There's political opportunism, and then there's whatever Haley Stevens just did.
After losing the Democratic Senate primary to Abdul El-Sayed, Stevens publicly endorsed him. That was the expected move. It's what candidates do after a contested primary. They unite the party, support the nominee, and move on.
Now came the plot twist.
Just days before Election Day, Stevens abruptly endorsed Republican Mike Rogers.
Naturally, Democrats exploded.
Staff reportedly resigned. Party leaders distanced themselves. Democratic activists who had spent months supporting Stevens were left wondering what exactly they had been supporting in the first place…Israel of course.
And then came the CNN interview.
Instead of providing a clear and convincing explanation for why she went from supporting Abdul El-Sayed to endorsing Mike Rogers, Stevens appeared unable to articulate a coherent reason for the dramatic switch. The more she spoke, the more confusing the explanation became.
The biggest question is also the simplest:
What changed?
Because from the outside looking in, nothing about the timing makes sense.
Stevens endorsed El-Sayed after losing.
Then she suddenly endorsed Rogers right before the election.
If voters are confused, it's because they are not paying attention.
AIPAC aka Israel enters the conversation.
To be clear, nobody can prove what was in Stevens' mind when she made her endorsement. That's impossible…or maybe we can. Watch below:
“I love Israel. I Love Israel.”
“I am a proud Zionist. I am a proud Zionist. I am a proud Zionist.”
What we can say is that Stevens benefited from one of the largest outside spending campaigns in modern Democratic primary history.
The Michigan Senate primary became one of the most expensive primaries ever held. Pro-Israel groups, particularly the AIPAC-aligned United Democracy Project, spent tens of millions of dollars boosting Stevens and attacking her opponents. Depending on how the spending is counted, outside groups backing Stevens poured more than $60 million into the race, with AIPAC's network responsible for a massive share of that effort.
Again, voters can draw their own conclusions…which is plastered on the wall.
But when a politician receives extraordinary support, aka millions and millions of dollars, from organizations centered on Israel, of course they're bought.
This isn't conspiracy thinking.
It's Israel flaunting how much power they have on the US government.
Democrats spent years telling voters that elections are existential. They told voters that democracy was on the line. They told voters that Republican victories would have historic consequences.
Then a prominent Democrat turned around and endorsed a Republican Senate candidate right before Election Day.
If all of those warnings were sincere, her endorsement makes no sense.
If those warnings weren't sincere, then voters have every right to ask whether party loyalty, campaign messaging, and ideological branding are little more than tools used to mobilize supporters until the donor class (Israel) wants something different.
A politician who endorses Abdul El-Sayed one moment and Mike Rogers the next isn't demonstrating principle. To many Michigan Democrats, she's demonstrating exactly how little principle matters once the checks clear. She just showed the country that there really is no duopoly but a uniparty under Israel's umbrella.
We are a fully subscriber-supported publication. We feature citizen journalists unapologetically. Help us grow and fuel honest, citizen journalism by becoming a paid member.
We read your comments, so come and share your opinions with us and our subscribers.
📽️: CNN
