The 2026 primary season is almost over. This week's crop of primaries generated some big news, mostly due to a young and very progressive Democratic candidate winning the nomination for an open Senate seat in Michigan. This was seen as an epic defeat for both the establishment of the Democratic Party and for AIPAC, who spent tens of millions of dollars unsuccessfully trying to defeat Dr. Abdul El-Sayed -- who narrowly won the nomination, despite being outspent almost 9-to-1.

Before Michigan's Tuesday primary, Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Committee, summed the situation up nicely:

Michigan is ground zero for the future of the Democratic Party and a primer for the upcoming presidential race. If Abdul [El-Sayed] can win after $60 million is spent against him... that will send a signal to every other Democratic politician. If he goes on to win the general election, that sends a signal to scared electability voters.

El-Sayed then did win, despite over $60 million being spent against him, which is causing panic among not just electability voters but those Democrats who worry about electability questions. As we wrote earlier this week, El-Sayed's nomination is going to put a political theory to a big test in November, and one side or the other is going to emerge saying: "Told you so!"

The Democratic Party establishment is risk-averse, preferring to back candidates who aren't seen as radical or extreme, but they often wind up backing a candidate with not much in the way of either charisma or bold ideas for the future. Democratic voters are told they simply must back these candidates to have a chance in the general election, in order to entice independent and undecided voters to cast their ballot for them in November. Sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn't.

Progressives point to the times it doesn't and make their counterargument: that backing candidates who draw enthusiastic crowds and have charisma (and are usually far younger) is the way to excite voters and get them to the polls -- since they'll finally be able to vote for someone who makes big bold promises to do things and fix stuff and help the average working family. Again: sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn't.

Dr. El-Sayed is going to put the progressive theory to the test in November. The stakes are sky-high, since control of the Senate could hang in the balance. Michigan is a purple state, and the Republican that El-Sayed is running against came within less than half a percentage point of winning a Senate race in Michigan two years ago. So it will doubtlessly be one of the most closely-watched races in the entire country in this year's midterms.

To their credit, the establishment Democrats (well, most of them at any rate) quickly got over their disappointment at their loss and rallied around El-Sayed with endorsements and words of support. From Kamala Harris and Chuck Schumer on down, new endorsements appeared, so hopefully this may signal the end of all the intraparty bad blood of the primary campaign.

The pro-Israel AIPAC (and their affiliated groups), however, did not get over their disappointment, and vowed to double down on the over $30 million they already spent trying to defeat El-Sayed. They'll now be funding ads in support of the Republican candidate in the race.

At this point, AIPAC support isn't quite the kiss of death for Democratic candidates -- a few other candidates in lower-profile Democratic primaries they supported did manage to win their races this week. But things certainly seem to be moving in that direction. Israel is one of those issues where "the people are leading" and the leaders are struggling to realize it and adapt to the new reality. The percentage of Democratic voters who support unconditional and unquestioning military support for the Israeli government has been plummeting, and is now a small minority within the party. However, elected Democratic officials and the party's leadership have not caught up to this sea-change in the base quite yet. A few more big losses for AIPAC-backed candidates might change the equation, however.

Progressives had a pretty good night on Tuesday in Michigan, although the results were more mixed elsewhere. Other good news from Tuesday night included voters in Missouri and Kansas -- two red states -- rejecting two ballot initiatives that were no more than thinly-veiled power grabs by Republicans. Kansas rejected a measure that would have made their state supreme court justices electable (instead of being appointed), and Missouri rejected a measure that would have made it much more difficult to pass any ballot initiatives in the future, by rigging the rules to make it almost impossible to do so.

In other political news, Donald Trump began the week with one of his favorite ex-Fox News personalities massively disappointing him. Jeanine Pirro weighed keeping Trump happy by continuing to assert in court that the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool was damaged solely by vandalism against the real possibility of legal sanction and possible disbarment for continuing to flat-out lie about the facts of a felony case -- and in the end she chose to save her own skin. In the case Pirro had brought against a former Olympian charged with felony vandalism (for doing nothing more than dipping his hand into the Reflecting Pool to feel the already-peeling-up new lining shards), Pirro filed a motion to dismiss the case, giving as her reason the fact that the damage was actually caused by shoddy work by the contractor hired (with a no-bid contract) to do the job. She threw Interior Secretary Doug Burgum under the bus in doing so, blaming the entire thing on the Department of Interior failing to tell her the truth about what caused the problem.

