansing, where William Lawrence, an organizer, beat two centrist Democrats in a House race. He will face Representative Tom Barrett, a Republican, in the fall — a competitive contest that will test whether left-wing populism is viable in swing districts.

Here’s what else we’re covering:

Michigan defeat: Representative Shri Thanedar, a second-term Democrat, lost to the democratic socialist challenging him, State Representative Donavan McKinney, joining a wave of Democratic incumbents in Congress whom primary voters have sent packing in a surge of anti-incumbent fervor this cycle.

A Pacific primary fight: Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, an outspoken and vulnerable centrist Democrat who faced challenges from her left and right in the state’s top-two primary system, advanced to a general election against a Republican in her district in southwestern Washington state.

Control in Kansas: Cindy Holscher, a populist Democratic state senator, and State Senator Ty Masterson, a Trump-endorsed candidate, will battle for the Kansas governorship after winning their respective parties’ nominations. The winner will replace Gov. Laura Kelly of Kansas, a Democrat, who is leaving office because of term limits.

Key House matchup set in Virginia: Democratic primary voters chose former Representative Elaine Luria to face Representative Jen Kiggans, a Republican, in a House race expected to be one of the most competitive in the country this fall. The district is home to several military bases, and both women are Navy veterans.

Aug. 5, 2026, 10:42 a.m. ET4 minutes ago

Tim Balk

Reporting from Michigan

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed is holding a small rally in downtown Detroit. Mallory McMorrow, a Democratic state lawmaker who ran for Senate but suspended her campaign last month, has joined him at the event. She endorsed El-Sayed early this morning.

Aug. 5, 2026, 10:23 a.m. ET22 minutes ago

Bayliss Wagner

Politics reporter

Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat who had been neutral in the primary, congratulated Abdul El-Sayed on Wednesday morning.

“It’s been a long primary, but now it’s time to gear up to beat Mike Rogers (again) and win up and down the ticket,” Slotkin wrote on social media. “There is nothing more important than the mission of the next 90 days: uniting, keeping this seat blue, flipping the House and Senate, and providing a real check on President Trump.”
 
 


Aug. 5, 2026, 10:15 a.m. ET31 minutes ago

Reid J. Epstein

National politics reporter
 
The left wins a nail-biter in Michigan: Here are eight takeaways from Tuesday’s primaries.


Dr. Abdul El-Sayed’s close primary victory signaled that he has work to do to unite Democrats and turn out swing voters in November. Credit:  Nick Hagen for The New York Times

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive former public health official, won a razor-thin victory in the Democratic primary for Senate in Michigan that serves as the most significant triumph for his party’s left wing this year.

Dr. El-Sayed prevailed in a highly contentious contest against Representative Haley Stevens, who argued to the end that he was unlikely to win a general election in a battleground state.

Now Dr. El-Sayed will test the longstanding progressive hope that left-wing candidates can energize enough voters to beat Republicans in swing terrain. He will face former Representative Mike Rogers, a Republican who narrowly lost the state’s 2024 Senate race and ran unopposed in this year’s primary. They are competing for the seat of Senator Gary Peters, a Democrat who is retiring.

The stakes for both Mr. Rogers and Dr. El-Sayed are perhaps higher than two years ago. Michigan is widely seen as a crucial state for Senate control. And how a progressive like Dr. El-Sayed performs in a must-win state in November is likely to have ramifications on how Democratic primary voters perceive their presidential candidates’ ideology and electability in 2028.

Here are eight takeaways from a big primary night in Michigan and four other states:
The left beat the establishment, but the results showed its limits.

Dr. El-Sayed campaigned hard against the Democratic political establishment. That was enough to win, but enough voters backed Ms. Stevens to suggest that the establishment still has plenty of influence.

Ms. Stevens showed strength among Black voters in Detroit and Flint and carried most of the state’s interior rural counties, aside from a few with college towns and resort communities.

Dr. El-Sayed was strongest in communities with young voters, college students and educated and wealthy white voters. That coalition carried him through the primary, but he will have work to do to beat Mr. Rogers in November.

In all, the Michigan map demonstrated the limitations — for now, at least — that face a dyed-in-the-wool progressive running on a foreign policy platform to the left of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.


Representative Haley Stevens, a supporter of Israel, was trailed by that position all campaign and dodged questions about her significant financial backing from pro-Israel groups.Credit...Paul Sancya/Associated Press
The ground has shifted under pro-Israel Democrats.

The Democratic Party’s rapid retreat from support for Israel has been well documented in polls, election results and votes in Congress.

But Dr. El-Sayed’s primary success in Michigan was arguably the most remarkable victory yet for the pro-Palestinian movement in the United States — and maybe the biggest setback for pro-Israel Democrats.

Dr. El-Sayed, the Michigan-born son of Egyptian immigrants, won by putting Israel squarely at the center of the campaign. He labeled Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide. He said he would cut U.S. military aid. And he said he did not believe Israel should exist as an explicitly Jewish state.

Throughout the race, Dr. El-Sayed hammered Ms. Stevens over her pro-Israel stance. Her defensiveness on the issue was clear to all: She consistently dodged questions about her support from AIPAC.

Dr. El-Sayed has said for months that if he becomes a senator, he would hope to influence U.S. policy on Israel — particularly among Democrats seeking his party’s 2028 presidential nomination. Last month, the Democratic National Committee announced that Michigan was likely to be one of the early nominating states in 2028.
AIPAC was dealt a narrow but costly defeat.

More than any other Democrat running this year, Ms. Stevens was the candidate of AIPAC.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee used its super PAC to invest more money, at least $30 million, to help her than any other outside group spent on any primary candidate in any race this year. It was almost, but not quite, enough for her to win.

The defeat, even by a narrow margin, serves as a rebuke to AIPAC, which has won far more Democratic primaries than it has lost in recent years.

Dr. El-Sayed, like other Democrats who have toppled AIPAC-backed candidates this year, leaned into the group’s antipathy for him and used it as a selling point.



Ms. Stevens ran a far quieter campaign than Dr. El-Sayed did. Credit...Nic Antaya for The New York Times; Nick Hagen for The New York Times
Stevens was unable to match El-Sayed’s gifts as a communicator.

One candidate danced to Taylor Swift videos on his social media pages. The other used her final campaign ad to complain about “cool kids on the internet.”

It was not hard to figure out which candidate was a more gifted political communicator.

Dr. El-Sayed is a skilled orator. His stump speeches are easily clipped for viral consumption online. And he also worked the state hard. Since beginning his campaign in April 2025, he crisscrossed Michigan, holding more than 500 in-person events.

Ms. Stevens, by contrast, held relatively few public events. She spoke often about her love for Michigan and its manufacturing industry — important issues in her home state but hardly ones to energize Democratic voters furious with President Trump. She was, by most accounts, good at one-on-one retail politics, but in a state with 10 million people, that can do only so much.

 
A bearded man with glasses poses for a portrait in a white button-down shirt in front of a light blue backdrop.
 

Donavan McKinney, Will Lawrence and Representative Wesley Bell won their primaries. Credit: Nick Hagen for The New York Times; William Lawrence for U.S. Congress; Eric Lee for The New York Times
 
D.S.A. candidates had a mixed night.

The primaries on Tuesday had the biggest stakes for progressive Democrats of any night on this year’s political calendar.

Dr. El-Sayed was the headliner, but three House candidates with ties to democratic socialism also faced primary voters.

Will Lawrence, a co-founder of the Sunrise Movement who once called himself a democratic socialist but no longer does, won a three-way primary for a battleground House seat in Central Michigan.

Another left-wing candidate in Michigan, Donavan McKinney, who remains a democratic socialist, narrowly defeated Representative Shri Thanedar, a Detroit congressman who was not beloved either in his district or among his congressional colleagues.

And Yousef Rabhi, a democratic socialist, ousted the incumbent mayor of Ann Arbor, Mich., Christopher Taylor.

But in Missouri, Representative Wesley Bell, a moderate, easily held off a challenge from Cori Bush, a democratic socialist whom he ousted from the seat two years ago.
 
Michigan was another defeat for Schumer.

Before this year, it had been a long time since a Democrat backed by Senator Chuck Schumer lost a Senate primary. Now it has happened twice this summer.

Mr. Schumer’s endorsement of Ms. Stevens may have signaled to donors to get behind her, but it cemented her position as the establishment candidate in a year when Democratic primary voters are furious with the establishment.

Plenty of things have gone right for Mr. Schumer this year. His recruits in Alaska, North Carolina and Ohio went unchallenged and appear in solid shape heading into November. His choice in Iowa cruised through a primary. And Ms. Stevens was not his first choice in Michigan; he initially tried to draft Gov. Gretchen Whitmer into the race.

But after Mr. Schumer’s primary stumbles in Michigan and Maine — where he recruited Gov. Janet Mills only for her to end her campaign a month before the primary — he has been left with two Democratic nominees in battleground states who have explicitly campaigned against him.

Now Mr. Schumer must make amends with Dr. El-Sayed. The minority leader is getting some practice at this: Last week, he met with Troy Jackson, the new Democratic nominee for Senate in Maine, who said he would not back Mr. Schumer for leader and said he was not sure he would accept his help in the general election. The two did eventually agree to work together.


Former Representative Mike Rogers ran unopposed in the Republican primary for Senate in Michigan. Credit: Paul Sancya/Associated Press
 
Republicans are going to go after El-Sayed hard.

Ms. Stevens said throughout the final weeks of the primary that Mr. Rogers and his fellow Republicans were itching for Dr. El-Sayed to win the primary because they thought he would be easier to beat in November.

Now Republicans will get their chance to prove Ms. Stevens correct.

Republicans are about to turn Dr. El-Sayed into a left-wing boogeyman of epic proportions. They will highlight pieces of his résumé that did not get a close vetting by Democratic voters, including his association with Hasan Piker, the left-wing streamer who once said “America deserved 9/11.” (He later walked back the remark.)

The Senate Republican campaign arm highlighted Mr. Piker’s remark, and Dr. El-Sayed’s refusal to disavow it, in a digital ad released Wednesday morning that referred to the Democratic candidate by his full given name — Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed — and called him “the most radical candidate in America.”

Whether the strategy works remains to be seen. Mr. Trump is so unpopular that Democrats are preparing to contest seats previously thought to be out of reach. But plenty of left-wing and right-wing candidates in both parties have won wave-year primaries only to blow general elections their compatriots thought were eminently winnable.

Aug. 5, 2026, 10:14 a.m. ET34 minutes ago

Bayliss Wagner

Politics reporter

In a statement, Stevens announced she would support El-Sayed in the general election and thanked her supporters.

“This was a thorough and rigorous campaign that brought out the full span of views within the Democratic Party — and that is why we have primaries,” she said. “I am proud to have put up my hand to serve and prouder to continue to work together to make sure this Senate seat remains blue, that we flip the United States Senate and continue the work for Michigan.”

Aug. 5, 2026, 10:07 a.m. ET41 minutes ago

Tim Balk

Reporting from Michigan

Representative Haley Stevens called Dr. Abdul El-Sayed to concede this morning, said Arik Wolk, a spokesman for the Stevens campaign.


Aug. 5, 2026, 9:55 a.m. ET53 minutes ago

Reid J. Epstein

National politics reporter
Abdul El-Sayed wins Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary.


