Progressives take on the Rust Belt

Summary

Podcast Summary: Today, Explained — “Progressives take on the Rust Belt”
Date: July 18, 2026
Hosts: Sean Rameswaram & Noel King (Vox), lead interviewer is Estad Herndon
Featured Guest: Dr. Abdul El Sayed

---

Overview

This episode explores the simmering “civil war” within the Democratic Party, focusing on the Michigan Senate Democratic primary as a proxy battle between progressives and moderates. It features an extensive interview with Dr. Abdul El Sayed, a leading progressive candidate, who is challenging establishment-backed Congresswoman Haley Stevens. The conversation dissects core debates within the party, including electability, the influence of big money—especially related to the US-Israel relationship—and the future direction of Democratic politics in the Rust Belt and beyond.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Democratic Party’s Civil War: Progressives vs. Moderates

• Electability Debate: The episode opens with a look at the ideological split between establishment Democrats, who stress the importance of moderates in swing states, and progressives like El Sayed who argue for bold, populist platforms.
  • Quote: “On one side, you have the centrist establishment Democrats making a familiar argument... On the other, it's the progressives who argue that the country wants populist fighters who are looking to upend the status quo entirely.” (A, 00:00-00:29)
• Focus on Michigan: The Michigan Senate primary features Congresswoman Haley Stevens (backed by establishment, including Chuck Schumer) vs. Dr. Abdul El Sayed (former Detroit public health director and progressive).

2. Outside Money and Influence

• Big Spending: Over $40 million in outside spending, with nearly $15 million from pro-Israel groups like AIPAC, mostly on Stevens’s behalf.
  • Quote: “More than $40 million have been spent by outside groups on this race already, including nearly $15 million from pro Israel lobbying groups like AIPAC, who are lining up behind Stevens and against El Sayed.” (A, 03:15)
• Proxy War: The race is seen as a broader contest for the soul of the party.

3. Centrist Critique & Progressive Rebuttal

• Third Way’s John Cohen:
  • Dismisses El Sayed’s chances, calling out his association with left-wing figures like Twitch streamer Hasan Piker as disqualifying.
  • Quote: “Syed's not going to win in Michigan... If he did, he'd get crushed in the general and the association with Piker. I'll put money down on this.” (C, 04:42-05:08)

4. El Sayed’s Progressive Case

Redefining “Electability”

• Top vs. Bottom, Not Left vs. Right:
  • El Sayed rejects the “moderate is electable” narrative, arguing that true electability lies in representing those “locked out” of the system, not catering to the center.
  • Quote: “It might be that the question Michiganders are asking is who poses the biggest pushback to a system of politics that has been bought off in ways that leave me unable to afford my groceries, unable to afford a home…” (C, 08:59)
  • “I think the better way to think our politics is top down, people who are locked out versus people doing the locking out.” (C, 09:55)
• Change in Michigan Voters:
  • El Sayed notes Michigan’s recent electoral unpredictability as driven more by urgent dissatisfaction than ideological swings.

Major Policy Differences

• Corporate Money:
  • El Sayed: “Number one, I don't take corporate money. She's awash in it.” (C, 10:56)
  • Criticism of AIPAC’s heavy involvement and money spent on behalf of Stevens.
• Healthcare:
  • El Sayed: “I'm for Medicare for all. I wrote the book on how to do it. I don't know what her healthcare position is because she doesn't really want to talk about it.” (C, 11:15)
• Immigration:
  • “I want to abolish ICE. Maybe it's just because I've actually worked in the bowels of government... but when an agency runs amok... I think we just need to start from scratch.” (C, 11:26)
• Foreign Policy, Especially Israel:
  • Vows to prioritize spending at home over supporting foreign governments, especially when their actions are “heinous.” (C, 11:51-12:10)

Tone and Intra-party Criticism

• Attacks on Stevens:
  • El Sayed is confronted about calling Stevens “a suit with a large AIPAC bank account.” (A, 12:01)
  • He doubles down, demanding transparency about where her campaign funding comes from.
  • Addressing accusations of sexism, he insists his critiques are about policy and funding, not gender.

