EXPLAINED | US Midterms: Why Are Democrats Fighting Each Other Before Election Day?

A day before America’s midterm elections, Democratic congresswoman Haley Stevens endorsed the Republican running against her own party’s Senate nominee in Michigan.

Stevens had lost the Democratic primary to Abdul El-Sayed. On November 1, she backed his Republican opponent, Mike Rogers, after a public dispute over Israel and campaign advertising. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer called her decision “a despicable betrayal”.

Democrats are trying to win enough seats on November 3 to take control of the Senate. Yet some of their sharpest arguments concern one another: which candidates can win, who deserves financial support and what the party should offer voters.

What has triggered the latest fight?

Michigan has turned a wider disagreement into a public rupture.

Stevens initially endorsed El-Sayed after losing the primary. Tensions resurfaced over an advertisement by Rebellion PAC, an outside group, linking US financial support for Israel with Americans’ grocery costs. Critics said the advertisement invoked antisemitic tropes.

El-Sayed’s campaign said it had no affiliation with the group. He subsequently said he disagreed with the advertisement’s contents. Stevens had demanded that he disavow it, and his campaign asked her to stay away from its closing events. She then endorsed Rogers.

The episode brings together several disputes: US support for Israel, acceptable campaign rhetoric, loyalty after a primary defeat and the limits of cooperation between Democratic factions.

It also complicates any suggestion that party leaders are uniformly hostile to progressive nominees. Schumer publicly backed El-Sayed after Stevens crossed over.

Who are these factions?

The broad division is between moderates and progressives, although neither camp has a single programme or leader.

Moderates generally argue that Democrats must reassure voters beyond their existing supporters. They worry that policies or rhetoric portrayed as radical can alienate people in competitive states.

Progressives argue that voters want a stronger challenge to corporate power and a more ambitious response to expensive healthcare, housing and everyday bills. They believe cautious politics can leave disillusioned voters with little reason to participate.

Bernie Sanders illustrates that economic argument. His advocacy combines universal healthcare with criticism of concentrated wealth and political influence.

“Progressive” and “democratic socialist” are not interchangeable labels. Progressivism covers a wider range of reform politics. Democratic socialism is a more specific political tradition seeking greater democratic control over economic life. The Democratic Socialists of America is a separate organisation whose members can contest Democratic primaries.

Nor does “establishment” simply mean “moderate”. It describes proximity to party leadership, donors and campaign institutions. A politician’s policy views and institutional connections do not always fit the same category.

Why are they arguing about who can win?

A primary chooses a party’s nominee. A general election asks a wider electorate to choose who holds office.

A candidate can therefore persuade Democratic primary voters while still facing a different challenge among independents, less engaged voters and people who previously supported Republicans.

Moderates fear that a demanding ideological platform can narrow a candidate’s appeal. Progressives counter that energetic candidates and ambitious proposals can bring new voters into the electorate.

Reuters reported in July that progressive primary victories were complicating Democratic leaders’ effort to keep the campaign focused on prices. Some winning candidates were connecting affordability with higher taxes on the wealthy, expanded public programmes and changes to military spending. Republicans were using those victories to portray the wider party as extreme.

Both factions claim to understand how Democrats can broaden their support. They disagree about which voters to persuade and what will persuade them.

Where does campaign money enter the argument?

The Wall Street Journal reports that establishment allies accuse left-wing nominees of consuming resources in races they believe should have been easier. Progressives argue that leaders have not done enough to help them, including Florida Senate nominee Angie Nixon. These are competing assessments of campaign decisions.

There is evidence against a blanket claim that progressive nominees have been financially abandoned. An October 30 Washington Monthly analysis documented substantial party-affiliated committee support for El-Sayed in Michigan and Troy Jackson in Maine.

Raw totals still cannot establish whether support was adequate. Advertising costs vary by state. The timing of spending, the opponent’s resources and a campaign’s prospects also matter.

Campaign organisations must choose where another dollar might make the greatest difference. Candidates who receive less help can reasonably question those judgments. Establishing ideological discrimination requires more than showing that two candidates received different amounts.

Why is Michigan so important?

Democrats are defending the seat there. A defeat would increase the number of Republican-held seats they need to capture elsewhere.

Republicans hold 53 Senate seats. Democrats have 45, alongside two independents who caucus with them. That gives the Democratic side 47 and means it needs a net gain of four to reach 51.

If Democrats lose one of their existing seats, they would need five Republican-held gains to compensate.

An internal feud in a defensive race, therefore, has consequences for the national campaign. Its actual effect on votes, however, cannot be assumed from the volume of publicity.

Will the results settle the argument?

They will give both sides evidence to examine, but individual victories and defeats rarely provide a clean verdict on an entire ideology.

A progressive winning a competitive state could strengthen the argument that an ambitious platform travels beyond a party primary. A defeat could encourage moderates to question the nomination. The same scrutiny should apply to moderate candidates.

Any serious assessment must also consider the state’s political lean, candidate quality, turnout, funding and the national mood. Otherwise, each faction can credit its preferred ideology for victories and blame the other for defeats.

The implications extend to 2028, when Democrats will choose their next presidential nominee. Successful candidates and campaign approaches will attract attention, money and imitators.

The immediate task is to win Senate seats. The longer argument concerns which Democrats should lead the next campaign, and what they should promise voters.