Dr. Abdul El-Sayed pushed Israel to the center of the Democratic Senate primary in Michigan, criticizing the country’s actions in Gaza and promising to pull back American military support. Credit: Nick Hagen for The New York Times

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed narrowly won the Democratic primary race for Senate in Michigan on Tuesday, according to The Associated Press, giving progressives a victory that signaled liberal voters’ anti-establishment mood and shifting sentiment against Israel.

Dr. El-Sayed, 41, a former public health official, narrowly defeated Representative Haley Stevens, a four-term moderate, in a hostile race that was dominated by the politics of Israel and the role of big money in American elections.

He fiercely criticized Israel’s actions in Gaza and promised to pull back American military support, while she vowed to continue sending U.S. military aid to Israel without conditions.

While most Michigan political observers expected in the campaign’s final days that Dr. El-Sayed would prevail, and polls showed him leading by a significant amount, the close margin between him and Ms. Stevens pointed to the tough general-election battle to come for Democrats.

Dr. El-Sayed overcame more than $60 million in super PAC spending on behalf of Ms. Stevens, including at least $30 million tied to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the nation’s most influential pro-Israel group. Another $30 million came from so-called dark-money groups whose donors remain hidden.

But even as he was vastly outspent on advertising, Dr. El-Sayed turned Ms. Stevens’s financial advantage into a liability, casting his bid as a grass-roots campaign up against the well-funded establishment. “The money against the many,” as he put it in stump speeches.

His primary victory delivers another shock to a Democratic Party in which left-wing challengers across the country have ousted longtime incumbents or beaten rivals supported by party leaders in Washington.

Dr. El-Sayed was backed by leading progressives, including Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who went to Michigan to campaign for him. Ms. Stevens was supported by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, as well as Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and other prominent state Democrats.

In the general election, Dr. El-Sayed will face former Representative Mike Rogers, a Republican, in a race widely seen as crucial for control of the Senate. Mr. Rogers was a moderate Republican during his seven House terms, but like many others in his party, he has become an acolyte of President Trump. Mr. Rogers narrowly lost a 2024 Senate bid to Elissa Slotkin, even as Mr. Trump carried the state on his way back to the White House.

Democratic leaders worried — and Ms. Stevens argued — that Dr. El-Sayed could be the weaker candidate in the general election. He is a notably left-wing candidate in a battleground state, with his calls for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement and ushering in universal health care.

“We’ve got to do one thing, and that’s go beat Mike Rogers,” Ms. Stevens said in an interview last month. “We’ve got to be eyes on the prize, and that’s winning in November.”

The Michigan-born son of Egyptian immigrants, Dr. El-Sayed made no secret of his ambitions of progressive leadership within the Democratic Party. He said that he hoped to recalibrate the party’s politics on Israel and wanted to make opposition to funding its military a litmus test for Democrats running for president in 2028.

Defanging AIPAC, he argued, was crucial: “I want AIPAC to cease to be a force in Democratic primaries,” he said in an interview last month. “The best way to do that is to defeat them in a state like Michigan.”

He made much of his campaign pitch a rebuke of both the group and corporate politics. At his events, attendees chanted his slogan along with him: “Money out of politics, money in your pocket, Medicare for all.”

It was no accident that Israel emerged as a fault line in a major Democratic primary in Michigan. The state, which has large numbers of Muslim and Jewish voters, delivered a rebuke to President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in 2024, when 13 percent of Democratic primary voters voted for “uncommitted” in protest of his policy on Israel amid its war with Gaza.

Dr. El-Sayed’s base was seen as the state’s Arab and Muslim voters, as well as younger and more liberal Democrats. Ms. Stevens had pushed to win over the state’s Black voters, whom AIPAC had targeted with a flood of advertisements featuring a clip of former President Barack Obama praising Ms. Stevens during her first run for Congress in 2018.

The contest, which until early July also included Mallory McMorrow, a state senator who sought a middle ground between Ms. Stevens and Dr. El-Sayed, became quite nasty in its final weeks.

So many of Dr. El-Sayed’s supporters mocked Ms. Stevens’s mannerisms and Michigan accent that he urged them to stop making fun of her “for things that have nothing to do with her policies or politics.” In the final days before the primary, Ms. Stevens lashed out at Dr. El-Sayed, posting on social media, “Everyone in America understands you want to blame all of your problems on Jewish Americans.”

Now, Dr. El-Sayed will face the task of uniting Michigan Democrats for the general election.
 
 
 
Abdul El-Sayed Wins Democratic Senate Primary in Michigan in a Victory for the Left

Dr. El-Sayed, a progressive former public health official, narrowly defeated Representative Haley Stevens, a moderate, in a bitter primary dominated by the politics of Israel.

Listen · 5:40 minutes



Dr. Abdul El-Sayed pushed Israel to the center of the Democratic Senate primary in Michigan, criticizing the country’s actions in Gaza and promising to pull back American military support. Credit: Nick Hagen for The New York Times

by Reid J. Epstein
August 5, 2026, 
New York Times


Dr. Abdul El-Sayed narrowly won the Democratic primary race for Senate in Michigan on Tuesday, according to The Associated Press, giving progressives a victory that signaled liberal voters’ anti-establishment mood and shifting sentiment against Israel.

Dr. El-Sayed, 41, a former public health official, narrowly defeated Representative Haley Stevens, a four-term moderate, in a hostile race that was dominated by the politics of Israel and the role of big money in American elections.

He fiercely criticized Israel’s actions in Gaza and promised to pull back American military support, while she vowed to continue sending U.S. military aid to Israel without conditions.

While most Michigan political observers expected in the campaign’s final days that Dr. El-Sayed would prevail, and polls showed him leading by a significant amount, the close margin between him and Ms. Stevens pointed to the tough general-election battle to come for Democrats.

Dr. El-Sayed overcame more than $60 million in super PAC spending on behalf of Ms. Stevens, including at least $30 million tied to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the nation’s most influential pro-Israel group. Another $30 million came from so-called dark-money groups whose donors remain hidden.


But even as he was vastly outspent on advertising, Dr. El-Sayed turned Ms. Stevens’s financial advantage into a liability, casting his bid as a grass-roots campaign up against the well-funded establishment. “The money against the many,” as he put it in stump speeches.

His primary victory delivers another shock to a Democratic Party in which left-wing challengers across the country have ousted longtime incumbents or beaten rivals supported by party leaders in Washington.

Dr. El-Sayed was backed by leading progressives, including Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who went to Michigan to campaign for him. Ms. Stevens was supported by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, as well as Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and other prominent state Democrats.

In the general election, Dr. El-Sayed will face former Representative Mike Rogers, a Republican, in a race widely seen as crucial for control of the Senate. Mr. Rogers was a moderate Republican during his seven House terms, but like many others in his party, he has become an acolyte of President Trump. Mr. Rogers narrowly lost a 2024 Senate bid to Elissa Slotkin, even as Mr. Trump carried the state on his way back to the White House.

Democratic leaders worried — and Ms. Stevens argued — that Dr. El-Sayed could be the weaker candidate in the general election. He is a notably left-wing candidate in a battleground state, with his calls for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement and ushering in universal health care.

“We’ve got to do one thing, and that’s go beat Mike Rogers,” Ms. Stevens said in an interview last month. “We’ve got to be eyes on the prize, and that’s winning in November.”

The Michigan-born son of Egyptian immigrants, Dr. El-Sayed made no secret of his ambitions of progressive leadership within the Democratic Party. He said that he hoped to recalibrate the party’s politics on Israel and wanted to make opposition to funding its military a litmus test for Democrats running for president in 2028.

Defanging AIPAC, he argued, was crucial: “I want AIPAC to cease to be a force in Democratic primaries,” he said in an interview last month. “The best way to do that is to defeat them in a state like Michigan.”

He made much of his campaign pitch a rebuke of both the group and corporate politics. At his events, attendees chanted his slogan along with him: “Money out of politics, money in your pocket, Medicare for all.”

It was no accident that Israel emerged as a fault line in a major Democratic primary in Michigan. The state, which has large numbers of Muslim and Jewish voters, delivered a rebuke to President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in 2024, when 13 percent of Democratic primary voters voted for “uncommitted” in protest of his policy on Israel amid its war with Gaza.

Dr. El-Sayed’s base was seen as the state’s Arab and Muslim voters, as well as younger and more liberal Democrats. Ms. Stevens had pushed to win over the state’s Black voters, whom AIPAC had targeted with a flood of advertisements featuring a clip of former President Barack Obama praising Ms. Stevens during her first run for Congress in 2018.

The contest, which until early July also included Mallory McMorrow, a state senator who sought a middle ground between Ms. Stevens and Dr. El-Sayed, became quite nasty in its final weeks.

So many of Dr. El-Sayed’s supporters mocked Ms. Stevens’s mannerisms and Michigan accent that he urged them to stop making fun of her “for things that have nothing to do with her policies or politics.” In the final days before the primary, Ms. Stevens lashed out at Dr. El-Sayed, posting on social media, “Everyone in America understands you want to blame all of your problems on Jewish Americans.”

Now, Dr. El-Sayed will face the task of uniting Michigan Democrats for the general election.

Reid J. Epstein is a Times reporter covering campaigns and elections from Washington.

See more on: Democratic Party, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), U.S. Politics



https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/08/05/us/michigan-election-results-primary#eadaaf73-6ba6-55f0-87d2-6523d3a67d52


LiveUpdated


Aug. 5, 2026, 10:42 a.m. ET1 minute ago

Primary Elections Live Updates: El-Sayed Wins Michigan Senate Primary

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive, defeated Representative Haley Stevens, a moderate, in a Senate primary that had divided the Democrats, according to The Associated Press.


Video

Live

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed defeated Representative Haley Stevens in the Democratic Michigan Senate primary.
Latest

Pinned


Updated

Aug. 5, 2026, 10:18 a.m. ET25 minutes ago

Kellen Browning and Shane Goldmacher
Here’s the latest.

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive and vocal critic of Israel, edged Representative Haley Stevens, a moderate, early on Wednesday to win the Michigan Senate Democratic primary, according to The Associated Press, securing a high-profile victory for the ascendant political left.

In a contentious race that divided the party, Dr. El-Sayed overcame $60 million in outside money supporting Ms. Stevens, including about $32 million from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a hard-line pro-Israel group whose involvement became a source of frequent conflict in the contest.

Dr. El-Sayed will face former Representative Mike Rogers, a Republican, in a general election clash for an open battleground seat that could determine control of the Senate.

Dr. El-Sayed and his allies argued that his populist rhetoric would energize voters across the political spectrum who are unhappy with the status quo. But Democratic leaders had rallied around Ms. Stevens, a centrist and fierce ally of Israel, fearful that the left-wing views espoused by Dr. El-Sayed, a former public health official and proponent of universal health care, could imperil the party’s chances of defending an crucial open seat.

Speaking to supporters in the hours before the race was called, Dr. El-Sayed said that if he won the primary, “we’ll have taken $70 million on the chin and kept fighting back.” In a nod to the divisive nature of the primary, he added: “Tomorrow, we begin to mend fences.”