Critique of the Party

• Opposition to Corporate Democrats:
  • “Too often those of us in the Democratic Party... who are out there trying to fight for a Democratic Party that delivers are too often hamstrung by the corporate wing of the party that is taking money from the very same corporations who are price gouging us and pulling away basic worker protections.” (C, 14:51)

Trump’s Victory & Democratic Shortcomings

• El Sayed’s Postmortem:
  • Democrats lost Michigan because “for a long time, the Democratic Party has rested on its laurels that we're not them,” relying on Trump’s negatives rather than offering compelling solutions. (C, 16:06)

5. Progressive Agenda: What's at Stake

• Overarching Message:
  • “This is about the many versus the money. If you support a politics of the UAW, of working people everywhere, of teachers, of nurses, of working families, this is that race.” (C, 01:51 and repeated 28:32)
• The Central Issue:
  • All major progressive causes—climate, healthcare, AI’s economic impact—are linked by the outsized influence of moneyed interests.
  • “Unless we unrig the system, I worry that we're going to continue to watch ourselves get monetized left, right and center.” (C, 19:45)

6. Israel and the Democratic Divide

El Sayed’s Position

• Stance on Israel and AIPAC:
  • “You called it a rogue state, said the US can't keep selling weapons to a country committing genocide in apartheid.” (A, 22:00)
  • “I am focused on being a senator from Michigan... I'm going to find the money that we're sending to do heinous things to other people and keep it here.” (C, 22:51)
• Antisemitism Distinction:
  • El Sayed stresses distinguishing between legitimate critique of Israel’s policies and actual antisemitism:
  • “People who try to use the specter of antisemitism to defend what a foreign government is doing when it's indefensible, that itself is a danger.” (C, 25:22)
• Electoral Effects:
  • He argues that there is a political price to “backstopping genocide and apartheid,” and voters, especially in places like Michigan, increasingly respond to a clear progressive message on Israel (uncommitted movement, polling shifts). (C, 26:55–27:18)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Democratic Divide:
  • “[This] race is a proxy war for the Democratic Party.” (A, 03:20)
• On electability:
  • “It might be that electable is not about who hews closer to some theoretical middle imposed upon us by models that have proven wrong for a very long time.” (C, 08:59)
• On AIPAC:
  • “When you're spending 30, $40 million to try and shape one U.S. senate seat so that we can send billions of your tax dollars somewhere else, I think everybody in the country should be a little bit surprised, frankly outraged.” (C, 22:51)
• On policy stakes:
  • “This is about the many versus the money.” (C, 01:51, 28:32)
• On party transformation:
  • “We can have a party that is robust on these issues if we actually listen to working people and deliver for them.” (C, 15:46)
• On taking bold stands:
  • “People want to vote for people who are going to show up and fight for their ability to live a dignified life.... I'm willing to take on the Goliath of AIPAC because I think they're wrong.” (C, 27:18)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Progressive vs. moderate framing: 00:00–01:51
• Outside spending, AIPAC’s involvement: 03:15–04:25
• Third Way’s John Cohen critique: 04:25–05:08
• Hasan Piker and progressive base: 05:08–06:31
• Negative ad against El Sayed: 06:31–07:30
• El Sayed interview begins: 07:28
• Redefining electability: 07:52–10:43
• Policy distinctions: 10:56–12:01
• Intra-party rhetoric and gender accusations: 12:01–14:24
• Progressive critique of Democratic Party: 14:24–15:54
• Analysis of 2024 Trump win: 15:54–17:18
• Economic populism & money in politics: 18:15–19:48
• Israel debate and influence: 22:00–26:06
• Voters’ response to Palestinian advocacy: 26:06–27:18
• Final stakes, outlook: 28:04–30:06

---

Flow & Tone

The episode is direct and urgent, echoing frustrations felt by many Democratic voters at the grassroots. The tone is sharp, especially from El Sayed, who unapologetically calls out both opponents and the structural issues in the party. The hosts push on criticism/questions credibly but allow El Sayed to expand on systemic critiques and policy distinctions. The discussion is candid about internal Democratic strife, negative campaigning, and policy taboos.

---

Conclusion

Listeners are left with a clear impression: the Michigan Senate race is ground zero for larger Democratic Party debates—between the politics of big money and insurgent populism, between entrenched strategies and bold progressive alternatives. The conversation shines a light on how these battles may reshape not just the party, but electoral coalitions in the Midwest and nationally, especially as issues like US policy toward Israel become new wedge issues.

---

Key Takeaway:
“This is about the many versus the money.... This has become, in effect, a very, very clear dividing line about what the future, not just of our party, is, what our politics are.”
(C, 28:32)

Transcript

[A]

The Democratic Party is at war with itself right now, and it's playing out in primary races all across the country. On one side, you have the centrist establishment Democrats making a familiar argument.

[B]

We have to pick up Democrats in these swing states, and those are usually the more successful candidates are the moderate candidates.

[A]

On the other, it's the progressives who argue that the country wants populist fighters who who are looking to upend the status quo entirely.

[C]

Together, we will usher in a generation of change.

