Dems clash over AIPAC money, ‘ogre’ attack and electability during crucial Senate debate
The battle between the Democratic Party's far-left flank and establishment wing spilled onto the stage Monday night during battleground Michigan's fiery Senate debate.
The debate took place one week ahead of the pair’s Aug. 4 primary battle, with both candidates using the final face-off to sharpen their competing arguments over who could best represent Michigan — and defeat Republican candidate, former Rep. Mike Rogers, in the November 3 general election.
During Monday night's clash of the Democratic Party's competing wings, El-Sayed doubled down on his "ogre on a pike" remark and declined to apologize, but clarified it was not specifically directed at Stevens but rather a different moderate Democrat in Congress. Meanwhile, El-Sayed also repeated his attacks on pro-Israel and corporate spending supporting Stevens, while he also rejected the "socialist" label some have given him, describing himself as a "just a capitalist who understands how capitalism works."
Stevens, on the other hand, questioned what El-Sayed was "hiding" by not releasing his full tax returns, an attack she carried over from the pair's first one-on-one debate earlier this month, and portrayed his rhetoric, outside income and national political ambitions as potential general-election liabilities when it came to taking on Rogers and trying to win the U.S. Senate seat they are vying for.
El-Sayed stood by the substance of his controversial "ogre on a pike" remark when pressed by the moderator about whether he regretted the rhetoric, which earned him backlash from his own party, but clarified it was about Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., not Stevens as some had speculated.
"I was referring to a guy named John Fetterman," El-Sayed said, accusing the Pennsylvania Democrat of getting elected on one set of values before "completely throwing those values in the mud."
El-Sayed did not apologize for or retract the metaphor. Instead, he argued that he had previously pushed back against unkind treatment of Stevens, including after she was booed at a Michigan Democratic Party convention.
REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK: THE REPUBLICAN-LED VOTE THAT REVEALED DEMOCRATS' NEW DIVIDE ON ISRAEL
Stevens later offered a pointed response: "Thank you for clarifying that you didn’t call me an ogre."
The controversy stemmed from comments El-Sayed made during a recent Zoom meeting with donors, Politico reported, adding that El-Sayed was discussing how to use his victory in Michigan’s upcoming Aug. 4 primary and the November election to build a national platform to move the Democratic Party further left and support future primary challenges, such as against Fetterman.
"Ideally, you put one ogre on a pike, and then everyone else gets the message," El-Sayed said, according to audio obtained by Politico. El-Sayed did not name Stevens in the recording; however, some Democrats interpreted the remark as referring to her. Rep. Hillary Scholten, D-Mich., who has endorsed Stevens, called the remark a "violent, vulgar" threat and said candidates should be working to lower the political temperature.
Neera Tanden, a former Biden administration official who leads the left-wing think tank the Center for American Progress, connected the remark to broader accusations of sexism that have roiled the primary.
"Calling your female opponent an ogre you want to put on a pike is not beating the rap that this race has some serious sexism," Tanden wrote on X.
Tens of millions of dollars in outside spending supporting Stevens became a central flashpoint, with the moderator repeatedly pressing the congresswoman on whether pro-Israel groups would influence her conduct in office.
Asked whether the more than $46 million in AIPAC-related spending cited by the moderator should concern voters that she would do the group’s "bidding," Stevens responded, "Absolutely not," and defended her support for a two-state solution.
"I have been very clear, consistent and transparent," Stevens said. "I want to see long-term peace."
NEW YORK TIMES RAISES EYEBROWS BY REFERRING TO AIPAC AS 'HARD-RIGHT' PRO-ISRAEL GROUP
El-Sayed argued that the spending exposed a fundamental difference between the candidates, claiming AIPAC-backed groups supported Stevens because "they know that she’ll be a reliable vote."
"The difference between us is $46 million of AIPAC spending," El-Sayed said. "They’ve set a record in this race to help elect my opponent."