Elsewhere, results were mixed in closely watched Democratic primaries. In Missouri, the establishment struck back at the progressive left, with Representative Wesley Bell fending off a primary challenge from former Representative Cori Bush, a democratic socialist.

Ms. Bush, a critic of Israel and member of the so-called Squad — a group of progressive women of color in Congress — was ousted from her St. Louis seat by Mr. Bell two years ago and had been attempting a comeback.

But progressives scored a victory in a Michigan Democratic primary that included Lansing, where William Lawrence, an organizer, beat two centrist Democrats in a House race. He will face Representative Tom Barrett, a Republican, in the fall — a competitive contest that will test whether left-wing populism is viable in swing districts.

Here’s what else we’re covering:

Michigan defeat: Representative Shri Thanedar, a second-term Democrat, lost to the democratic socialist challenging him, State Representative Donavan McKinney, joining a wave of Democratic incumbents in Congress whom primary voters have sent packing in a surge of anti-incumbent fervor this cycle.


A Pacific primary fight: Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, an outspoken and vulnerable centrist Democrat who faced challenges from her left and right in the state’s top-two primary system, advanced to a general election against a Republican in her district in southwestern Washington state.


Control in Kansas: Cindy Holscher, a populist Democratic state senator, and State Senator Ty Masterson, a Trump-endorsed candidate, will battle for the Kansas governorship after winning their respective parties’ nominations. The winner will replace Gov. Laura Kelly of Kansas, a Democrat, who is leaving office because of term limits.


Key House matchup set in Virginia: Democratic primary voters chose former Representative Elaine Luria to face Representative Jen Kiggans, a Republican, in a House race expected to be one of the most competitive in the country this fall. The district is home to several military bases, and both women are Navy veterans.

Aug. 5, 2026, 10:42 a.m. ET4 minutes ago

Tim Balk

Reporting from Michigan

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed is holding a small rally in downtown Detroit. Mallory McMorrow, a Democratic state lawmaker who ran for Senate but suspended her campaign last month, has joined him at the event. She endorsed El-Sayed early this morning.



Aug. 5, 2026, 10:23 a.m. ET22 minutes ago

Bayliss Wagner

Politics reporter

Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat who had been neutral in the primary, congratulated Abdul El-Sayed on Wednesday morning.

“It’s been a long primary, but now it’s time to gear up to beat Mike Rogers (again) and win up and down the ticket,” Slotkin wrote on social media. “There is nothing more important than the mission of the next 90 days: uniting, keeping this seat blue, flipping the House and Senate, and providing a real check on President Trump.”



Aug. 5, 2026, 10:15 a.m. ET31 minutes ago

Reid J. Epstein

National politics reporter
The left wins a nail-biter in Michigan: Here are eight takeaways from Tuesday’s primaries.



Dr. Abdul El-Sayed’s close primary victory signaled that he has work to do to unite Democrats and turn out swing voters in November. Credit...Nick Hagen for The New York Times

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive former public health official, won a razor-thin victory in the Democratic primary for Senate in Michigan that serves as the most significant triumph for his party’s left wing this year.

Dr. El-Sayed prevailed in a highly contentious contest against Representative Haley Stevens, who argued to the end that he was unlikely to win a general election in a battleground state.

Now Dr. El-Sayed will test the longstanding progressive hope that left-wing candidates can energize enough voters to beat Republicans in swing terrain. He will face former Representative Mike Rogers, a Republican who narrowly lost the state’s 2024 Senate race and ran unopposed in this year’s primary. They are competing for the seat of Senator Gary Peters, a Democrat who is retiring.

The stakes for both Mr. Rogers and Dr. El-Sayed are perhaps higher than two years ago. Michigan is widely seen as a crucial state for Senate control. And how a progressive like Dr. El-Sayed performs in a must-win state in November is likely to have ramifications on how Democratic primary voters perceive their presidential candidates’ ideology and electability in 2028.

Here are eight takeaways from a big primary night in Michigan and four other states:
The left beat the establishment, but the results showed its limits.

Dr. El-Sayed campaigned hard against the Democratic political establishment. That was enough to win, but enough voters backed Ms. Stevens to suggest that the establishment still has plenty of influence.

Ms. Stevens showed strength among Black voters in Detroit and Flint and carried most of the state’s interior rural counties, aside from a few with college towns and resort communities.

Dr. El-Sayed was strongest in communities with young voters, college students and educated and wealthy white voters. That coalition carried him through the primary, but he will have work to do to beat Mr. Rogers in November.

In all, the Michigan map demonstrated the limitations — for now, at least — that face a dyed-in-the-wool progressive running on a foreign policy platform to the left of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.



Representative Haley Stevens, a supporter of Israel, was trailed by that position all campaign and dodged questions about her significant financial backing from pro-Israel groups.Credit...Paul Sancya/Associated Press
The ground has shifted under pro-Israel Democrats.

The Democratic Party’s rapid retreat from support for Israel has been well documented in polls, election results and votes in Congress.

But Dr. El-Sayed’s primary success in Michigan was arguably the most remarkable victory yet for the pro-Palestinian movement in the United States — and maybe the biggest setback for pro-Israel Democrats.

Dr. El-Sayed, the Michigan-born son of Egyptian immigrants, won by putting Israel squarely at the center of the campaign. He labeled Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide. He said he would cut U.S. military aid. And he said he did not believe Israel should exist as an explicitly Jewish state.

Throughout the race, Dr. El-Sayed hammered Ms. Stevens over her pro-Israel stance. Her defensiveness on the issue was clear to all: She consistently dodged questions about her support from AIPAC.

Dr. El-Sayed has said for months that if he becomes a senator, he would hope to influence U.S. policy on Israel — particularly among Democrats seeking his party’s 2028 presidential nomination. Last month, the Democratic National Committee announced that Michigan was likely to be one of the early nominating states in 2028.
AIPAC was dealt a narrow but costly defeat.

More than any other Democrat running this year, Ms. Stevens was the candidate of AIPAC.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee used its super PAC to invest more money, at least $30 million, to help her than any other outside group spent on any primary candidate in any race this year. It was almost, but not quite, enough for her to win.

The defeat, even by a narrow margin, serves as a rebuke to AIPAC, which has won far more Democratic primaries than it has lost in recent years.

Dr. El-Sayed, like other Democrats who have toppled AIPAC-backed candidates this year, leaned into the group’s antipathy for him and used it as a selling point.



Ms. Stevens ran a far quieter campaign than Dr. El-Sayed did.Credit...Nic Antaya for The New York Times; Nick Hagen for The New York Times
Stevens was unable to match El-Sayed’s gifts as a communicator.

One candidate danced to Taylor Swift videos on his social media pages. The other used her final campaign ad to complain about “cool kids on the internet.”

It was not hard to figure out which candidate was a more gifted political communicator.

Dr. El-Sayed is a skilled orator. His stump speeches are easily clipped for viral consumption online. And he also worked the state hard. Since beginning his campaign in April 2025, he crisscrossed Michigan, holding more than 500 in-person events.

Ms. Stevens, by contrast, held relatively few public events. She spoke often about her love for Michigan and its manufacturing industry — important issues in her home state but hardly ones to energize Democratic voters furious with President Trump. She was, by most accounts, good at one-on-one retail politics, but in a state with 10 million people, that can do only so much.



Donavan McKinney, Will Lawrence and Representative Wesley Bell won their primaries. Credit...Nick Hagen for The New York Times; William Lawrence for U.S. Congress; Eric Lee for The New York Times
D.S.A. candidates had a mixed night.

The primaries on Tuesday had the biggest stakes for progressive Democrats of any night on this year’s political calendar.

Dr. El-Sayed was the headliner, but three House candidates with ties to democratic socialism also faced primary voters.

Will Lawrence, a co-founder of the Sunrise Movement who once called himself a democratic socialist but no longer does, won a three-way primary for a battleground House seat in Central Michigan.

Another left-wing candidate in Michigan, Donavan McKinney, who remains a democratic socialist, narrowly defeated Representative Shri Thanedar, a Detroit congressman who was not beloved either in his district or among his congressional colleagues.

And Yousef Rabhi, a democratic socialist, ousted the incumbent mayor of Ann Arbor, Mich., Christopher Taylor.

But in Missouri, Representative Wesley Bell, a moderate, easily held off a challenge from Cori Bush, a democratic socialist whom he ousted from the seat two years ago.
Michigan was another defeat for Schumer.

Before this year, it had been a long time since a Democrat backed by Senator Chuck Schumer lost a Senate primary. Now it has happened twice this summer.

Mr. Schumer’s endorsement of Ms. Stevens may have signaled to donors to get behind her, but it cemented her position as the establishment candidate in a year when Democratic primary voters are furious with the establishment.

Plenty of things have gone right for Mr. Schumer this year. His recruits in Alaska, North Carolina and Ohio went unchallenged and appear in solid shape heading into November. His choice in Iowa cruised through a primary. And Ms. Stevens was not his first choice in Michigan; he initially tried to draft Gov. Gretchen Whitmer into the race.

But after Mr. Schumer’s primary stumbles in Michigan and Maine — where he recruited Gov. Janet Mills only for her to end her campaign a month before the primary — he has been left with two Democratic nominees in battleground states who have explicitly campaigned against him.

Now Mr. Schumer must make amends with Dr. El-Sayed. The minority leader is getting some practice at this: Last week, he met with Troy Jackson, the new Democratic nominee for Senate in Maine, who said he would not back Mr. Schumer for leader and said he was not sure he would accept his help in the general election. The two did eventually agree to work together.

Image



Former Representative Mike Rogers ran unopposed in the Republican primary for Senate in Michigan.Credit...Paul Sancya/Associated Press
Republicans are going to go after El-Sayed hard.

Ms. Stevens said throughout the final weeks of the primary that Mr. Rogers and his fellow Republicans were itching for Dr. El-Sayed to win the primary because they thought he would be easier to beat in November.

Now Republicans will get their chance to prove Ms. Stevens correct.

Republicans are about to turn Dr. El-Sayed into a left-wing boogeyman of epic proportions. They will highlight pieces of his résumé that did not get a close vetting by Democratic voters, including his association with Hasan Piker, the left-wing streamer who once said “America deserved 9/11.” (He later walked back the remark.)

The Senate Republican campaign arm highlighted Mr. Piker’s remark, and Dr. El-Sayed’s refusal to disavow it, in a digital ad released Wednesday morning that referred to the Democratic candidate by his full given name — Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed — and called him “the most radical candidate in America.”

Whether the strategy works remains to be seen. Mr. Trump is so unpopular that Democrats are preparing to contest seats previously thought to be out of reach. But plenty of left-wing and right-wing candidates in both parties have won wave-year primaries only to blow general elections their compatriots thought were eminently winnable.



Aug. 5, 2026, 10:14 a.m. ET34 minutes ago

Bayliss Wagner

Politics reporter

In a statement, Stevens announced she would support El-Sayed in the general election and thanked her supporters.

“This was a thorough and rigorous campaign that brought out the full span of views within the Democratic Party — and that is why we have primaries,” she said. “I am proud to have put up my hand to serve and prouder to continue to work together to make sure this Senate seat remains blue, that we flip the United States Senate and continue the work for Michigan.”