Trump went ballistic (of course), but after a tense meeting (one can only imagine the screaming!) in the Oval Office with Trump and Burgum, Pirro emerged with her job intact (at least for now). Pirro also dropped the misdemeanor charges against all the others who had been arrested around the time the Olympian was, but that's not really good enough. All of these people should now sue the government for large monetary damages, since they'll all have an excellent case to make that this was nothing more than a farce from the very beginning. Trump lied about "vandals." People were arrested to serve as scapegoats. Then the case against them all completely fell apart. They now need to be compensated for this horrific abuse of police and prosecutorial power, plain and simple.

In more serious news, Trump finally seems to have been informed that the military has burned through its stockpiles of interceptor missiles at such an alarming rate that the few that remain must be held back for only the most critical uses. The mainstream media is finally picking up on this story in a big way, even though it's been pretty apparent what the situation was for months now. Trump apparently got into it with Pete Hegseth during a cabinet meeting last weekend, since Hegseth had reportedly told Trump the problem either had been solved or just didn't exist (a lie, either way).

This was also why Trump had to back down on his threat to launch an attack bigger than anything since World War II against Iran last week, since the Pentagon told him they simply didn't have the interceptors necessary to adequately defend against the inevitable counterattacks. This led to even the Wall Street Journal castigating Trump for his weakness, in an editorial that included: "A friend quipped the other day that President Trump truly deserves the Nobel Peace Prize because he has already ended the Iran war eight times. Will the ninth time be the charm after his latest decision to call off a military escalation in search of a deal with the revolutionary regime?" (Ouch.)

Not surprisingly, Trump's poll numbers are in the toilet -- lower than they've ever been in both his terms, in some polls. And it seems the rest of the world is getting a jump on Trump's lame-duck period by already beginning to ignore him:

When President Donald Trump strode into the Rose Garden in April 2025 brandishing a poster board of tariff hikes, the world leaped as if a fire alarm had gone off. Markets shed trillions of dollars, envoys rushed to Washington, more than 75 governments scrambled to negotiate, some scrapping carefully prepped countermeasures in a rush to cut deals.

Sixteen months later, the flabbergasting threats keep piling up -- to weaponize trade, annex Canada, seize Greenland, abandon NATO, annihilate Iran -- but the alarm bells have gone quiet. World leaders are slower to rattle as they've seen the president increasingly fenced in by courts, rebuffed by Congress and strung along by Tehran -- his ultimatums evaporating and poll numbers sinking.

. . .

As Trump nears the midpoint of his second term, officials and analysts say, one of his signature powers -- to bluster on social media, shock, spark panic and convert that panic ("thank you for your attention to this matter") into the outcomes that he wants, has begun to fade. The bully pulpit of the presidency remains, but the audience is no longer quaking in the pews.

"We are getting used to these daily announcements," said Brando Benifei, an Italian member of the European Parliament who chairs its delegation for relations with the United States. "We don't take them so seriously anymore."

This has reduced Trump to petulantly posting A.I. slop online like an immature little boy, and spending his time concentrating on his new White House helipad and ballroom, instead of finding some way out of the disastrous war he is losing with Iran. Trump's influence seems to be shrinking before our very eyes. More evidence: not only did more than one of his endorsed House candidates lose their primaries this week, one of them did so in spectacular fashion, which gave rise to the headline: "Trump-Endorsed Candidate Loses To Michigan Man Who Dropped Out Of Race." That's just embarrassing, folks.

Trump remains absolutely delusional on the state of the economy as well, insisting it is the best ever (even while the economy posted more job losses last month). In a recent interview, he generously gave himself an "A-plus" on the economy, as he continues to insist that all prices everywhere on everything are coming way down (spoiler alert: they are not). Trump's rosy-tinted gaslighting is probably not going to do his party much good in the midterms, which he's already wheeling out excuses for losing -- ones where he doesn't bear any blame whatsoever, of course. When asked about the dismal state of GOP polling and voter anger in a recent interview, Trump responded: "They're angry at Republicans. But they're not angry at me. They're not angry at me, but they are angry at Republicans."

There were plenty of other political stories this week, but since this article is pretty long already, we're going to just ignore them for now and move on to this week's awards instead.