He then tied that spending directly to Stevens’ recent vote supporting additional aid to Israel, accusing the Israeli government of working to "foreclose on the possibility of Palestinian self-determination."
"I want your tax dollars spent in Michigan to provide schools in Michigan, to build health care in Michigan, to build roads in Michigan," El-Sayed said. "And I think that money sent over there to kill kids and women is the worst use of our tax dollars. And yet that’s exactly what $46 million in spending will buy you."
El-Sayed later added that the United States should not be "fighting stupid wars that AIPAC wants us to fight in the first place."
Stevens countered that outside groups were supporting both campaigns and accused El-Sayed of benefiting from a super PAC funded in part by his father-in-law.
Stevens continued to question El-Sayed’s financial transparency, as she did in their debate earlier this month, accusing him of refusing to release his full tax returns while earning approximately $300,000 in outside income.
"You have not released your full tax returns — $300,000 in other income while you sat in the podcast chair and you hawked junk health care cures that RFK Jr. would thumbs up," Stevens charged.
"You talk about getting money out of politics and putting money in people’s pockets, but still, no one knows who’s putting the money in your pocket," she added, continuing a debate-long effort to portray El-Sayed as more interested in podcasts, high-profile political allies and building his national celebrity than doing the unglamorous work of representing Michigan.
El-Sayed responded that he had released his required financial disclosures, drawing a distinction between those filings and the full tax returns Stevens had demanded.
"We released all of our financial disclosures," El-Sayed said, calling the issue "a distraction" before turning the transparency argument back on Stevens and questioning the donors behind outside organizations supporting her campaign.
Stevens described herself as "the only non-millionaire in this race" and argued that El-Sayed’s finances could give Republicans additional material to use against him in November.
"What are the Republicans going to uncover in the general election that they will use against him?" she asked.
Asked to identify the most important thing Senate Democrats were failing to do, El-Sayed immediately targeted the legislative filibuster and the 60-vote threshold it often imposes.
"I oppose the filibuster," El-Sayed said. "I think the filibuster has been anti-democratic for a lot of reasons."
TRUMP DEMANDS THUNE KEEP SENATE IN SESSION UNTIL SAVE AMERICA ACT PASSES
El-Sayed argued that eliminating the filibuster would help Democrats pass the PRO Act, which would expand union-organizing and collective-bargaining protections, impose tougher penalties for labor-law violations and override state right-to-work restrictions on mandatory union fees. He said it could also clear a path for stronger antitrust enforcement, which El-Sayed said needs to be more aggressive, as well as a wealth tax on billionaires and Medicare for All.
"Right now, the biggest risks to our democracy are the filibuster — it’s anti-democratic in the Senate — and money in politics," he said.
The candidates also battled over the future of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, with Stevens calling ICE a "rogue agency" while El-Sayed labeled it "tyrannical" and called for abolishing it altogether.
Stevens said she was leading an effort in Congress to redirect $70 billion allocated to ICE toward health care, food assistance and local communities. "Not a penny more for this rogue agency that is wreaking havoc," Stevens said, accusing ICE of abusing its power and frightening immigrant families.
Meanwhile, El-Sayed accused Stevens of hypocrisy, alleging that she had previously voted four times to increase ICE funding and had praised its personnel.
"I’ve said that we need to abolish ICE," El-Sayed said. "ICE is about normalizing paramilitary force on our streets."
Pressed on whether the phrase "abolish ICE" carried the same political baggage as "defund the police," El-Sayed argued that the government could still enforce immigration laws and secure the southern border through a replacement agency.
He escalated the criticism moments later, calling ICE "a tyrannical agency."
"I think there is no way to get past that except to undo the agency and then build from scratch," El-Sayed said.
Stevens rejected his approach as focused more on rhetoric than governing.
"Complaints and slogans aren’t solutions," she said, pointing to her visit to an ICE detention facility and her efforts to change the agency through Congress.