Aug. 5, 2026, 10:07 a.m. ET41 minutes ago

Tim Balk

Reporting from Michigan

Representative Haley Stevens called Dr. Abdul El-Sayed to concede this morning, said Arik Wolk, a spokesman for the Stevens campaign.


Aug. 5, 2026, 9:55 a.m. ET53 minutes ago

Reid J. Epstein

National politics reporter
Abdul El-Sayed wins Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary.

Image



Dr. Abdul El-Sayed pushed Israel to the center of the Democratic Senate primary in Michigan, criticizing the country’s actions in Gaza and promising to pull back American military support.Credit...Nick Hagen for The New York Times

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed narrowly won the Democratic primary race for Senate in Michigan on Tuesday, according to The Associated Press, giving progressives a victory that signaled liberal voters’ anti-establishment mood and shifting sentiment against Israel.

Dr. El-Sayed, 41, a former public health official, narrowly defeated Representative Haley Stevens, a four-term moderate, in a hostile race that was dominated by the politics of Israel and the role of big money in American elections.

He fiercely criticized Israel’s actions in Gaza and promised to pull back American military support, while she vowed to continue sending U.S. military aid to Israel without conditions.

While most Michigan political observers expected in the campaign’s final days that Dr. El-Sayed would prevail, and polls showed him leading by a significant amount, the close margin between him and Ms. Stevens pointed to the tough general-election battle to come for Democrats.

Dr. El-Sayed overcame more than $60 million in super PAC spending on behalf of Ms. Stevens, including at least $30 million tied to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the nation’s most influential pro-Israel group. Another $30 million came from so-called dark-money groups whose donors remain hidden.

But even as he was vastly outspent on advertising, Dr. El-Sayed turned Ms. Stevens’s financial advantage into a liability, casting his bid as a grass-roots campaign up against the well-funded establishment. “The money against the many,” as he put it in stump speeches.

His primary victory delivers another shock to a Democratic Party in which left-wing challengers across the country have ousted longtime incumbents or beaten rivals supported by party leaders in Washington.

Dr. El-Sayed was backed by leading progressives, including Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who went to Michigan to campaign for him. Ms. Stevens was supported by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, as well as Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and other prominent state Democrats.

In the general election, Dr. El-Sayed will face former Representative Mike Rogers, a Republican, in a race widely seen as crucial for control of the Senate. Mr. Rogers was a moderate Republican during his seven House terms, but like many others in his party, he has become an acolyte of President Trump. Mr. Rogers narrowly lost a 2024 Senate bid to Elissa Slotkin, even as Mr. Trump carried the state on his way back to the White House.

Democratic leaders worried — and Ms. Stevens argued — that Dr. El-Sayed could be the weaker candidate in the general election. He is a notably left-wing candidate in a battleground state, with his calls for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement and ushering in universal health care.

“We’ve got to do one thing, and that’s go beat Mike Rogers,” Ms. Stevens said in an interview last month. “We’ve got to be eyes on the prize, and that’s winning in November.”

The Michigan-born son of Egyptian immigrants, Dr. El-Sayed made no secret of his ambitions of progressive leadership within the Democratic Party. He said that he hoped to recalibrate the party’s politics on Israel and wanted to make opposition to funding its military a litmus test for Democrats running for president in 2028.

Defanging AIPAC, he argued, was crucial: “I want AIPAC to cease to be a force in Democratic primaries,” he said in an interview last month. “The best way to do that is to defeat them in a state like Michigan.”

He made much of his campaign pitch a rebuke of both the group and corporate politics. At his events, attendees chanted his slogan along with him: “Money out of politics, money in your pocket, Medicare for all.”

It was no accident that Israel emerged as a fault line in a major Democratic primary in Michigan. The state, which has large numbers of Muslim and Jewish voters, delivered a rebuke to President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in 2024, when 13 percent of Democratic primary voters voted for “uncommitted” in protest of his policy on Israel amid its war with Gaza.

Dr. El-Sayed’s base was seen as the state’s Arab and Muslim voters, as well as younger and more liberal Democrats. Ms. Stevens had pushed to win over the state’s Black voters, whom AIPAC had targeted with a flood of advertisements featuring a clip of former President Barack Obama praising Ms. Stevens during her first run for Congress in 2018.

The contest, which until early July also included Mallory McMorrow, a state senator who sought a middle ground between Ms. Stevens and Dr. El-Sayed, became quite nasty in its final weeks.

So many of Dr. El-Sayed’s supporters mocked Ms. Stevens’s mannerisms and Michigan accent that he urged them to stop making fun of her “for things that have nothing to do with her policies or politics.” In the final days before the primary, Ms. Stevens lashed out at Dr. El-Sayed, posting on social media, “Everyone in America understands you want to blame all of your problems on Jewish Americans.”

Now, Dr. El-Sayed will face the task of uniting Michigan Democrats for the general election.


Tuesday, August 4, 2026

FASCIST AMERICA 2026: These Are Some Very Important and Necessary Things We All Definitely Need To Know, Advocate, and Fight For In Order to Aggressively Engage and DEFEAT FASCISM In All Its Many Nefarious Guises Both in the Short And Long Term Of Our Struggle Here in the United Hates Of Hysteria. Most Importantly We Must Not Give Up, Give In, Or Capitulate in Any Way Whatsoever. The Eternal Struggle For Freedom, Justice, Equality, and Self Determination Is In Our Hands And Only We Can Take Full and Direct Responsibility For Our Own Ideas, Values, Actions and Behavior In the Face Of Our Merciless Enemies (And I Know You Know What I’m Talking About)--PART ONE

This Black Democratic Socialist Could Be the Next Democrat to Unseat an Incumbent

Zeteo

July 31, 2026

VIDEO: 

Outsiders and challengers have pulled off unlikely victories against incumbents and establishment-backed candidates all across the country. And now, another Democratic socialist is vying to pull off the next big upset in Michigan. That candidate is state Representative Donavan McKinney, running to unseat incumbent Rep. Shri Thanedar in Michigan’s 13th congressional district. McKinney joined Prem Thakker at Zeteo just days before the election to discuss how growing up in poverty and under constant threat of eviction made him the politician he is today. “I remember living out of trash bags,” he recalled. “It’s just sad that we live in the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world and we have people in such despair and such poverty but we can find money – our taxpayer money – to go to war in Iran or fund genocide across the globe, and you’re telling our folks here they can’t get the resources they justly deserve.” 

Citing Black history and the labor movement, McKinney also talked about why he’s “proud” to be a Democratic socialist, especially at a time when the media treats Black voters as a monolith of moderates. “This is a new generational wave right now,” he said. “It’s complicated, and there’s nuance, but what I see day in and day out in my district – it doesn’t matter where you live, doesn’t matter who you love, your race, how you worship, whether you live in a city or suburban…we’re all a part of the 99% no matter how you slice it.” 

Hear all this and so much more, including how McKinney first encountered the issue of Israel and Palestine only a few years ago, in the video above. 

*This interview was published a day ago on zeteo.com. If you would like access to more exclusive content like this then head over to Zeteo’s Substack and become a paid subscriber today.

Your support matters!


Chapters: 00:00

Intro 01:46
Shri Thanedar04:19
Detroit 10:26
Trash Bags to Congress 15:06
Labor Movement 20:40
Democratic Socialist 26:33
Data Centers 29:00
Change 33:30

Gaza


Subscribe to Zeteo to support independent and unfiltered journalism: 
https://zeteo.com/subscribe

GOP Racism is Driving Black Voter Turnout; the DSA Updated its Platform with Black Voters in Mind.

Lurie Daniel Favors

Streamed live 23 hours ago
 
#LDFShow
#LurieDanielFavors #LurieDanielFavorsShow

Catch the Lurie Daniel Favors Show live on Sirius XM's Urban View Channel 126, Monday - Friday 10 AM EST. The Lurie Breaks it Down Podcast is available on all podcasting networks. Learn more at LurieDanielFavors.com. 

You can also join Lurie's private online community at www.SankofaConnections.com. 

Follow Lurie:

https://www.luriedanielfavors.com/ / luriedanielfavors https://www.threads.com/@luriedanielf... https://bsky.app/profile/luriedanielf...  / luriedanielfavors #LDFShow #LurieDanielFavors #LurieDanielFavorsShow #SiriusXM #UrbanViewRadio

Can the Left Win in the Midwest? Abdul El-Sayed Says Yes.⏐The Intercept Briefing

The Intercept

The Intercept

July 31, 2026

The Intercept Briefing

On Tuesday, Abdul El-Sayed and Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., will face off in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary. The race is the next biggest test of whether progressives can win statewide, particularly in purple territory. The Michigan race is one of the most expensive primaries of the cycle. Outside groups have spent upward of $50 million in support of Stevens or against El-Sayed. Most of that money is coming from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and its affiliated groups — close to $30 million, which their largest investment ever in a single race, according to The AP. “It's just anti-democratic on its own terms,” El-Sayed, the former public health official, tells The Intercept Briefing. “I always ask people, “OK, you're covering this as a very close race, but would it be close if they didn't have $60 million to spend? Would it even be a close race at all?’” This week on The Intercept Briefing podcast, host Akela Lacy asks, can progressives win outside of blue cities? El-Sayed argues, if you focus on the issues people care about and act on them, you can: "Look, you have an option that's not bought off by all the same corporations. And that option is desperately clear about wanting you to have healthcare, and also wanting your kid to have a good school, and also making sure that there's not a data center that gets planted in your backyard to automate your job away.” Lacy explores that question further with Ryan Clancy, a Wisconsin state representative and founding member of the state legislature’s current Socialist Caucus, and Thom Hartmann, a progressive political commentator. Clancy says voters he speaks to in Milwaukee “want a fighter. People want people in office who are going to fight for the middle class, fight for actual transformative change.” He adds, “The idea that in order to win in a purple district that is roughly split between Democrats and Republicans, that you need when you're a Democrat, to look as much like a Republican as possible is just not helpful.” Polling suggests that El-Sayed has a commanding lead over Stevens in the Democratic primary. But polls for the November general election narrow sharply when El-Sayed is up against Trump-backed Republican candidate Mike Rogers; one shows Rogers beating him by 10 percentage points, which the Stevens’s campaign has leaned into. 

“We've been in this change moment. We're sick and tired of neoliberalism. We're sick and tired of Reaganism. We're sick and tired of the status quo. We're sick and tired of a dying middle class. We have been living in this moment, in my opinion, since 2000, and I think in a big way since 2008. Obama promised hope and change, and really just brought us a bunch of health insurance companies,” says Hartmann. “I'm not sure if we're there yet to the point where a good message like El-Sayed's message can overcome millions of dollars from Israel and from big corporations. That's going to be the big challenge.”


The Intercept invited Stevens on the program for an interview but as of publishing have not heard back yet. 

Full transcript: https://interc.pt/4fRLS8a

At The Intercept, we investigate powerful individuals and institutions to expose corruption and injustice. We see journalism as an instrument of civic action. We’re here to change the world, not just describe it. As a nonprofit organization, The Intercept relies on donations from our readers and listeners as a key funding source for our journalism. You can help us hold the powerful to account and tell stories you won’t find elsewhere. 

Website: https://theintercept.com/

Subscribe to our channel: https://interc.pt/subscribe

Support The Intercept:
https://join.theintercept.com/donate/...

Subscribe to our newsletter:
https://theintercept.com/newsletter/

Follow us: TikTok: / theintercept 
Twitter: https://interc.pt/twitter
Instagram: / theintercept 
Facebook: https://interc.pt/facebook

Threads: https://www.threads.net/@theintercept Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/theintercept... Mastodon: https://journa.host/@theintercept


"Palestinians are wholly excluded from the room" w/ Ta-Nehisi Coates

July 28, 2026

VIDEO:  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZrXgODaPV4

Makdisi Street

The brothers welcome journalist and author Ta-Nehisi Coates back to the show to discuss Kamala Harris’s ill-fated 2024 presidential campaign and the debacle of the Democratic Convention’s exclusion of Palestinian-American voices (about which he’s written recently for Vanity Fair), the betrayal of the radical Black tradition, tensions in the civil rights movement over the question of Palestine and the significance of the emerging break with Zionism on the American right. Check out his article:

https://www.vanityfair.com/story/the-...

Date of recording: July 13, 2026

https://truthout.org/articles/trumps-brutal-blockade-on-cuba-harkens-back-to-the-days-of-us-invasions/

News Analysis
Human Rights

 
Trump’s Brutal Blockade on Cuba Harkens Back to the Days of US Invasions


Cuba’s humanitarian crisis is the latest episode in a 128-year struggle for control over the island.


by Jonathan Ng
August 1, 2026
Truthout



View of a graffiti reading "Long Live the Revolution," in Havana, Cuba, on July 29, 2026. YAMIL LAGE / AFP via Getty Images

In recent months, President Donald Trump’s blockade against Cuba has generated blackouts and hunger, stretching society to its breaking point. Exploiting the crisis, Cuban American reactionaries across Florida are pressing for regime change. Decked in MAGA swag, they frequently gather along the palm tree-lined streets of Miami to excoriate socialism, promote escalation, and sport signs declaring “Make Cuba Great Again.” Since the war against Iran began, their demand has been simple: “Cuba next.”

While lobbying for intervention, community leaders have drafted detailed agreements for dividing the political spoils and implanting unfettered capitalism on the island. From Guantánamo Bay, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently primed activists’ expectations by declaring that Trump is “taking back our hemisphere,” insinuating the imminent use of force.

Cuban American conservatives and U.S. officials claim to champion Cuban democracy. Yet the intensified sanctions and pro-war demonstrations lay bare the violence of U.S. policy, while revealing a horrific tolerance for human suffering. Far from defending Cuban sovereignty, Washington and its reactionary allies have long attempted to thwart the island’s aspirations for self-determination. For over a century, U.S. officials have regarded Cuba as a plantation to exploit, rival to defeat, or dissenting voice to silence, never shedding their colonial outlook. The current crisis mirrors this troubled history, as policymakers and right-wing extremists revive siege warfare in the Caribbean.


The Blood-Stained Facade

The latest string of U.S. sanctions and promises to liberate the island resound with bitter irony. In 1898, Washington justified intervening in Cuba’s war for independence against Spain by citing mass starvation among civilians. Leading the charge, Sen. George Hoar declared that Madrid “deliberately [plotted] to starve them to death.” After invading, President William McKinley proclaimed Cuba’s liberation, yet refused to cede power to local revolutionaries, excluding them from negotiations with Spain.

Instead, his administration turned the island into a U.S. protectorate, while claiming that its large population of color made self-rule dangerous. Echoing this sentiment, The New York Times warned against “an irresponsible government of half-breeds,” and the San Antonio Express argued that foreign control was necessary to “save the Cubans from themselves.” For four years, U.S. military authorities attempted to disenfranchise Black citizens, established the Rural Guard to squash dissent, and oversaw a land grab by foreign businessmen, who displaced thousands of farmers.

Related Story:



News Analysis

War & Peace
Cuba Has a Rich History of International Solidarity. US Wants to Extinguish It.

Washington has long deployed economic pressure to challenge Cuba’s fiercely independent social and foreign policies.

by Jonathan Ng 


In 1901, Washington linked independence to acceptance of the Platt Amendment, which granted the United States “the right to intervene” to protect strategic interests. Sen. Orville Platt argued that it was essential for stability, since local politicians were as “irresponsible as children.” The statute allowed U.S. officials to establish a naval base in Guantánamo Bay, before again invading the island in 1906, 1912, and 1917. U.S. leaders mocked Cuba’s sovereignty. Deploying U.S. soldiers in 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt derided “that infernal little Cuban Republic,” claiming that he wanted to “wipe its people off the face of the earth.”

In large part, tensions remained high because of economic exploitation. Following the War of 1898, U.S. businessmen manipulated the widespread destruction of legal records to seize Cuban land. Between 1905 and 1911, the number of farms in Guantánamo alone fell from 1,154 to 419, as foreign investors consolidated massive sugar plantations. The sociologist Lowry Nelson observed that property disputes were “one-sided affairs,” since U.S. corporations employed high-powered lawyers and “corrupt[ed] the officials … with bribes.” Poverty spread across the island, and male unemployment rates surpassed 20 percent by 1907.

Popular outrage finally exploded in 1912, when the Independent Party of Color organized mass protests against racial and economic exclusion. In response, Secretary of State Philander Knox pressured Cuban officials to stifle the uprising by threatening another invasion. Historian Louis Pérez, Jr. emphasizes that U.S. Marines blitzed from the local naval base to protect U.S. property, freeing Cuban soldiers to undertake a cruel campaign of repression. “They have lopped off the heads of probably some six thousand negroes in this province,” a U.S. citizen in Guantánamo claimed. One Afro-Cuban resident recalled that soldiers “killed everything that was Black” and set fire to piles of bodies.

The massacre of 1912 not only showcased the racist fury of Cuba’s ruling class. It also revealed the persistence of colonial control, as the threat of further U.S. intervention supercharged the violence. For decades, Washington portrayed such policies as a form of benign paternalism that guaranteed Cuba’s sovereignty. Yet the Platt Amendment’s shadow encouraged Cuban leaders to prioritize the rights of foreign investors over demands for social justice, prompting former U.S. Ambassador Sumner Welles to conclude in 1934 that Cuba’s government was “merely a facade” for “American interests.”
Unwanted Guests

Before the Cuban Revolution, U.S. businessmen oversaw the island’s economy, while backing President Fulgencio Batista, who tortured dissidents and received suitcases of bribes each week. Historian Van Gosse explains that Batista cemented Havana’s status as a hotbed of vice and colonial desire, where tourists like future President John F. Kennedy drank, gambled, and watched live sex shows in segregated luxury. Overseeing a tropical tax haven, Cuban authorities allowed U.S. investors to remit profits, while controlling entire industrial sectors and 40 percent of sugar fields.

In 1956, Fidel Castro returned from exile to lead a popular uprising that aimed to dismantle the semi-colonial order. President Dwight D. Eisenhower mobilized to help Batista quell the insurrection. A CIA officer recalled that agents “penetrated all institutions” of Cuban life, and U.S. diplomats pursued “all means short of outright intervention” to block Castro from power. While providing military aid, the Pentagon also allowed Batista to launch air strikes from its Guantánamo naval base, razing hamlets with B-26 bombers. In a theatrical twist, rebels then seized U.S. Marines as hostages, forcing Eisenhower to downgrade cooperation.

After their victory in 1959, revolutionaries strove to overcome the legacy of colonialism, successfully eliminating malnutrition and racial segregation. Rebel leader Raúl Castro announced that Cubans had finally “finish[ed] the War of Independence.”

Yet again, Washington conspired to stifle the revolution, fearing that it would undercut U.S. imperial authority and inspire leftists worldwide. In 1960, the State Department contemplated “every possible means” to “weaken the economic life of Cuba,” paving the way for a decades-long blockade. U.S. authorities even impounded Fidel Castro’s airplane, when he visited the United Nations that year. While tensions grew, Under Secretary of State Chester Bowles lamented the Kennedy administration’s “lack of moral integrity,” as officials sponsored assassination plots and terrorist attacks against Cuba. Asked about invasion plans, presidential advisor Adolf Berle exclaimed, “Let ’er rip.”

After the U.S.-backed incursion failed, Castro stationed Soviet missiles on the island in self-defense. Furious, Kennedy risked nuclear war to remove them. Revealingly, he worried that the missiles made Cubans “look like they’re coequal with us.”

More than anything, the U.S. government’s refusal to leave Guantánamo illustrated its colonial mindset. For decades, policymakers exploited the enclave to promote subversion. Island scholars claim that the base became “an important foot bridge”
for counterrevolutionaries. One Cuban American operative recalled that he simply “jumped the fence,” after the Bay of Pigs invasion failed. Repeatedly, U.S. soldiers shot Cuba’s sentries, killed local civilians, and hurled stones and insults. In 1964 alone, the revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara reported 1,323 provocations at the border, including “acts of sexual exhibitionism.”

Before the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, U.S. officials portrayed Cuba as an unrestrained aggressor. But the truth was the reverse: U.S. policymakers opposed the revolution because it targeted the legacy of the Platt Amendment and crushing exploitation.


Colonizing the Opposition

After the Soviet Union collapsed, the State Department revamped the blockade and stimulated Cuban dissent, hoping to erase what remained of global socialism. Between 1996 and 2011, authorities allocated $205 million for regime change on the island.

In particular, Washington financed media outlets to stir discontent and orient government critics. The National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, and other institutions funded dissident newspapers such as CubaNet, ADN Cuba, El Estornudo, El Toque, and Diario de Cuba. In 2010, policymakers also debuted the social media platform, ZunZuneo, to organize “smart mobs,” and later, spread anti-government hashtags in a failed “Bay of Tweets” in 2021. A former senior U.S. intelligence analyst, Fulton Armstrong, stressed that the policy put Cuba in an impossible bind: “We win if the opposition media gain a foothold, and we win if they provoke government repression,” which would further legitimize U.S.-backed dissent.

This cynical logic equally applied to support for human rights activists. Most notably, Washington helped turn the Ladies in White into international icons of resistance. Cuban women established the group in 2003 after authorities imprisoned their relatives, who allegedly received U.S. financing for political subversion. Ironically, the Ladies then used foreign funds to promote the release of “political prisoners” and intensifying economic sanctions.

Leaked cables reveal that U.S. diplomats often collaborated with the group, while requesting covert financial aid from Washington. Chief of Mission Michael Parmly reported that he met with “[l]eading members” to coordinate tactics. At one session, co-founder Berta Soler lamented the challenge of smuggling money “from a private organization in the United States.”

U.S. officials also cultivated charismatic opposition leaders such as Oswaldo Payá, who became the leading anti-government critic in Cuba. In 2012, Payá died in a car accident. The driver, Ángel Carromero, was a far-right activist from Spain illegally funneling cash to him. Notorious for speeding, Carromero had received 42 traffic tickets from the Spanish government. Nonetheless, Washington and the Payá family claimed that Cuban authorities assassinated Oswaldo by forcing his car off the road.