 

We have to begin with an interesting news item that we're not quite sure where to put. Is it impressive? Or disappointing? We couldn't decide, so we're just going to toss it out there before we dig in to the awards. Here's the story, from Arizona, which just recently changed their election rules (via a ballot initiative) to create the position of lieutenant governor, and make candidates for this office run on the same ticket as the gubernatorial candidates:

Gov. Katie Hobbs of Arizona, a vulnerable Democrat running for re-election, plans to tap a former Republican mayor of a Phoenix suburb to serve as her running mate, according to two people familiar with the decision.

John Giles, who was mayor of Mesa, Ariz., and recently changed his party registration to "no party preference," is expected to be announced in the coming days as Ms. Hobbs's lieutenant governor nominee. Neither Ms. Hobbs nor her campaign would confirm the choice, and nothing is final until an announcement.

. . .

Mr. Giles was a lifelong Republican until May, when he changed his party registration, according to documents provided by the Maricopa County recorder's office. He continued to refer to himself publicly as a "lifelong Republican" after the change.

As we said, we're not quite sure what to make of this effort at bipartisanship, but we thought it was worth noting, at any rate.

We have two Honorable Mention awards to hand out before we get to the main award, the first of which goes to Will Lawrence, who won his nomination in a hotly-contested Democratic House primary in Michigan this week. But it wasn't so much his win as what he campaigned on that we found impressive. We wrote about this in detail earlier this week, but here's the main story:

A focus on stopping data centers... helped create runaway momentum for [Will] Lawrence's candidacy. His first campaign ad featured a homeowner who feared a data center built in their town would destroy their property values.

"People are fearful that their towns will be destroyed by these hyperscale data centers," Lawrence told HuffPost in a phone interview on Friday. "I mean, it is an existential threat for the people who are on the front lines, and people across the district see that we have corporate-funded Democrats and corporate-funded Republicans who are united in rolling out the red carpet for these Silicon Valley billionaires to decide the future of our communities."

Lawrence is counting on the issue winning them support from Trump voters who oppose data centers, and he may well be right. As we wrote earlier, this is an issue that is ripe for one party or the other to start championing, because at the moment it is a truly nonpartisan issue.

Our second Honorable Mention goes to Julian Beaudion, who up until this week had been the Democratic nominee for a Senate race in South Dakota. Beaudion officially dropped out of the race, in order to clear the way for an Independent candidate, Brian Bengs, who might have a chance of defeating Senator Mike Rounds. This is the third Senate contest where no Democrat will be on the November ballot (Idaho and Nebraska are the other two), for similar reasons. Democrats have figured out that there are some states where having a "D" after your name pretty much guarantees your loss, so they are clearing the way for an Independent who might actually have a chance to win. There's one other state where this might work as well -- Montana -- but so far the Democrat nominated there is refusing to drop out. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out this November (these are all rather longshot races, though).

But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week winner was pretty obvious this week. Dr. Abdul El-Sayed's victory in the Michigan Senate Democratic primary was impressive indeed, after being outspent by almost 9-to-1. His victory proves once again that having the biggest campaign chest is no guarantee of victory, and from all reports El-Sayed earned his win by working very hard on the campaign trail, holding hundreds and hundreds of events all over the state (even in heavily-red areas).

A lot rests on the outcome of this race, of course. The balance of power in the Senate could be determined by who wins in November. Progressives are all sort of holding their breath and hoping upon hope that he won't flame out in spectacular fashion (the way Graham Platner did), and that he will be able to overcome the flood of negativity that Republicans are already sending his way (the first scathing and racist GOP ad was aired a mere 15 minutes after the race was called this week, which is a harbinger of the viciousness to come, no doubt). AIPAC will also be investing heavily on the Republican side of the race, so El-Sayed is going to have to overcome their millions of dollars of negativity all over again.

But for now, there is hope. Maybe what Bernie Sanders has been saying for years will prove to be true -- when the people hear the actual truth of what economic populists have to say and want to do, it can be a big winner at the ballot box, because addressing working-class concerns with big bold ideas is so compelling that it can cut across the partisan divide.

That's the theory, at any rate. We'll all see whether it comes true or not in November, but for now Dr. Abdul El-Sayed is easily this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. It's time for the Democratic Party to unify behind his candidacy in a big way, if they have any hopes of retaking control of the Senate this year.