[A]

And if there's one place where this civil war is playing out most clearly, it's definitely Michigan. There's a stark contrast there between the two candidates running in the Senate Democratic primary, Congresswoman Haley Stevens and former public health official Dr. Abdul El Sayed. Now, Stevens has the backing of the Democratic establishment and people like Chuck Schumer. She says that El Sayed is too left, too untested and simply too extreme for a general election that Democrats have to win.

[C]

The GOP is spending thousands of dollars

[B]

to prop up your campaign because they think they will make it easier for Mike Rogers to win if you are the nominee.

[A]

In the end, it all comes down to the dreaded E word, electability. Because that's the concept that's at the heart of the Democratic civil war, whether the party wants to admit it or not. If you're a person of color or a progressive or a woman, it always comes up for candidates. Sure, you can win the primary, but are you electable in a general election? So in Michigan, one candidate is trying to turn the electability concept on its head. Dr. Abdul El Sayed is making the progressive case for America first, and he's trying to settle the Democrats ideological battle in the process.

[C]

This is about the many versus the money. If you support a politics of the UAW of working people everywhere, of teachers, of nurses, of working families, this is that race.

[A]

This week on America actually. What does being electable actually mean? Let's dig in. Support for the show comes from Apple News Plus. Apple News plus has everything that you're into. Over 500 top publications covering local and national news, food, sports, daily puzzles, culture, audio and more. Curated just for you new subscribers. Try it for free for one month at News Apple. Learn Terms Apply.

[B]

Plan B is a backup birth control option that's there for you when things don't go according to plan. It specifically works after unprotected sex and before pregnancy occurs by temporarily delaying ovulation. Plan B is available nationwide at all major retailers and through delivery apps like DoorDash, no ID, prescription, or age requirement. It's the number one OBGYN recommended brand of emergency contraception, and it won't impact your future fertility. That's freedom to be views as directed.

[A]

So in our quest to think about American politics beyond the question of Donald Trump, there's no getting around the current fights happening within the Democratic Party. And one of the biggest is whether the left wing anger that has fueled insurgent candidates in New York City and in Colorado applies to places outside of those typically blue areas and in states more important to the midterms and and the Electoral College. Which is why the Michigan Senate primary is so closely watched. More than $40 million have been spent by outside groups on this race already, including nearly $15 million from pro Israel lobbying groups like AIPAC, who are lining up behind Stevens and against El Sayed. Why? Because this race is a proxy war for the Democratic Party. So much so that it comes up all the time, including in my recent conversation with John Cohen, president of the centrist group Third Way. He told me last month that he was absolutely certain that El Sayed was too extreme for the Michigan electorate. And he pointed to El Sayed's relationship with leftist twitch streamer Hasan Piker as proof.

[C]

Very unclear that as a practical matter, Piker gets you much of anything except driving away people who matter to building a big Democratic tent.

[A]

If someone like El Sayed were to win in Michigan, would you change that, too? No, that would matter. That just wouldn't matter.

[C]

Syed's not going to win in Michigan.

[A]

Okay. So we can come back if that happens? Absolutely.

[C]

We can come back if that happens. Syed is not going to win in Michigan. And by the way, his close association with Piker, I don't think he's going to win the primary. If he did, he'd get crushed in the general and the association with pikers. I'll put money down on this. He'll run away from Piker. Let me make you this bet, Estad. I don't believe that El Said will win the primary.

[A]

And Piker, too, was invested in the Michigan Senate race. He argued that El Sayed's rise to frontrunner already proved that there was an appetite for what the left is selling around Medicare for all and around shifting the United States relationship with Israel. He says there's more traction for those issues among the Democratic base and than the establishment wants to admit. Abdul El Sayed wasn't getting a lot of media attention. That race wasn't getting a lot of media attention. In particular, it's changed. He's a stud. I mean, He's a Rhodes scholar, he's a doctor. He worked in public health in Detroit. Like, this man has spent his whole life trying to save people's lives, right? And he wasn't getting the shine. He wasn't getting the media attention at all. All of a sudden, third way comes out, starts railing against him. Mallory McMorrow starts railing against him. And what happened? He went from third place to first place, you know, with a comfortable lead in first place according to most polls. Now, to some degree, Piker's right. State Senator Mallory McMurrow dropped out of the Michigan Senate race after failing to gain traction. Now El Sayed is one on one with Stevens, who's consolidated the moderate lane and is pushing the electability question. And Stevens and her allies are flooding the airwaves. A pro Israel super PAC that's supporting her candidacy recently released a negative ad that implied that El Sayed has a, quote, history of disrespecting women.