Relying on Carromero’s testimony, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights blamed Cuba for the crash in 2023, while U.S. leaders venerated the deceased activist as a martyr. Afterward, the Trump administration strong-armed members of the Organization of American States into placing Oswaldo’s daughter, Rosa María Payá, onto the commission. Human rights experts feared “conflicts of interest,” since her anti-government activism would tarnish the body’s “appearance of independence.” In response, the State Department secured her nomination by threatening aid cuts to states that opposed it. Payá now exploits the position and her U.S.-sponsored nonprofit organization to promote regime change against progressive governments across the hemisphere, citing the violent 2019 coup in Bolivia as a model.

In short, U.S. officials have fostered political division in Cuba for decades. Rather than strengthen democracy, they chose to colonize the opposition. In turn, prominent government critics pursued counterrevolution over reform, as they competed for foreign support. Projecting an imperial forcefield, U.S. power remained discreet yet suffocating. Policymakers were too weak to uproot socialism, but strong enough to keep Cuba frozen in an unending Cold War.


The Politics of Hunger

Since 2017, the United States has drastically tightened the blockade against Cuba, asserting extraterritorial sovereignty over the island. Both Republicans and Democrats backed sanctions to court the votes of Cuban Americans in Florida, as many drifted into the MAGA camp. Celebrating this shift, the Ladies in White dubbed Trump the “Achilles heel” of socialism.

A high-tech form of siege warfare, the blockade prevents Cuba from accessing financial markets, oil, agricultural supplies, and more. During the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. officials literally tried to asphyxiate the island, blocking the export of oxygen and ventilators. Since 1992, the United Nations has passed 33 resolutions denouncing the blockade, which it says inflicts incalculable losses running into the trillions of dollars.

This year, Trump justified escalating sanctions by citing the Monroe Doctrine, which U.S. leaders invoked to invade Cuba in 1898. Ironically, he portrayed Cuban socialism as undemocratic, while interfering in elections in Argentina, Honduras, and Colombia to advance the far-right realignment of the region. He also pardoned the former Honduran president, Juan Orlando Hernández, for cocaine trafficking, so he could help isolate Cuba and other leftist governments. In leaked audio files, Hernández and his colleagues boast about plans to “eradicate the cancer of the left,” as well as a “new North American base” in Honduras “for conflicts… [with] Cuba.”

More than anyone, Cuban American extremists propel the latest wave of aggression. Despite espousing democracy, their leaders exemplify the strident conservativism and vulgar corruption of the Batista dictatorship, while pushing Cuba toward humanitarian collapse. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s main political backers, the Fanjul brothers, run a sugar plantation that employs forced labor. Likewise, Trump’s principal adviser on Cuba, Mauricio Claver-Carone, is notorious for sexual and financial misconduct. More broadly, the Cuban American National Foundation, Cuban Democratic Directorate, and other pillars of the Cuban American lobby have misused federal funds, violently assaulted critics, or organized terrorist attacks against the island.

Leveraging her human rights credentials, Payá now leads Pasos de Cambio, a coalition of counterrevolutionary groups, and has signed a “Liberation Agreement” advocating regime change. Island residents call the blockade “genocide,” reporting skyrocketing infant mortality rates and starvation. By contrast, Payá’s colleague Orlando Gutiérrez-Boronat of the Assembly of the Cuban Resistance dubs it “a great achievement by Cuban exiles,” claiming that it grants them the legitimacy to govern Cuba.

Pandering to supporters, Trump recently celebrated the 1898 invasion, before implying that a new era of colonialism has begun: “Cuba … is coming our way.” Afterward, Payá praised the president, recognizing “the historical parallels” and insisting his government is “the best ally of the Cuban people.”

As war drums sound, Rubio demands that UN members “refrain from delivering any remarks” critical of U.S. policy or face retaliation. The Pentagon is considering plans for an aerial invasion of Cuba. And U.S. legislators who visited the island this July warn that sanctions are turning it into a “silent Gaza,” systematically strangling Cuban society.

Ultimately, Cuba’s humanitarian crisis is the latest episode in a 128-year struggle for control over the island. The Platt Amendment and Monroe Doctrine have morphed into the “Donroe Doctrine,” making unprovoked aggression a strategic principle. Legally speaking, the blockade is colonialism in all but name: an extraterritorial assertion of sovereignty that aims to starve Cubans, capsize their economy, and bring them to their knees. As Trump and his allies target Cuba, island residents continue a tradition of unbending resistance against U.S. colonialism and the headwinds of history.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Jonathan Ng

Jonathan Ng is a postdoctoral fellow at the John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth College.


https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/in-the-lobby-of-hope-and-change/?mc_cid=7b485748ec&mc_eid=25f4fa030

Architecture
Cities
Democrats
Dispatch
U.S.


PHOTO: Michelle Obama, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton during the dedication ceremony for the opening of the Barack Obama Presidential Center in John Lewis Plaza on June 18 in Chicago. Image: Win McNamee/Getty Images 

Politics

In the Lobby of Hope and Change

The Obama Presidential Center monumentalizes a liberalism still incapable of seeing its flaws.

by Benjamin Balthaser 
July 27, 2026
Boston Review


[This essay is featured in our Summer 2026 issue.]

An anecdote at the end of Ta-Nehisi Coates’s We Were Eight Years in Power (2017) neatly condenses the felt contradictions of Barack Obama’s legacy. In early 2016, as Black Lives Matter was growing rapidly, Ayọ Tometi, one of the movement’s founders, relayed the group’s decision to refuse a meeting with Obama. Without the “space to have a real heart-to-heart,” she said, a meeting would be “a disservice to the movement.” Obama responded by scolding BLM’s leaders, insisting the goal of activism is “to get you at the table” and “prepare an agenda that is achievable.” In an interview with Coates, he expressed a more personal frustration: “You feel like saying to these folks, ‘Don’t you think if I could do it, I [would] have just done it? Do you think that the only problem is that I don’t care enough about the plight of poor people, or gay people, or immigrants?’”

The building is not all that different from what many feel about Obama himself: gravity defying, seemingly impossible, yet also a real, apparently indomitable force in American liberalism.

The tension between a presidency bound simultaneously by the half-imposed, half-embraced strictures of neoliberalism—an “achievable” agenda, given the limits of office—and the mantle of representation not only of the left, but specifically a Black left, is one that I carried with me as I visited the Barack Obama Presidential Center a week before its official opening in June. By now the photographs have made the rounds: an imposing obelisk, windowless, washed stone gray, eight stories and nearly 250 feet tall, towers over Hyde Park and Woodlawn in Chicago’s South Side. It’s not all that different from what many feel about Obama himself: gravity defying, singular, seemingly impossible, yet also a real, apparently indomitable force in American liberalism. The building reflects both power and isolation, anchoring the historically underdeveloped and redlined neighborhoods it looms over while clearly standing apart from them. One can see it as a testament to “defying history,” as Coates puts it, in all the ambivalence of that phrase.

The building’s architects explained the obelisk was meant to represent “cupped hands,” while an architecture critic notes the blunt tower of stone epitomizes University of Chicago brutalism. As I approached the Center with advance tickets a friend received by virtue of being in Obama’s graduating class at Occidental, I wasn’t sure what to expect. I had been walking by the construction site for years as a resident of Chicago’s Hyde Park; it didn’t seem possible that I could stroll over and just walk inside. Tometi’s remark about proximity to power suddenly seemed a portentous warning.

It was hard to know what I’d walked into. Past the security desk I turned a corner and was greeted by a concrete wall, on which black, unadorned letters spell out Hope and Change Lobby. The name is doubly strange: not only are we still waiting on hope and change, but there is also nowhere to sit. In lieu of wraparound couches or ferns, the space hosts a bending staircase down to the gift shop and diner and a corridor off to the left. My friend and I stood for a minute, a bit lost and adrift, until we saw a museum docent directing another group toward an escalator on the other side of the wall.

It’s on the second floor that the exhibit opens, with twin narratives: of Obama’s parents meeting as students at the University of Hawai’i in 1960, and of the social movements that defined the decade. There are original posters from the 1980s anti-apartheid movement—a Black man opening a door of Africa and out into the world—along with a banner from the United Farm Workers, a campaign poster for Shirley Chisholm, a Malcolm X poster, an original copy of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, anti–Vietnam War fliers, fliers printed by the National Organization for Women, a pair of boxing gloves signed by Muhammad Ali. Protest buttons are hung on a black velvet mount. All of these are intertwined with the stories of a young Obama and photos of his parents as a good-looking couple and of his grandparents in Kansas.

As I wound through the signs and photos, I saw images of Obama in Chicago teaching law and sitting in meetings with a clipboard, of Harold Washington, the Black Panther Party’s Rainbow Coalition, and Jesse Jackson’s later iteration of it. As you move through the floors, you hear the disembodied voice of Obama narrating his story on a video montage looping through his life and his odes to the possibility of progress through democratic struggle. But the presidency itself, it seemed, barely registers. As one ascends, narrative storytelling gives way to ceremonial objects: Michelle Obama’s inaugural red-and-black dress, Obama’s Air Force One leather jacket, a life-sized model of the Resolute Desk, a basketball, a seder plate, White House Christmas tree ornaments. About Obama’s policy accomplishments, such as they were—even the Affordable Care Act—relatively little is said.

The final floor, six levels up, had the first window I saw, overlooking the entire South Side. It was breathtaking: the lines of trees and dense neighborhoods fading into prairie, haze and vista. Above, wrapped into a skylight, hangs an abstract painting of Obama’s speeches, scrambled into select phrases—freedom, rights, responsibilities, Trayvon Martin, all wending their way to heaven.

I asked my friend to sit down. I was feeling amazed, in both the common and the old sense of the word. Climbing up this narrative staircase felt like wandering through a maze of passageways only to arrive at a cul-de-sac of light. Obama, it struck me, told the story of a liberal, progressive America through his own personal rise as president. It is a narrative as compelling as it is chilling in its grandiose simplicity. I was reminded how much narrative and national force was invested in the personal fortunes of Obama as redemption for this nation’s many crimes and inequities. Rather than broad social movements that might undo structures of racialized capitalism, we were offered a single person’s ascent to leadership—a fable in which his rise, and the moral and political redemption of the nation, became one and the same. The imposition of Obama’s voice over images of Malcolm X and the Panthers and Harold Washington tells exactly this story: Obama as compensation, culmination, deliverance.

I was suddenly brought back to election night in 2008. For a brief moment there was, I remember, a national euphoria, or at least a liberal euphoria. America elected a Black president. The thought was electric. In San Diego, where I lived at the time, there was a wild joy in the streets: people hugged, shared drinks, joints, danced on tables in bars. In this segregated city whose downtown had always been reserved for tourists and Navy officers, the city center was flooded with Black men and women, young and old, waving American flags, singing, and lighting firecrackers. Even I, who had doorknocked for Obama in New Hampshire but very privately voted the Green Party in California, felt swept up in the joy. Maybe this grumpy Marxist was wrong about America for once?

Of course, the presidency proved as far from those euphoric crowds that fall night in Southern California as the killing fields of Afghanistan are from Hyde Park, Chicago. Obama governed precisely as he said he would: as a believer in “markets” and in compromise with the GOP.

In many ways, Donald Trump is the ghost haunting the Center—the emblem of political realities that Obama still refuses to name.

