I Want My Cake and Eat It Too: A Democratic Senate Without Abdul El-Sayed
I Want My Cake and Eat It Too: A Democratic Senate Without Abdul El-Sayed
By Mitch Mallett
I want my cake and eat it too!
I want Democrats to take back control of the United States Senate, but I also want Abdul El-Sayed to lose in Michigan.
Can both happen?
Mathematically, absolutely!
And with Election Day just one week away, I believe this question deserves serious consideration.
I’m a progressive, liberal, pro-Israel Democrat. I want Democrats to control the Senate. But I don’t believe that requires me to support every Democratic candidate, especially someone whose rhetoric about Israel I consider deeply objectionable.
My concerns go beyond the November 3 election. I’m thinking about the direction of the Democratic Party over the next decade and what message an Abdul El-Sayed victory might send to future candidates.
The Senate Mathematics: Democrats Can Win Without Michigan
Republicans currently hold 53 Senate seats. Democrats and the independents who caucus with them hold 47.
Democrats need a net gain of four seats to take control of the Senate.
According to the October 20 Cook Political Report, seven Senate races are rated toss-ups:
- Alaska — Republican-held
- Iowa — Republican-held
- Kansas — Republican-held
- Maine — Republican-held
- Ohio — Republican-held
- Texas — Republican-held
- Michigan — Democratic-held
- Florida* — Republican-held, not currently rated a toss-up, but a race I believe deserves serious discussion. Cook Political Report
Now, here’s where the mathematics gets interesting.
Suppose Democrats lose Michigan but win Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, and Texas.
That’s six Republican-held Senate seats flipping Democratic.
Starting with 47 seats, Democrats would lose one in Michigan but gain six elsewhere.
The result? Democrats 52, Republicans 48.
And here’s the important part.
Democrats could lose one of those six Republican-held races and still control the Senate with a 51–49 majority!
They could even lose two and finish with a 50–50 Senate. However, with Republican Vice President JD Vance holding the tie-breaking vote, Republicans would retain control.
And we haven’t even included Florida!
Is winning five or six Republican-held Senate seats easy? Absolutely not.
I’m describing what is mathematically possible, not predicting that Democrats will sweep these races.
But the possibility matters.
Why? Because controlling the Senate is about much more than having a majority of senators.
The majority party determines who chairs Senate committees, which legislation advances to the floor, which nominations move through the confirmation process, and which investigations and oversight hearings receive priority.
That is enormous power.
And I want Democrats to have it.
But I believe Democrats can take control without electing Abdul El-Sayed.
Texas: I Believe James Talarico Can Win
I’m particularly interested in Texas, where Democrat James Talarico is challenging Republican Ken Paxton.
I believe Talarico can win.
Texas has long been a difficult state for Democrats, but I believe this election presents an opportunity.
A Democratic victory there would represent an important shift in the political landscape and contribute to the Senate majority I’m hoping for.
And then there’s Florida.
Angie Nixon: An Opportunity She May Be Letting Slip Away
I’ve written extensively about Angie Nixon. I’ve met her personally, spoken with her, and communicated with her campaign.
I strongly disagree with some of her previous positions on Israel.
But I also believe Angie has demonstrated a willingness to listen, learn, and engage in meaningful dialogue.
That’s important to me.
A recent University of North Florida poll shows Republican Ashley Moody leading Angie Nixon by four percentage points, 49% to 45%. Other recent polls show Moody with a larger advantage. WUSF
If approximately 8.9 million Floridians vote, a four-point margin represents about 356,000 votes.
But here’s an important mathematical distinction.
When a voter switches directly from one candidate to another, the margin changes by two votes.
That means approximately 178,000 voters switching from Moody to Nixon would erase a four-point lead, assuming everything else remains unchanged.
Florida has a substantial Jewish population, along with many non-Jewish voters who support Israel.
I don’t know how many of those voters might reconsider their choices because of Angie’s position on Israel.
But I believe she has an opportunity.
Somewhere in the back of Angie’s mind, she must recognize that publicly acknowledging an evolution in her views on Israel could dramatically improve her chances of becoming a United States senator.
What if Angie publicly affirmed Israel’s right to exist and defend itself?
What if she expressed support for maintaining America’s security relationship with Israel?
What if she publicly explained that her understanding of Israel and the challenges it faces has evolved?
I believe such a declaration could bring voters into her column who otherwise would never consider supporting her.
I believe Angie could win this election.
Yet, at least publicly, she has not made that declaration.
And I have to wonder whether maintaining her previous position on Israel is more important to her than potentially becoming a United States senator.
I’m not suggesting that one public statement would guarantee victory.
But I believe it could make a meaningful difference.