[B]

He called Michelle Obama's work with children uninspired and ineffectual, claimed Gretchen Whitmer was bought and sold in a discrimination lawsuit. El Sayed was accused of telling a woman he didn't want to work with anyone over 40. And an employee said he was offered payment to keep silent. After witnessing El Sayed despair

[A]

from this ad to the recent debate, it's pretty clear that Stevens and her allies want this race to be a referendum on El Sayed and the left. And she, like Third Way, is making a bet that the electorate will find him a little bit of a loose cannon. And in such a critical race, that's more important than them buying what the moderate wing is selling. Which brings us back to the question of electability and the public health doctor at the center of it all. Can Dr. Abdul El Sayed land a death blow on the Democratic establishment? Let's ask him. Thank you for joining us.

[C]

Honor to be here. Thank you so much.

[A]

You know, I wanted to start by actually telling you something from my interview with John Cohen, the president of Third Way, the centrist shop that exists more or less to stop candidates like yourself. He told me flatly that he doesn't think you can win this and that campaigning with people like Hasan Piker will cost you votes in the general, if not a primary. I wanted to start there with the question of electability. Why is that logic wrong?

[C]

They're so mad, aren't they? It's interesting taking political advice from a shop that exists specifically to launder old ideas and make them seem new again and then, like, fail miserably. At that, I think there's this idea of a purity politics that we probably should have gotten over by now. Like I remember the early 2000s when we were all so mad about cancel culture. And I thought we got through that. And it seems like for folks who want to shut down a debate and not have it, the best approach they can take is tell you that we should just go back to cancel culture but not use those words. So look, at the end of the day, I am the most electable Democrat in this race. It turns out that when you believe in stuff, that's the best way to campaign. And I know what I believe in. The other thing I'll tell you is that it's not that people are wondering how you're going to be attacked. I know that's what DC likes to think about. How are they going to attack you? They're asking what different can you offer me from politics as usual? And I think when people look at Michigan, you look at 2016, it went from for Bernie in the primary, then Trump in the general, then Biden in 2020, then Trump in 2024. Anybody who knows Michiganders knows that we're pretty steady. Eddie. It's not that we keep whiplashing back and forth from different extremes of the party. It's that we keep going back to the buffet and not finding what we want. So it may be that electable is not about who hews closer to some theoretical middle imposed upon us by models that have proven wrong for a very long time. It might be that the question Michiganders are asking is who poses the biggest pushback to a system of politics that has been bought off in ways that leave me unable to afford my groceries, unable to afford a home, unable to look at my kids school and believe that that's a good place for them to unable to get health care when I need it, and then sending my money abroad telling me that somehow that's in my best interest.

[A]

Can you. It seems like you're redefining electability to be from the kind of DC terminology which I think you're correctly identifying as mostly meant the most moderate or traditional establishment candidate to something different. What is that version of electability for you?

[C]

So if we think that voters walk around asking where do I sit on some theoretical left right spectrum, then in theory the bulk of the voters are somewhere in the middle. The problem though is that that model hasn't really accurately predicted our politics for a very long time. If Michiganders wanted moderate, why would they have elected Donald Trump twice? I think the better way to think our politics is top down, people who are locked out versus people doing the locking out. And I think if you're on the side of the people doing the locking out, you're going to have a really hard time in our politics right now. And I hate to say it, both Mike Rogers, the Republican and Haley Stevens, my opponent in this primary have been on the side of the people doing locking out. They take their money and do their bidding when they're in Congress.

[A]

Top, bottom versus left, right?

[C]

That's right. And I think it also explains why our campaign is resonating in such a profound way.

[A]

State Senator Mallory Mallory McMarrow recently dropped out of the race meeting. To your point and as the recent debate just showed, it is you and Haley Stevens. Congresswoman, what's the biggest policy distinction between you two?

[C]

The differences are pretty huge. Number one, I don't take corporate money. She's awash in it. We've had $40 million of outside spending in this race. 40 million. Most of it coming from AIPAC organization that wants to take your tax dollars and send them somewhere else rather than keep them here to build schools and bridges and healthcare here. The second is that I'm for Medicare for all. I wrote the book on how to do it. I don't know what her healthcare position is because she doesn't really want to talk about it, but that's a pretty big distinction. Third, I want to abolish ice. Maybe it's just because I've actually worked in the bowels of government having to run an agency, but when an agency runs amok that way they can't be reformed or retrained. I think we just need to start from scratch. And then lastly, I just think very differently about what our responsibilities are when it comes to foreign policy. I don't want my foreign policy dictated to me by a foreign government. I don't think we should be taking money from special interest groups that are more interested in the well being of a country 6,000 miles away than they are in the well being of a of kids in the heart of Detroit. So forgive me for wanting to keep that money here and spent here on healthcare. So the differences couldn't be more stark. If we want politics to look like it used to, we can go ahead and vote like we used to.