He followed the neoliberal restraints of previous decades, despite winning a mandate for “change” amid the greatest economic crisis since the Depression. His appointment of Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel, and Timothy Geithner signaled continuity rather than rupture, reassuring anxious business and party leadership there would be no “violence to the social order,” no “wrenching of political and economic norms,” as Obama would go on to write in his post-presidential memoir. The “stimulus” he oversaw was far smaller than progressive economists called for, doing little to bail out underwater homeowners and next to nothing for the largest loss of Black wealth since Reconstruction. Like Dodd-Frank, the Affordable Care Act was designed to shore up chaotic markets with subsidies and regulation. These limited economic reforms were combined with a draconian deportation machine—the Obama administration still has deported more people than any other administration, including Trump’s—and Obama’s “surge” in Afghanistan only transferred American-led death squads from Iraq to Central Asia.

Of course, all this conservatism—in personal style and politics—did not prevent the vicious backlash after a “skinny Black guy with a funny name” (as Obama described himself in 2008) won an office that had been exclusively held by white, mostly Anglo-Protestant men since the nation’s founding. Racist cartoons of Obama were distributed by GOP clubs and GOP-leaning conventions; Sarah Palin referred to Obama’s “shuck-and-jive schtick”; Newt Gingrich called Obama a “food-stamp president”; Tea Party activists waved Confederate flags and signs saying “Go back to Kenya.” Perhaps most insidious of all was the “birther” conspiracy peddled by Donald Trump, claiming that Obama was not born in the United States and thus ineligible to run for president.

In many ways, Trump is the ghost haunting the Obama Center—the emblem of political realities that Obama still refuses to name. The exhibit’s total silence about the current president may not be surprising, but it’s not possible to understand Obama’s legacy without considering the rise of white nationalism in his wake. Coates’s argument in Eight Years is simple: Obama was “one of the greatest presidents” the United States ever had, and in response, a country founded on white entitlement mobilized a race riot in the form of a chief executive. There is no denying the counterrevolution; as former Fox News host–turned-podcaster Megyn Kelly put it last September, “We haven’t felt like ourselves since Barack Obama,” and Trump “was the antidote.” But Obama’s presidency was hardly revolutionary in the first place. Coates’s encomiums amount to a cultural argument for a president whose achievements were primarily cultural: his invocation that Trayvon Martin “could be my son,” his singing of “Amazing Grace” in Charleston’s Mother Emanuel AME Church, the small Black child touching Obama’s hair in the Oval Office.

And yet it is part of the mystification and reality of race—even for Coates—that it can transcend politics, indeed is perhaps the only stable referent in American political life. As much as Obama articulated his own life as a symbol of a changed America, he is merely one of many centrist candidates to be swallowed whole by the rising tide of the far right in the wake of the Great Recession, decades of market orthodoxy, and the hegemony of a tepid liberalism hostile, at its core, to social transformation. From the AfD in Germany to the Independence Party in the UK, the near victory of Marine Le Pen in France, and beyond, a xenophobic, nationalist populism has gained steam where progressive parties promised to end neoliberalism but in the end were buried by it.

Coates himself seems to have come around to the notion that not all is well in the party of trickle-down multiculturalism. In a recent essay for Vanity Fair, he suggests that Kamala Harris’s political failures are perhaps the greater symbol of the crisis of liberalism. If the ascent of Obama and Harris was supposed to represent the fulfillment of 1960s Black politics, the party’s stance on Palestine represents its moral bankruptcy. Coates’s widely quoted line from a conversation at the University of Michigan last year—if Democrats “can’t draw the line at genocide,” they “probably can’t draw the line at democracy”—could be said of many things the Democrats can’t seem to draw lines at, from obscene wealth inequality to the civil rights of trans people. But nothing says it more clearly than holding a convention showcasing the diversity of America (in Chicago, no less) while blocking a Palestinian American lawmaker from speaking about a genocide being carried out with direct funding and support from the United States.

Still, not all of Obama’s legacy should be considered lost. His win and reelection (albeit while losing Congress) demonstrated two vital things: that a multiracial coalition can win national elections by mobilizing working-class voters and voters of color, and, as important, that a progressive coalition does not need to wait for a white man to lead it.

As much as Obama articulated his own life as a symbol of a changed America, he is merely one of many centrist candidates to be swallowed whole by the rising tide of the far right.

The organization that has most fully embraced these two facts has been the Democratic Party’s sharpest critic on the left, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Rather than reduce Obama’s legacy to a cynical branding campaign, it recognizes a real contradiction: Obama mobilized millions of new voters and formidably challenged white racism, yet deference to the structures and strictures of neoliberalism meant these new voters were left with no meaningful material improvement to their lives, and no organization to mobilize them to resist the reactionary backlash.

After decades as just another marginal organization on the socialist left, DSA was reborn in 2016 with a surge of new activists, becoming a far more radical organization in the process as it broke with its historical support for moderate Democrats and liberal Zionism. Its fundamental message was that the Democratic Party’s claim to fulfill the promise of an inclusive democracy was broken—fatally captured by a Washington consensus insistent on tinkering at the edges of problems in order to uphold “political and economic norms,” both in the United States and abroad. Today DSA’s membership rolls have exploded to more than 100,000, while Zohran Mamdani, Rashida Tlaib, Darializa Avila Chevalier, and others form the largest elected body of socialists since the days of Eugene Debs, coming to power on a platform of proposals Obama and his heirs have scorned: Medicare for All, Palestine solidarity, a Green New Deal, the abolition of ICE.

People believe in this program because it clearly seeks to dismantle imperial neoliberalism, not to rescue and stabilize it. While they may have walked out from the obelisk of Obama’s party, they are, in another sense, the true heirs of his promise.

Independent and nonprofit, Boston Review relies on reader funding. To support work like this, please donate here.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:


Benjamin Balthaser is Associate Professor of Multi-Ethnic U.S. Literature at Indiana University, South Bend. His latest book is Citizens of the Whole World: Anti-Zionism and the Cultures of the American Jewish Left.


https://truthout.org/articles/democratic-socialists-outpoll-maga-candidates-among-voters/
 
Democratic Socialists Outpoll MAGA Candidates Among Voters

Additional polling has revealed that most Americans back many of the basic tenets that democratic socialists promote.


by Chris Walker
July 20, 2026
Truthout




Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani votes in the local election at Frank Sinatra School of the Arts High School.Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images

A new poll demonstrates that voters are more likely to support a self-described democratic socialist candidate for office than someone who calls themselves a supporter of the “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) Trump-endorsed political movement.

The CNBC survey, published last week, asked respondents to say whether they’d be more or less supportive of candidates with those labels. Thirty-two percent of voters said they’d be more likely to back a person calling themselves a democratic socialist.

Conversely, 27 percent said the same thing when the candidate in question calls themselves a MAGA-backer, while only 29 percent said they’d be more likely to back a candidate who was directly endorsed by President Donald Trump.

The poll’s results indicate that democratic socialism is presently more popular in the U.S. than the president’s MAGA movement.

The poll shows that democratic socialists still face challenges in courting voters, with 50 percent of respondents saying they would be less likely to support a candidate who identifies as one. But the numbers suggest that democratic socialist candidates may nonetheless have better prospects in a general election than Republicans endorsed by Trump, as 52 percent of respondents said they would be less likely to vote for a Trump-endorsed candidate, while 57 percent said the same of a self-described MAGA candidate.
 
Related Story:



News

Politics & Elections
Corporate Democrats Are Mobilizing to Counter the Rise of Democratic Socialists


Fifteen centrist Democrats announced their support of a pro-capitalism and pro-law enforcement manifesto.


by Brad Reed, CommonDreams


The poll demonstrates that establishment Democrats’ concerns over democratic socialists winning in primaries — and their claims that such candidates are “unelectable” in the general election races — are likely overblown. Indeed, several other polls have shown that voters support many of the positions that democratic socialists are advocating, including:

Expanding workers’ rights and supporting unions;


Expanding access to health care, including implementing a Medicare for All system above the current capitalistic model;


Funding additional public services by raising taxes on the rich and on extreme wealth;


Abolishing problematic federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which voters have lost confidence in over the past year;


And substantially raising the current federal minimum wage.

Other past polls have shown that the term “socialist” isn’t as harmful politically as centrist and establishment Democratic Party members may think — a Gallup poll from 2019, for example, found that 44 percent of voters would be open to “some form of socialism.” That number could actually be much higher, as several federal programs are socialist by definition (including Medicare and Social Security).

Despite growing acceptance of democratic socialism among the U.S. voting public, Democratic politicians and centrist supporters of the Democratic Party have spent considerable time this election season criticizing the movement.

“Yes, we want our Democratic Party to be a big tent,” CNN’s Van Jones recently wrote on X. “But we don’t need ‘party poopers. So STOP pooping in the punch bowl.”

Following New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s endorsement of democratic socialists in House Democratic primary contests (and their subsequent wins) this year, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) took an antagonistic tone, stating that Mamdani has “work to do in terms of the conversations that he’s going to have with members of Congress moving forward.”

However, some Democratic politicians are taking the opposite approach, and have been more welcoming of democratic socialists into the party.

“I think that it’s actually a sign of a party that is alive and growing when there’s a contest of ideas inside the party,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) said in late June.

“I’m not a democratic socialist, but I do believe that the Democratic Party has been historically way too timid in taking on corporate power,” Murphy added. “I think our party should have bigger ideas.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Chris Walker

Chris Walker is a news writer at Truthout, based in Madison, Wisconsin. Focusing on both national and local topics since the early 2000s, he has produced thousands of articles analyzing the issues of the day and their impact on people. He can be found on most social media platforms under the handle @thatchriswalker.
 
Francesca Hong holds rally with Hasan Piker and Ilhan Omar in Milwaukee

Klettocracy and Wisconsin Examiner
August 2, 2026

VIDEO:


MILWAUKEE

Hasan Piker and Ilhan Omar join Francesca Hong on the campaign trail for Governor of Wisconsin. Polls find that Francesca Hong has a big lead in the Democratic primary for Wisconsin Governor. She has a strong chance to become the first Democratic Socialist Governor in United States history. Piker, Omar, and Hong deliver their remarks to a boisterous crowd at South Milwaukee High School, on August 2nd, 2026. filmed and edited by Jonathan Klett ‪@klettocracy‬ done with support from Wisconsin Examiner ‪@wisconsinexaminer49‬

00:00 Hasan Piker
09:20 Ilhan Omar
23:00 Francesca Hong


@FrancescaHongWI‬ ‪@Hasan‬


https://hammerandhope.org/article/boots-riley-i-love-boosters
 
HAMMER AND HOPE:  A MAGAZINE OF BLACK POLITICS AND CULTURE
 
Boots Riley Wants You to Organize
 
The filmmaker’s second feature, “I Love Boosters,” is a surrealist, anti-capitalist roller coaster.





There are many points of entry to understanding Boots Riley, the 55-year-old filmmaker, artist, organizer, and self-proclaimed communist. The New York Times once called him a “veteran hustler,” an apt title considering that he’s been working since the age of 10. (His first job was selling newspaper subscriptions.) Ask Gen X or millennial men how they know Riley, and they’ll probably mention his work as a front man for the Coup, a politically conscious hip-hop group with whom he released six critically acclaimed albums between the early 1990s and 2010s. The chronically online might know Riley from engaging critics, haters, and fans on social media. And the rest of us recognize his name from the movies.