[Dr. Abdul El-Sayed is at present a private citizen, and it is our blanket policy not to provide links to campaign websites here, so you'll have to seek his contact info out yourself if you'd like to congratulate him.]

 

We have to at least mention in passing a Democratic candidate for a House race in Hawai'i here, since he was caught on video causing a beach fight (by basically being an asshole) which has resulted in serious felony charges against him. But even though the charges are reprehensible, the guy's a longshot candidate who probably never had a chance in the first place, so we considered him too minor for the main award this week.

Instead, we are handing the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award to the organization Third Way, who reacted to Dr. Abdul El-Sayed's victory in the Michigan primary not by calling for party unity, but by having a hissy fit. Here is how the New York Times reported this story:

"We are preparing for the next war that is coming," said Jonathan Cowan, the president of Third Way, a leading centrist Democratic group, revealing to The New York Times a new $15 million effort between now and 2028 to discredit democratic socialism.

Dr. El-Sayed's win was not the blowout that some pre-election polls had predicted. But his narrow nomination in one of the country's signature swing states still represented a critical moment for the party's middle, which had previously sought to cast the far left's successes as contained within the country's most urban and liberal corridors.

Really? The next "war"? Seriously?

For those unaware of the group, Third Way is more accurately described not as a "centrist" Democratic group, but instead a "corporatist" group, heavily funded by Wall Street bigwigs, to fight hard against any hint of actual populism in the Democratic Party. The article goes on to state that their fear right now is that El-Sayed is "paving a path for a progressive to seize the party's presidential nomination in 2028 -- and then go on to lose the general election." Cowan shows his true colors in what the language that he uses (which is straight out of the Republican playbook): "It is deeply troubling to see radical, far-left candidates winning in places that are potentially presidential swing states." He says the $15 million Third Way is going to spend is not going to individual candidates but rather towards attacking the Democratic Socialists of America movement, calling it a "mortal danger" for the Democratic Party. But several big questions about this effort remain unanswered:

[Cowan] said the effort would include opposition research into D.S.A., polling, social media programs and educating Democratic activists and leaders. It would target both proud democratic socialists and those such as Dr. El-Sayed, whom he derided as performing the "D.S.A. dodge" -- flirting with democratic socialists enough to get their organizing manpower and support while remaining distant enough to avoid the explicit label.

How this discrediting campaign will affect the current midterm cycle -- potentially undercutting Democratic nominees in swing-state races and undermining the party's chances of retaking Congress -- remains unclear.

There's really only one thing to say in response to this: "With friends like these, who needs enemies?" Now is precisely the wrong time to launch a huge, deep-pocketed effort to divide Democrats -- now is the time for party unity. Third Way is so terrified that rich folks might have to eventually pay a little more in taxes that they're willing to burn down the Democratic Party just to prevent it -- which is beyond disappointing, and easily wins them the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

[Contact Third Way via their official contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Volume 851 (8/7/26)

We didn't really have anywhere else to put it (it's not exactly a made-to-order talking point) but we had to at least provide a link to a story from the Amsterdam pride parade this year. It has images of giant balloons portraying Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin kissing, if anyone's interested in a good laugh right about now.

Our talking points this week focus (at the start) on the primary election results and what it all means for Democrats heading forward. Then later on we take some potshots at Republicans, just because. Enjoy, and as always, use responsibly!

 

   Keep it simple

We begin this week with a true talking point -- short, sweet, and to the point. This is the refrain Dr. Abdul El-Sayed is running on, and it has become so ubiquitous in his campaign that it has become a call-and-response crowd-pleaser at his rallies. He has boiled his campaign's bold ideas down to three bedrock ideas, all of which should sound pretty good:

Money out of politics!

Money in your pocket!

Medicare for all!

 

   The shoe's on the other foot

Progressives can now tell establishment Democrats the same thing they've been hearing for the past decade.

"I have one thing to say to all the Democrats who ever complained that the so-called 'Bernie bros' tanked Hillary Clinton's chances to win the presidency in 2016 by staying home and not voting -- the shoe's on the other foot now. Progressives have been told time and time again that it is their duty to turn out on Election Day and vote for Democratic candidates that they don't fully support or don't fully agree with because it is so critical that the Democratic Party win elections no matter what. Well, now it's time for the centrists and establishment Democrats to return the favor. Don't fully support the progressive candidate who won the nomination? Get out and vote for them anyway. Don't agree with every idea they have? Too bad -- the party needs your vote. Do you want to see Democrats retake the House and Senate? Well then, there's only one way to do so -- vote blue, no matter who."