[A]

There's also a difference in tone. You said in a recent interview with Semaphore, Haley Stevens is a suit with a large APAC bank account. That's it. I hope that maybe they find some way to teach her to string two coherent sentences. I guess at some point when you sell out for that many corporations and special interests, you, you forget how to think for yourself. This was criticized by some Democrats as a statement unbecoming of a candidate seeking to unite the party. It was taken by some to be a sexist dismissal of a female candidate. Do you stand by that description of Stevens?

[C]

Look, the congresswoman is plenty smart, there's no doubt about that. The question ultimately, I mean it did

[A]

sound like you were saying that in that quote.

[C]

But the question ultimately is why is it that whenever the question is asked about how our campaigns get funded, she's unable to actually explain it? I'd like to hear a fulsome conversation, a fulsome explanation of why it's justified to take $40 million from an organization more interested in a foreign government than our own. That's the hard part where it's like whenever we're actually talking about what was given and what is expected. When you take that much money, I don't hear a explanation. And I'd love the opportunity to have that conversation. Here's the other part of it though. If you're a voter in Michigan, every time you turn on the TV you are being bombarded by ads that cherry pick things that I said like an op ed I wrote about the let's Move campaign from first lady Michelle Obama or rehashing old campaign issues when I ran in 2018 against Governor Whitmer to make an argument that somehow I have poor character and I'm blanket disrespectful. I just think it's important for us not to mix issues here. When you think about who's actually going low and lodging personal attacks, those are pretty personal. My 8 year old daughter's being asked by friends at camp whether or not her dad is disrespectful to women.

[A]

I mean to say that Haley Stevens is a suit with a large APAC bank account. A Democratic member of Congress that is from your state saying that she can't. Someone should teach her how to string two coherent sentences. I mean, is that language that is disrespectful to a woman candidate?

[C]

Well look, at the end of the day I'd love to hear an explanation. And if she wants to explain why AIPAC's spending $40 million for her race, if she wants to explain where that money comes, I'd love to hear an explanation. I just think it's important for us to actually contend with the fact that this is a candidate who has been funded by a huge number of outside organizations and is unwilling to explain what she has traded for that. That money.

[A]

Part of this candidacy is clearly about the Democratic Party itself. You positioned yourself just against establishment politics at large. But folks like Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, you said the party fell short in the Biden years. How much would you describe your candidacy as an opposition to Republicans versus a candidacy that is meant to point Democrats in a different direction and is trying to win an internal party fight that is happening right now?

[C]

You know, it's that I'm not trying to win any party fights. I'm trying to deliver for people in my state. I talk to people every single day up and down my state who tell me that they can't afford their health care. They're worried about whether or not they're going to be priced out of groceries, whether or not they're going to lose their job they've had for 20 years. I'm trying to address those problems. And I think it's important for us to recognize that too often those of us in the Democratic Party, and I love my party and I just want it to be better. Those of us in the Democratic Party who are out there trying to fight for a Democratic Party that delivers are too often hamstrung by the corporate wing of the party that is taking money from the very same corporations who are price gouging us and pulling away basic worker protections. If we want to be the party of working people, we have to be the party for working people, which means that we've got to stop taking money from the people who are nickel and diming them. The problem is, too often we're lazy about taking money, taking money from the same corporations through the same bidding. And then where's the contrast between us and Republicans? We can have a party that is robust on these issues if we actually listen to working people and deliver for them.

[A]

The contrast gets flattened when you're pulling from the same pot that is a corporate bucket of money that also goes to Republicans.

[C]

Exactly.

[A]

I do think, though, the diagnosis of what went wrong is important when we think about solutions going forward. Let me just ask that question then, a little differently. Why do you think Trump won Michigan in 2024?

[C]

The problem right now is that for a long time, the Democratic Party has rested on its laurels that we're not them. We took Donald Trump and said, well, look how obviously patently bad he is, which he's obviously patently bad. But then we didn't really point to what we could do to make things good. We didn't have a fulsome analysis of why it is that this thing's not working for you. We don't win because he's so bad. We win because he's so bad and we're so good. And so I'm just encouraging us to break free of the things that are keeping us from being as effective as we can. And you mentioned Third Way at the top of, top of the show. Third Way is a perfect example of everything that's wrong with Democratic politics. I just want you to think about what they push. They take money from corporations to push a brand of politics that tells us that we should keep doing corporations favors, that we should keep giving them our tax dollars in the form of government contracts, that we should keep pulling back on government. And then they want to, they wanna police folks campaigns in the worst iteration of the cancel culture that people rejected back in the early 2000s. I mean, this is exactly what's wrong with the Democratic Party. And I just think that we could be so right if we're willing to be honest about how our political system has worked for the rich and powerful for too long.

[A]

It sounds like, you know, you're providing a response to the pervasive feeling we hear from voters left, right, center, about a feeling of being screwed, frankly. And, you know, Donald Trump has his version of how, why that is that points to immigrants and folks abroad and kind of blaming others. You're saying that the Democratic Party needs to tell a clearer story with that, with corporations as the villain in the center. I guess I wanted to ask, though, about the way that that narrative has shifted over time. I think when you first came onto the scene in your previous statewide race, that was a time in which progressives were talking a lot more about things like the Green New Deal, about climate. The center of gravity seems to have shifted a little. Certainly Medicare for all still there, but there's a greater focus on economic populism and affordability. There's a greater focus on repositioning the US Relationship with Israel. Like if we could define the connective tissue that defines the progressive lane right now. Like, what do you think is the issue that's at the top of the list?

[C]

But they're all connected. I mean, I want you to think about why it is that we continue to accelerate forward with respect to burning stuff that comes out of the ground into the lungs of our children. It is because you have massively powerful corporations like Exxon and Chevron that get to dominate our politics. Donald Trump has been so cozy with them. And now we're rolling back on renewable energy, which can be both cheaper and certainly better for our health and obviously better for the environment. And here we are. But that's the power of those corporations. Now you think about AI, which wasn't an issue that we had to contend with because it was still in its infancy in 2018. And we're in a moment right now where people are worried about having a data center foisted in their backyard. For what reason? Right. To drive a technology that is going to enrich the most powerful and richest people in the country and then take away 50% of our jobs. Like, why is that in our best interest? I just think that there's a responsibility for us to understand the system inside that is allowing all of these money people to take advantage of the rest of us so that they can make more money. Health care, the last example I'll raise here, you talk about Medicare for all. We don't need to have a system where a private health insurer can tell you who you can't see, charge you a nickel and a dime, undercut the pay for providers, and then you're in a situation where you got to pay a $5,000 deductible simply because you got sick to use the health care that you thought you already paid for every two weeks or four weeks. All of it goes back to the same central issue. And unless we unrig the system, I worry that we're going to continue to watch ourselves get monetized left, right and center.

[A]

After the break, the elephant in the room how progressives like El Sayed are demanding a Democratic party rethink on America's relationship to Israel. Support for the show comes from Talk iatry. When your mental health is suffering, therapy can help. But sometimes it's not the whole answer. Talkiatry gives you access to psychiatric care with licensed clinicians who can diagnose and prescribe medication. If it's right for you to 100% online, like your cousin. Psychiatry practice that provides comprehensive evaluations, diagnoses and ongoing medication management for conditions like adhd, anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, ocd, ptsd, insomnia and more. You get to meet with a medical provider who can diagnose mental health conditions and prescribe prescribe you medication when it's needed. And because it's a hundred percent online, like your cousin, you have a lot more flexibility. You can head to talkyatry.com explain to complete the short assessment and get matched with an in network psychiatrist in just a few minutes. That's T A L K I A T-R-Y.com explained to get matched minutes Talky at your.

[B]

Hey, it's Christy from Lululemon. I'm in the office with what's New, and the Breezily collection has definitely caught my eye. If you're like me and want to add some lighter, airy pieces to your wardrobe, this is a great place to start. There's a breezily tank, shorts and pants all in our Swift fabric, which is super lightweight and stretchy. They're flowy staples you can mix and match for a really easy, elevated vibe, whether it's to and from the studio or just for every day. The Breezalie Collection is in store now, or you can shop [e-mail] this episode is brought to you by Starbucks.

[C]

That is fire.

[A]

Whoa, that's good. This might be the drink of the summer. Okay, I like this one too.

[C]

I'm rocking with it.

[B]

Okay, try it for yourself. Starbucks refreshers concentrates are coming home. Find them in the coffee aisle and make it your.

[A]

I mean, we should talk about Israel a little more because it has been such a central delineation line in this race. You called it a rogue state, said the US can't keep selling weapons to a country committing genocide in apartheid. And you've made an argument that we've heard from even some progressives here in New York City who were successful in their congressional race. That's money that should be coming here and should be invested in the least of Americans not going abroad. But the question of how central repositioning U.S. s relationship with Israel would be to you holding office in the Senate, I think it's an open one. Like, is this just the conviction that you hold, or do you think that, like, reshaping America's relationship with Israel would be a priority for you once in office?