And let me make something absolutely clear.
I AM VOTING FOR ANGIE NIXON!
Why?
Because I believe Angie genuinely cares about improving the lives of ordinary Americans.
I believe her passion is helping working families, providing universal healthcare, raising wages, strengthening labor unions, and expanding economic opportunities.
These are progressive values that Democrats have championed for generations, long before the Democratic Socialists of America became a significant political force.
I believe Angie’s primary motivation is to help Americans build better lives.
I may disagree with her positions on Israel, but I don’t believe changing American foreign policy toward Israel is the driving purpose of her political career.
And I believe she is capable of evolving.
That is precisely why I put Angie Nixon and Abdul El-Sayed in two very different categories.
Michigan: Why Abdul El-Sayed Is Different
If I lived in Michigan, I simply cannot envision myself voting for Abdul El-Sayed.
I find his rhetoric concerning Israel disturbing, and I believe some of it crosses the line into antisemitism.
El-Sayed rejects accusations that he is antisemitic.
That’s his right.
But his denial doesn’t change my assessment of his words and political positions.
My concerns have only intensified because of his rhetoric, interviews, and the political advertising supporting his candidacy over the past week.
During an October 19 interview with ABC News, El-Sayed declared that Israel is “not actually our friend.”
During an earlier debate, he declined to identify Iran as a greater threat to the United States than Israel.
Really, Abdul?
Let’s remember some history.
In 1983, Hezbollah, backed by Iran, carried out the Beirut Marine barracks bombing, killing 241 American service members.
Iran has supported terrorist organizations and armed groups responsible for attacks against Americans and their allies for decades.
Its network of proxies includes Hezbollah and other militant organizations operating throughout the Middle East.
Iran’s government has brutally suppressed its own citizens, including protesters demanding political freedom.
When questioned about the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its repression of Iranian protesters, El-Sayed emphasized that political change should come from the Iranian people rather than through American military intervention.
I agree that the United States should be cautious about military intervention.
But opposing military intervention and unequivocally condemning the Iranian regime are not mutually exclusive positions.
Why is it so difficult to identify the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies as threats while simultaneously describing Israel as unfriendly to America?
I believe El-Sayed owes American voters a clearer explanation of his priorities.
The Grocery-Store Advertisement: Blaming Israel for America’s Economic Problems
And then there’s the advertisement that appeared this week.
An outside political organization, Rebellion PAC, released an advertisement supporting El-Sayed that portrays an American family struggling to afford groceries.
The couple discusses American financial assistance to Israel.
They cite approximately $4 billion annually and another $26 billion.
Then comes the suggestion that American taxpayers are paying for Israel’s universal healthcare system.
That’s misleading.
The $26 billion figure refers to a 2024 funding package that included assistance related to Israel’s defense, American military expenditures, and humanitarian relief.
The United States does not directly finance Israel’s universal healthcare system.
Yet the advertisement creates the impression that American families are struggling to afford groceries because the United States supports Israel.
I find that deeply disturbing.
Then the advertisement asks why Republican Mike Rogers supposedly cares more about what Israelis want than what Americans want.
Think about the implication.
An American family cannot afford groceries because our political leaders are supposedly putting Israel ahead of ordinary Americans.
I believe that framing risks reviving a deeply troubling form of scapegoating.
Throughout history, Jews have repeatedly been blamed for society’s economic problems.
Americans have every right to debate foreign assistance and criticize Israeli government policies.
But blaming Israel for American families’ financial difficulties without establishing a credible connection is another matter entirely.
The advertisement was produced independently by Rebellion PAC, not by El-Sayed’s campaign.
His campaign issued a statement saying the advertisement was not affiliated with it and that the outside organization did not speak for him. The Times of Israel
But I have not found evidence that El-Sayed personally condemned the advertisement’s message or publicly demanded that it be withdrawn.
Apparently, Abdul El-Sayed wants his cake and eat it too!
He can potentially benefit from an advertisement attacking Israel while his campaign distances itself from responsibility for producing it.
But distancing yourself from an advertisement is not the same thing as condemning its content.
If Abdul objects to this advertisement, why doesn’t he explicitly condemn its misleading claims and ask that it be withdrawn?
That’s a legitimate question.
Bernie Sanders, AIPAC, and the Battle Over Michigan
The controversy surrounding Michigan’s Senate race has become even more intense because Senator Bernie Sanders has emerged as one of El-Sayed’s most prominent supporters.
Sanders has criticized AIPAC for directing approximately $9 million through an outside organization supporting Republican Mike Rogers.
Sanders reportedly responded by transferring $1 million to support El-Sayed’s campaign. The Washington Post
This is becoming more than a contest between two Senate candidates.
It’s becoming a national political battle over America’s relationship with Israel and the future direction of the Democratic Party.
A Michigan survey found that 54% of voters favored reducing or ending American military assistance to Israel. Among independent voters, that figure reached 61%.
But an important distinction is being overlooked.
Supporting a reduction in military assistance is not the same as supporting the elimination of all military assistance.
Those positions should not be treated as interchangeable.
And opposition to specific military assistance packages does not necessarily mean opposition to Israel’s existence or security.
I recognize that Democrats can disagree about Netanyahu, Israeli military operations, military assistance, and American foreign policy.
But I believe there is a difference between criticizing an Israeli government’s policies and treating Israel itself as an adversary.
And that distinction is becoming increasingly important within the Democratic Party.
My Greatest Concern: What Would an El-Sayed Victory Encourage?
My concern extends far beyond the next two years.
I worry about what an Abdul El-Sayed victory would mean for future Democratic candidates.
If a candidate wins a United States Senate seat while repeatedly using rhetoric I consider antisemitic and profoundly hostile to Israel, what message does that send?
Will others conclude that adopting similarly hostile rhetoric is an effective way to win Democratic primaries?
Will more candidates begin treating opposition to Israel as a political credential?
Will the Democratic Party increasingly become a place where candidates believe they must distance themselves from the Jewish state to establish their progressive credentials?
That is what worries me most.
I’m not simply thinking about the next election.
I’m thinking about the next decade.
And I believe this is where the distinction between Angie Nixon and Abdul El-Sayed becomes critically important.
Two Candidates, Two Very Different Motivations
I want to make one final distinction because it explains why I can support Angie Nixon but cannot bring myself to support Abdul El-Sayed.
I feel comfortable voting for Angie Nixon because I genuinely believe her passion is improving the lives of ordinary Americans.
I believe Angie wants to make healthcare accessible to everyone, raise wages, strengthen labor unions, protect working families, and expand economic opportunities.
These are progressive values that Democrats have championed for generations, long before the Democratic Socialists of America became a significant political force.
I believe Angie’s primary motivation is helping Americans build better lives.
I may disagree with her positions on Israel, but I don’t believe changing American foreign policy toward Israel is the driving purpose of her political career.
I believe she is sincere about her domestic priorities.
I also believe she can learn, reconsider her previous positions, and evolve.
My conversations with Angie and her campaign have reinforced that belief.
With Abdul El-Sayed, I see something fundamentally different.
I question whether the progressive domestic agenda he promotes is his overriding political priority or whether it serves a broader ideological objective.
Based on his rhetoric, interviews, and repeated positions concerning Israel and Iran, I have become increasingly concerned that weakening Israel and undermining America’s relationship with the Jewish state are central to his political ambitions.
I worry that his approach reflects ideas associated with Islamist extremist movements rather than simply progressive criticism of Israeli government policies.
I cannot know his private intentions, and I am not claiming to have established an affiliation with an extremist organization.
But I can evaluate his statements, his policy positions, and the political priorities he has chosen to emphasize.
A United States Senate seat carries enormous power.
It provides a national platform, influence over legislation, committee assignments, investigations, and American foreign policy.
My fear is that El-Sayed would use that power to pursue policies I believe would weaken Israel and damage America’s relationship with the Jewish state.
And that is precisely why I place these two candidates in very different categories.
I believe Angie Nixon’s primary mission is improving the lives of ordinary Americans.
I fear that opposition to Israel would become a defining mission of Abdul El-Sayed’s Senate career.
That distinction matters enormously to me.
I Want My Cake and Eat It Too!
Let me make my position absolutely clear.
I want Democrats to take back control of the United States Senate.
I hope James Talarico wins Texas.
I hope Angie Nixon becomes Florida’s next United States senator.
And yes, I’m hoping Democrats lose the Michigan Senate race because I believe an Abdul El-Sayed victory would send a dangerous message about the future direction of the Democratic Party.
I want a Democratic Senate majority without Abdul El-Sayed.
The mathematics say it’s possible.
The political challenge is enormous, but so are the stakes.
I believe Democrats can champion progressive values, stand firmly against antisemitism, and support Israel’s right to exist without compromising any of those principles.
I’ve been a progressive Democrat for most of my adult life. I’ve never believed that supporting civil rights, universal healthcare, stronger unions, better wages, and economic justice requires hostility toward Israel.
And I refuse to accept that proposition now.
That’s the Democratic Party I believe in, and that’s the Democratic Party I want to see leading the United States Senate.
I welcome thoughtful discussion, including from those who disagree with me.
Because this debate is about more than November 3.
It’s about the future of the Democratic Party.