In 2018, Riley released his propulsive directorial debut Sorry to Bother You. The surrealist project, which was set and shot in Riley’s hometown of Oakland, took years to develop and introduced his artistic and political sensibilities to a new audience. Starring LaKeith Stanfield and Tessa Thompson, the satire follows the down-on-his-luck Cassius (Stanfield), who finds himself climbing the corporate ladder at a sinister telemarketing company thanks to a “white voice” he uses to speak to customers. It’s soon revealed that his success is undermining a broader unionizing effort.

When I spoke to Riley in April, he told me he considers Sorry to Bother You to be the most effective piece of art he has ever created. Not only were responses to the film overwhelmingly positive, but some viewers went out of their way to tell the director their MAGA-aligned parents loved its anti-exploitation themes. Riley said, “They hadn’t been taught yet that they shouldn’t like it” — the “it” being capitalism. He also heard from people who played the film for their co-workers during union drives that proved successful. All this reconfirmed for the director that most people are to the left of not just Republicans but also Democrats, even if they don’t know it yet. It also reaffirmed a realization that Riley said came after many years of organizing: People rely on music and movies to inform their ideas of the world, and to accomplish his political goals, he needed to tap in. Sorry to Bother You was both a critical and a commercial success, and in 2024, Neon, the company that distributed Parasite and Anora, green-lit Riley’s second feature I Love Boosters with a $20 million budget, the company’s most expensive film to date.

I Love Boosters landed in theaters in late May and represents an advancement in Riley’s artistry. After Sorry to Bother You, the director went on to helm the critically acclaimed television miniseries I’m a Virgo, which follows a 13-foot-tall 19-year-old who becomes radicalized by a group of teenage political activists. With I Love Boosters, Riley builds on his thematic interests in political organizing and anti-capitalist storytelling while embracing an even more surrealist and over-the-top style. The film, starring Keke Palmer, Naomi Ackie, Taylour Paige, Poppy Liu, Eiza González, and Demi Moore, centers on a group who shoplift stolen luxury clothing and sell it at a discount to their community. Led by Corvette (Palmer), the boosters uncover nefarious corporate plots and labor violations that force them to consider what it really takes to seize the means of production. The film is energetic and, at times, ridiculous, and it’s in that latter register that Riley engages in a clever subterfuge: By staging a heightened version of our reality, he exposes its inner workings and increases the potency of his political messaging.

When I met Riley at the Criterion office, where he was filming his Closet Picks, on a beautiful afternoon in early April, he greeted me as if we were old friends who hadn’t seen each other for years. “I don’t remember you being so tall!” he said. Days before our interview, I had spotted the director in the audience at the first week of previews of Proof, the Broadway revival of David Auburn’s play. With his signature Uptown Yardie crown (this one in blue) and a bright fuzzy orange jacket, Riley stood out in a sea of mutedly dressed theatergoers. After I introduced myself, a fan sheepishly asked him for a selfie (which he kindly obliged); another audience member whispered, “I love that guy.”

On our way out of the Criterion building, Riley conversed with our fellow elevator passengers, one of whom complimented his hat. Riley thanked the man and joked, “It’s where I keep my three other hats!” Later that afternoon, during our lunch at the Soho Grand Hotel, Riley treated every employee like a longtime pal, dapping up the hotel staff despite being in town only briefly to promote his film. As we talked, I wondered how much of Riley’s amiable disposition had to do with the kinds of jobs he’s had over the years. He’s organized with farmworkers, played in a band, and worked at a call center — a customer service job I consider unlike any other.

Throughout my late teens and early twenties, my most stable work experience was in call centers. My recurring stress dreams as a college student took place not in classrooms but in the fluorescent gray maze of cubicles where I’d sit for eight hours an evening, solving internet tech support issues for angry customers all over Canada. In one nightmare, I got fired because I kept forgetting the word for “modem.” Riley and I shared a laugh when I told him about my time in the customer service mines alongside a cast of colorful characters bound by a mutual need to make money. Working at call centers is one of the more dispiriting service jobs, because you spend hours being yelled at and feeling completely powerless. I asked Riley when he knew the life he currently has was possible, and his honesty was refreshing when he told me he saw his work as supplementary to his real goals. “I want to build this movement,” Riley said. “The job is whatever a job is, and hopefully you get a job where you can organize. That’s always the idea.”

Riley was born in Chicago in 1971 to Anitra Patterson and Walter Riley, who were both organizers. Shortly after his birth, his family relocated to Detroit, where his father served as a local leader of the Progressive Labor Party and his mother led the organization’s youth work. When Riley was six years old, his father split from the party over disagreements about their approach to organizing and moved the family to the Bay Area, where Riley’s parents had met. In the introduction to Jesse Strauss’s book Civil Rights and Structural Attacks: Conversations with Walter Riley, Riley reflects on how his household was a hub for organizers: “I was always just hanging on people’s legs while they talked, warming up to a post-meeting card party with music playing and people drinking beer and smoking cigarettes,” he writes. Growing up in this environment taught Riley how to bring people together, but he was never pushed into political organizing. His parents encouraged him to find his own path.

When he was a preteen Riley decided he wanted a moped. He got a job selling magazine subscriptions, and then graduated to delivering newspapers with older kids in his neighborhood, which required him to get up at four in the morning to knock on doors. In his teenage years, he continued doing almost any work he found, from washing dishes to handing out fliers advertising local pizza spots.

In the spring of 1986, when Riley was a teenager, a youth organizer from the Progressive Labor Party invited him to a weekend excursion with other people his age. He didn’t take the organizer’s entreaty seriously but halfheartedly agreed to meet the following Saturday. “I didn’t plan on being there,” Riley told me. The next weekend, he found himself in a van full of cute girls, heading to a beach in Santa Cruz. But there was a catch: Before the crew could lounge by the seaside, they had to stop by the Watsonville Canning and Frozen Food Company to support striking workers. The labor action began in September 1985 after management tried to decrease unionized employees’ wages by roughly 30 percent.

While in the van, Riley noticed the girls “talking about stuff that was on the news,” he said. “I was like, Wait, you’re really listening to that stuff?” At that point in his life, the filmmaker was more focused on comic books than geopolitics. But it became clear during the ride that his peers were paying attention because they felt they could do something about the state of the world. “I started the ride off being attracted to these girls, and I ended it wanting to be them,” Riley said. He joined the Progressive Labor Party that year, about a decade after his father had left the group, and spent his first summer with the party embedding with farmworkers in the Central Valley and learning how to speak Spanish. At only 15, Riley committed to building a life as an organizer.

When I tell Riley that it’s hard for me to imagine a young person showing that level of discipline, he gently counters my cynicism. Activism among young people is far more widespread than most of us realize, he says. Around 1995, while on a break from performing with the Coup, Riley formed the radical collective the Young Comrades, which organized working-class teens in the Bay Area. He was inspired by learning about the Soweto uprising of 1976, where thousands of schoolchildren in South Africa protested their apartheid government’s mandatory lessons in Afrikaans, the language associated with the country’s white minority. Riley remembers watching a segment in which 12- and 13-year-olds spoke so clearly about international policy, capitalism, and various elected leaders’ stances on their cause. “The reason that they knew about this stuff was similar to the reason why those girls in the van did,” Riley said. “They felt they could do something about it.”

Riley left the Progressive Labor Party in the early ’90s. At the time, he thought the party was stagnant, inefficient, and overly involved in the day-to-day lives of members. Today Riley sees that approach as crucial to organizing. “You gotta be part of the community. You gotta be friends. You gotta be making sacrifices and be somebody that people want to make sacrifices for,” he explained. One statement from a party leader stuck with the filmmaker: “He would be like, ‘How you gonna get a bloke to go on strike if you can’t have a pint with them?’” Riley admits that the statement is sexist to some degree, but since that conversation, he has spent decades connecting with people on the ground, from his organizing efforts in the Bay Area to his work in Hollywood.

“Boosters was the next thing that I read the week after I lost a job for talking about Gaza and Palestine in the spring of 2024,” said Poppy Liu, one of the handful of actors in Hollywood who have openly supported Palestine amid industry blacklisting. Getting the script gave her hope, because it showed that someone like Riley — whom she affectionately calls the most “radical leftist, outspoken, communist, pro-Palestine baddie” — could still get work made. Before submitting her audition tape to play an organizer at a luxury brand’s factory in China, Liu spoke with Riley for about an hour over Zoom, discussing everything from their shared love of science fiction to the Communist Revolution happening in China the year after the Nakba.

Liu says working on I Love Boosters was unlike any other job she’s had, calling it one of her favorites. “We were all there because we were super excited about working with Boots and because we believed in him and we believed in the story,” she said. Liu likened the process to both a puzzle, in terms of understanding how to fit into Riley’s detailed screenplay, and a trust fall. “It’s cool to feel like you’re part of someone’s grand imagination scheme,” she said. I Love Boosters takes place in a heightened version of Oakland, where a teleporter gadget can enact dialectical materialism, the Marxist theory that the world is always changing in a process driven by the collision of contradictions, and a high-speed car chase with skinless people takes over a mall. This dreamlike goofiness is an effective way of exposing how unreal our own world can feel sometimes and how helpless we might feel in the face of trying to change it.

During lunch, I tell Riley how challenging it can be to make an impact, especially when it seems that everything is just discourse. “I definitely find myself fighting cynicism,” he replied, but he has found a way to build his resolve to make change. The filmmaker tells me that a daylong strike like the Jan. 23 action in Minnesota gives him hope even as only a symbolic gesture, because it shows how a movement can be formed around any type of organizing, previewing what’s possible. “It’s about building power,” he said.

Riley sees part of his job as bringing coalition-building ideas to the forefront, with his films serving as a kind of instruction manual for society. He sends a clear message about the change that can happen while also revealing the contradictions of everyday life. People “go through a strike and they all of a sudden learn what side the police are on, they learn what side management is on,” he said. “In I Love Boosters people get involved in a struggle that says early on that things are made of labor. That’s a big thing for people.” He pointed out, “It’s built into the storyline.” The director also forgoes moral judgment in his films, whose protagonists make what might be considered the “wrong” choices, because that’s not what building a movement is about. “We can get the thing that we want by working together,” he said. “That’s the most efficient way, and that’s kind of what I put forward.”

Despite gaining mainstream recognition, Riley thankfully hasn’t fallen into the trap of adopting a more broadly palatable personality. This became more apparent after Oct. 7, 2023, when the mere act of signing an open letter in support of Palestine meant potential blacklisting. In November 2023, Variety revealed that after Riley told his followers on X not to attend a screening of IDF footage of Oct. 7, the producer Marc Platt allegedly “texted WME leadership about why Boots Riley was still a client.” A Platt representative told Variety he “merely flagged” the posts. Riley did not back down, of course, and remains a client of the talent agency.

One reason Riley remains a countercultural figure in Hollywood is that he’s not trying to fit into the industry or necessarily get ahead. “I’m making my own thing,” he said, before adding, “I’m also the expert at making the thing that I make.” Although Riley is enjoying success few have achieved, he makes it clear he would still find a way to make his work if he lost the support of a studio such as Neon. If his years of odd jobs and organizing have taught him anything, it’s how to make himself popular enough to be heard.