[C]

So, Steph, my priority is money out of politics, money in your pocket. Medicare for all. That's what I'm campaigning on. That's what I've always been talking about. I'm a doctor who rebuilt health departments.

[A]

We've talked a lot about AIPAC in Israel, though, even here today, because.

[C]

Because people ask about it. And they're also the biggest spender in the race. AIPAC has inserted themselves in this race. They didn't have to. They made a choice to do that. I am focused on being a senator from Michigan. And here in Michigan, kids need glasses, kidney schools. Kids need functional infrastructure. And I'm going to find the money that we're sending to do heinous things to other people and keep it here. So, look, I just think it's really important for us to think a little bit about the power that opposition to that message has. When you're spending 30, $40 million to try and shape one U.S. senate seat so that we can send billions of your tax dollars somewhere else, I think everybody in the country should be a little bit surprised, frankly outraged that they are the biggest spender in this race. How does this affect the lives of people in Michigan profoundly when they're taking your money and sending it somewhere else?

[A]

I know that you have advocated for restricting weapons transfers. I know you've kind of been clear eyed about calling Israel's actions in Gaza a genocide. I would wonder about kind of larger arms sales like defensive weapons. Is that something that the US should be providing money for to Israel?

[C]

Why are we sending support in the form of weapons to a foreign instead? Like, just think this through for a minute.

[A]

I'm thinking. I know we know the argument folks have made the argument that it's our ally in the Middle East.

[C]

If any other country did this, we would be treating them as the rogue steak actor that they are. And somehow they're our ally and deserve our money and our weapons. We come on like. It just. It's crazy to me that this is a thing that is such a central feature of our politics that every time I come on to talk about the things I want to do for people in Michigan, everybody wants to ask me about something happened 6,000 miles away when it's so clearly an insane thing that our government is supporting a government that does such heinous acts with our money and then we can't call it what it is. Like you should be asking yourself, everybody should be asking, why does $40 million get dropped into a Senate race in Michigan against the guy who wants to keep Michigan tax dollars in Michigan? It's a wild thing. I mean, honestly, we should really be asking that. And I'll just be honest and clear. It's important to me to ask that question in large part because I worry a lot about folks asking that question and getting to the wrong answer. And I worry because people are trying to tell us that our effort to keep our money here has to come at the edge of having some distaste for Judaism in the Jewish people. And that could not be further from the truth. Anti Semitism is a scourge. We have to fight it everywhere we see it. And I understand as somebody who's been discriminated against for how I pray just how dangerous that is. And I'll be on the front line to fight antisemitism. But people who try to use the specter of antisemitism to defend what a foreign government is doing when it's indefensible, that itself is a danger. And I think it's just really important for all of us who care about the well being of Jewish communities to differentiate between those two things. And so I'm more interested in keeping my money here to defend people in our communities than I am to send it abroad to a foreign government to decimate another people when it could be used here to provide healthcare for people here. And that is not about hatred for anybody. That is about a love for everybody.

[A]

And I think we should also say it's important to know that this is aligned with a sea change that's happened among a Democratic base that is documented not only in reporting, but polling, that a lot of folks have come to kind of see your position, particularly in the last couple years. And Michigan is the place where the uncommitted movement was taking shape. In 2024, Harris got 36% of the vote in Dearborn. Biden had won nearly 69% of the vote there. In 2020, she lost the state by 80,000 votes. I wanted to connect the kind of policy issue talking about with the political electability question we were talking about previously. Do you think your kind of pro Palestinian advocacy helps you win votes in the general? You know, cuz that's the other side of the argument that the third ways are making, which is obviously arguing that there's an electoral cost to your policy statement.

[C]

There is an electoral cost to backstopping genocide and apartheid. And that's what's wild to me is that people like Third Way are like, well there's a cost to not doing it. I'm like, do you not pay attention to basic math? Like I'm sorry, but it's bigger than, it's bigger than the question of like do you gain or lose votes here. That's the, that's the shit people hate about politics.

[A]

I know it's an easy question to ask. Like it's important to the question, but that's why I pose it.

[C]

The reason that I think it's important is not just because it gains or loses you votes. It's because it speaks to the broader question. People are asking two questions about a candidate. The first one is what do you say you're gonna fight for? The second one is how do I know you're gonna fight for it? And if you can't call it genocide perpetrated by our tax dollars, the moral abomination that it is, then at some point, it's hard for me to believe that you're going to fight for anything. And so at the end of the day, people want to vote for people who are going to show up and fight for their ability to live a dignified life. And I think it's important to show people, look, I'm willing to take on the Goliath of AIPAC because I think they're wrong. And I'm willing to say. And I don't hedge my bets, I don't back down on it because I think it's the right thing to do. People want to know that you're going to show up, fired up to fight for them and fight for the truth that you believe. And at least we're showing that, come what may.

[A]

Yeah. I wanna ask about looking forward. We kind of laid out the stakes of electability, and I do think whether you're successful or not in this primary will be seen as a kind of larger reverberation on the question of the progressive lane and its ability to win. Besides the question of electability, besides the question of policy that you have laid out, what do you think is the stakes of this race? Like, why should this matter to someone? And even if you're not in Michigan,

[C]

this is about the many versus the money. If you support a politics of the uaw, of working people everywhere, of teachers, of nurses, of working families, of Bernie Sanders and aoc, of people who want to break the chokehold of corporations and special interests on our politics, this is that race. This has become, in effect, a very, very clear dividing line about what the future, not just of our party, is, what our politics are. I'm running because I want to get money out of politics. Yes, to get money back in working people's pockets and to pass Medicare for all. But the fact that big money can come in here with tens of millions of dollars and try to truck people's basic ability to, like, see these candidates for who they are by writing 30 second attack at 30 second attack AD. It's anti democratic, but it's anti Democratic for a purpose. It's for a purpose of trying to corrupt the politics so that the politics keep working for them and not for us. And I'm sorry, maybe it's just because I'm romantic around the 250th anniversary, but, like, I know what America did for me, but I also know what it denied kids who grew up 15 minutes away whose families have been here way longer than mine. And at the end of the day, all of that kind of comes down to the choices that we make about who we venerate. And my parents took a bet on the idea of government of the people, by the people and for the people. And when I see that government being denied from people and doing things that benefit the people who are picking all of our pockets, that is something I'm not going to stand for. And so I'm running because I really want government to work for everyday folk. Or will we continue to have government dominated by the richest people who can use it to keep pulling money out of our pockets into theirs?

[A]

Dr. Elsa, we appreciate your time. Thank you so much for joining us.

[C]

Honored to be here. Said thank you so much. And we'd like to see you in Michigan, huh?

[A]

Yeah, Listen, we'll make our way out there. Okay, so before my takeaways, a couple things you've just heard El Sayed say that Stevens is getting 30 to 40 million dollars from AIPAC specifically, but we could not independently verify that number, and our research does not point to a number that high. It is safe to say, though, that the number is in the tens of millions. Also, we reached out to the Stevens campaign for comment, both for an interview and to talk about their campaign finances. We didn't hear back. But the more I think about it, the more that's becoming a bit of a trend. Considering Stevens, Congressman Adriano Espaillat here in New York, and many of the suspected 2028 presidential contenders, it's hard to get a moderate Democrat to talk right now, particularly if you want to interrogate their vision and not just bash the left. So shout out to El Sayed Hasan, Piker, and even third way for that matter. Because no matter where you fall on the Democratic civil war that's playing out right now, I think you should at least believe in it enough to say it out loud. America actually will be in your feeds every Saturday with an interesting interview in culture or politics. And you can also watch these episodes on the Vox YouTube channel. Just go to YouTube.com vox or click the link in the show notes. The best way to support this show is by becoming a VOX member. Members get a bonus segment on Patreon every week and they make our work possible. Go to Vox.commembers to join. That's Vox.commembers to join. This show was edited by Kasha Bresalian, Fact checked by Esther Gim and mixed by Shannon Mahoney. Christopher Snyder and Benjamin Steven are our video editors. Nkun Nui is our senior art director, our executive producer is Christina Vallis, and our theme music is from Breakmaster Cylinder. Additional support from Miranda Kennedy, David Tadashore and Nisha Chatal. I'm Estad Herndon and this is America. Actually,

[B]

Still waiting in line Again, that's time you'll never get back. Save time and money with stamps.com over 4 million businesses have skipped the line with stamps.com join them to save up to 90% off carrier rates from your computer or phone right now. Print postage for certified mail, registered mail and packages in seconds. Then schedule a pickup right from your home or office for a limited time. Go to stamps.com and use code podcast for a free welcome gift. Taxes and fees apply.

[C]

Hi, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Are you looking for a beach read this summer? May I suggest your big wireless bill? It's got suspense, mystery, a slightly flat emotional arc, and a shocking twist where you realize you've been overpaying the entire time. Fortunately, though, Mint's story is better. Every plan $15 a month, even unlimited.

[A]

That's it.

[C]

Happy ending, zero tears. Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment

[B]

of $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 for a 12 month plan required $15 per month equivalent taxes and fees Extra initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes may slow when network is busy. See terms.