🚨 A new poll from Zenith Research — on behalf of Common Defense, fielded from 6/11-14 among n=602 likely general election voters in Michigan — finds Democrat Abdul El-Sayed in a strong position in a matchup against Republican Mike Rogers.
In addition to having a higher vote share vs. Rogers than McMorrow or Stevens, El-Sayed brings unique coalitional advantages to the general election — and Stevens brings unique vulnerabilities.
🧵
The difference between El-Sayed and Stevens’ vote shares — 45% and 43%, respectively — appears to be due to Stevens’ relative unpopularity among voters who self-identify as “very progressive or liberal.”
31% of progressive/liberal voters hold a “strongly unfavorable” view of Stevens, with several saying they would stay home or vote third party if she was the Democratic nominee — including some citing her ties to AIPAC as the driving cause, which coincides with AIPAC taking a more active role in the campaign in recent weeks.
26% of very progressive/liberal voters say they would be undecided if Stevens was the nominee (4% of these voters say they would be undecided if El-Sayed was the nominee).
In matchups against Rogers, El-Sayed outperforms McMorrow & Stevens among very progressive/liberal voters, voters ages 18-29, renters & those who say they are more of a supporter of progressive causes/the progressive movement than the Democratic Party.
El-Sayed & McMorrow both outperform Stevens in “college counties” (Washtenaw, Ingham & Kalamazoo — home to UMich, Michigan State & WMU, respectively) and among independents.
McMorrow outperforms El-Sayed & Stevens among those who say healthcare is one of the two most important issues to their vote.
Stevens outperforms El-Sayed & McMorrow among Black voters and those who say they are more of a supporter of the Democratic Party than progressive causes/the progressive movement.
There’s been a dizzying amount of interest group super PAC spending & endorsements in this Tuesday’s 5 competitive Illinois congressional primaries — it’s been hard to keep track of
So here’s a cheat sheet for which notable groups & individuals are supporting (or opposing) whom:
Groups and individuals included in the chart:
— AIPAC shadow groups (United Democracy Project, Elect Chicago Women, Chicago Progressive Partnership, Affordable Chicago Now!)
— Pro-crypto super PACs (Fairshake/Protect Progress)
— Pro-AI super PACs (Leading the Future/Think Big)
— Congressional Progressive Caucus
— Justice Democrats
— Bernie Sanders
— Elizabeth Warren
— Congressional Black Caucus
For the people that (understandably) don’t want to zoom in, let’s break this out by category.
First, the candidates that AIPAC is spending for and against:
It’s a special election so caveats obviously apply — and Texas has been such a tease for Democrats for so long that I dare not venture to hope — but 2026 Blexas is on the table if Latinos shift anywhere near this much.
They flexed their political power for the first time in the June primary
A key reason those polls were so off was because Muslims were under-polled (difficult to get to take polls, due in part to post-9/11 wariness of giving away any personal info)
My likely voter model estimates them to make up 8% of the likely electorate (they make up 7% of registered voters).
I have not seen other pollsters release their weights of Muslim voters in NYC. They should. They are the sleeping giant of NYC electoral politics.
@amitsinghbagga and I spent extra time & money targeting sample in Muslim-heavy zipcodes in our July poll of the mayoral race, and we still struggled to reach even the bare minimum of a readable sample size (n=50) for a crosstab subgroup.