 

   An issue that cuts across party lines

We're going to repeat that quote from Will Lawrence here, because we think it can be used by just about any Democrat running in any district or state where there are people incensed over data center construction in their backyard. Democrats would do themselves a world of good by getting out in front of this issue. So here's how Lawrence put it, once again:

People are fearful that their towns will be destroyed by these hyperscale data centers. I mean, it is an existential threat for the people who are on the front lines, and people across the district see that we have corporate-funded Democrats and corporate-funded Republicans who are united in rolling out the red carpet for these Silicon Valley billionaires to decide the future of our communities.

 

   Let them eat ramen!

Marie Antoinette would be so proud....

"Republican House member Dan Crenshaw recently shared his own take on the problems of affordability millions of Americans now face as a direct result of Donald Trump's policies. His take? 'Suck it up, Buttercup, and pay $20 for a burrito or else you are a communist.' Well, those weren't his exact words, but it's no exaggeration. In an online debate of right-wingers, someone brought up the anecdote that college students are dismayed that buying a burrito now costs twenty bucks. Crenshaw leapt into the debate, calling it a 'dumb $20 burrito debate,' before offering up the advice: 'Stop whining, get a job, eat Ramen.' As if this weren't tone-deaf enough, he then went on a rant about them dang commies. No, really. Here's what should be the official Republican response to the problem of affordability, from Dan Crenshaw: 'The market doesn't care what you think something "should" cost. Only communists care (they set prices remember? Then everyone starves, remember?) Are you a communist? Or are you an American adult male capable of handling his own shit?' Well, Dan, we will defer to you as an expert at 'handing your own shit,' since it seems you're the expert here on shit-handling."

 

   A-plus? Seriously?

He's not the only one gaslighting on the subject. Republicans, led by Trump, are running by using the "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" playbook, it seems.

"Donald Trump, when asked in an interview recently, just gave himself an A-plus for his handling of the economy. Talk about grading on a curve! He campaigned promising to bring all prices down starting on Day One, and here we are a year and a half later and prices are through the roof. Groceries cost a fortune. Gas prices are sky-high because of Trump's stupid war of choice with Iran. Everything costs too damn much, and the only answer Trump and the Republicans have is that none of it is true. So if you too think that Trump's economy rates an A-plus, then go vote Republican in November for more of the same. But for everyone else -- everyone who gets sticker shock every time they reach the supermarket checkout line -- it's time for a change. Because I don't know about you, but as far as I am concerned, A-plus is about as far from the grade Trump's economy deserves as you can get."

 

   Where's the outrage? (part 1)

Paint the whole GOP with its worst member -- why not? Republicans do it all the time....

"Remember all the outrage when the accusations against Graham Platner were made public? Remember all the Republicans who said the Democratic Party was the party of men who abused women? But also please remember that the Democratic Party spoke with one voice and demanded Platner end his campaign -- which he did. Now it seems there's a Republican House member who has been accused of physically abusing not only his ex-wife but also his infant daughter. These allegations are downright disgusting, and they're not the only ones that have been made about Representative Max Miller -- stories like this go all the way back to his time in high school, in fact. But while some Republicans have called for him to resign his seat or at the very least end his campaign to get re-elected, far too many of them are looking the other way and saying nothing. The party as a whole has not called on Miller to step down, and so far he is defiantly resisting any calls for him to end his campaign. That is the difference between how the parties react to such accusations, folks. Republicans seem incapable of outrage when the accused is one of their own, unlike Democrats."

 

   Where's the outrage? (part 2)

Another thing Republicans are just shrugging off needs pointing out by Democrats.

"I wonder just for one minute what the Republicans would have said if Barack Obama had posted an image of himself wearing a four-star general's Army uniform, complete with dozens of medals he hadn't earned on his chest? Obama never served in the military, of course, so I would expect the howls from Republicans would have been fierce and unrelenting. 'Stolen valor!' they would have angrily cried. The story would have led the news for weeks, in fact, especially on Fox News. But when Donald Trump does this exact thing, we hear a profound silence from the GOP. So much for all that 'Stolen valor!' outrage, huh? I, for one, find this double standard to be downright dishonorable and disgraceful. But apparently Republicans are just fine with it."

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground