Abdul El-Sayed’s opponents wanted Michigan voters to question his religion, his identity and even his loyalty to the United States. His campaign had a different strategy: talk about the bills Americans could no longer afford to pay.
The Egyptian-American Democrat’s victory in Michigan’s US Senate race has raised questions about the effectiveness of identity-based political attacks, the declining electoral influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups and the growing political consequences of Israel’s war on Gaza.
But according to members of his campaign and political analysts, El-Sayed’s success was not simply the result of rejecting attacks against him. It reflected a broader shift in American electoral politics, where economic frustration, opposition to US support for Israel and increasingly organised Arab and Muslim voters are beginning to reshape political alliances.
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of his victory was that his campaign refused to make his Muslim identity the central battleground of the election.
Instead, it made the everyday struggles of Michigan voters impossible to ignore.
The Strategy That Worked: Refusing to Fight on His Opponents’ Terms
Sameh Hadi, a Democratic Party member who worked on El-Sayed’s campaign in Michigan, identified message discipline as one of the decisive factors behind the victory.
According to Hadi, political attacks repeatedly targeted El-Sayed’s identity, religious beliefs and loyalty to the United States.
Rather than allowing those accusations to dominate the campaign, El-Sayed and his team redirected the conversation towards issues directly affecting American households.
Rising petrol prices, healthcare expenses, taxation and the lack of health insurance became central elements of his electoral message.
The strategy challenged his opponents to compete on economic policies rather than cultural and religious controversies.
For voters struggling with the cost of living, the campaign presented questions with immediate personal consequences: why healthcare remained unaffordable, why essential expenses continued to rise and what elected officials intended to do about them.
Hadi argued that maintaining this focus helped prevent El-Sayed’s opponents from defining him through the controversies they sought to generate.
His campaign also refused to limit itself to Michigan’s Arab and Muslim communities.
Instead, El-Sayed reached out to voters across the state’s ethnic, cultural and religious divisions, building support among communities with different backgrounds but shared economic concerns.
In a state characterised by considerable demographic diversity, that approach helped broaden his electoral coalition beyond the communities most naturally associated with his candidacy.
Gaza Changed the Political Equation in Michigan
Economic concerns were only part of the explanation.
Hadi also linked El-Sayed’s political rise to the consequences of Israel’s war on Gaza and the political mobilisation that followed among Arab and Muslim Americans.
The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, and the Biden administration’s policies towards the war, had already generated considerable frustration among voters who believed Washington was ignoring their concerns.
That anger helped produce the Uncommitted movement, which emerged in protest against former President Joe Biden’s handling of the war.
According to Hadi, the movement did more than express dissatisfaction with American foreign policy.
It contributed to the development of a broader Arab and Muslim political infrastructure, bringing together activists, electoral organisations and advocacy groups seeking a greater role in American politics.
Among the organisations involved in this expanding political mobilisation was the political advocacy group Impact.
What began as opposition to Washington’s position on Gaza gradually developed into a wider effort to organise voters and influence electoral outcomes.
El-Sayed’s victory, in Hadi’s assessment, reflected the growing significance of that mobilisation.
Rather than remaining politically marginalised, Arab and Muslim voters were increasingly participating in organised electoral efforts capable of influencing competitive races.
The Images From Gaza Reached Voters Far Beyond the Muslim Community
Hafiz Al-Ghwell, a senior researcher at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, offered another explanation for the changing political environment.
He argued that images of the humanitarian suffering in Gaza had profoundly affected sections of the American electorate, including young Jewish voters.
The Palestinian question, he suggested, was no longer confined to Arab and Muslim political circles.
It had become part of a broader national debate about American foreign policy, government priorities and the use of public resources.
This shift was particularly important for candidates willing to challenge Washington’s longstanding military support for Israel.
According to Al-Ghwell, politicians increasingly found opportunities to connect foreign military expenditure with the economic and social pressures facing American communities.
The argument was straightforward: why should American taxpayers finance military assistance abroad while schools, healthcare services and other essential public institutions face growing difficulties?
By connecting foreign policy decisions to domestic spending priorities, candidates critical of American support for Israel were able to move the debate beyond the traditional divisions surrounding the Palestinian question.
For some voters, opposition to military assistance was no longer simply a position on the Middle East.
It had become part of a wider discussion about how Washington allocates taxpayers’ money.
AIPAC’s Money Is Becoming a Political Liability
El-Sayed’s victory also renewed scrutiny of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of Washington’s most influential pro-Israel lobbying organisations.
The organisation has long played a prominent role in congressional politics, directing financial support towards candidates whose positions align with its priorities and opposing politicians critical of Israeli policies.
However, Al-Ghwell argued that the defeat of candidates backed by AIPAC suggested a changing public attitude towards the involvement of powerful lobbying organisations in American elections.
The political influence that substantial campaign spending once appeared to guarantee could no longer be taken for granted.
Hadi went further, suggesting that an association with AIPAC had become an electoral disadvantage in some constituencies.
Rather than automatically strengthening a candidate’s prospects, support from the organisation could now generate suspicion or opposition among voters.
This development challenges an established assumption in American electoral politics: that overwhelming financial resources can provide a decisive advantage in competitive congressional races.
According to Hadi, the scale of spending by pro-Israel political organisations no longer guaranteed victory and could even provoke a negative reaction.
The significance was not simply that El-Sayed had prevailed despite opposition from a powerful lobbying organisation.
It was that the political environment itself appeared to be changing, with some voters increasingly questioning the influence of organised financial interests over congressional candidates.
Why El-Sayed’s Victory Cannot Be Explained by a Single Issue
Neither economic hardship nor the war on Gaza alone explains the outcome in Michigan.
The campaign’s success emerged from several developments taking place simultaneously.
Rising living costs pushed domestic economic issues to the forefront of voters’ concerns, while the war on Gaza generated political mobilisation among communities dissatisfied with Washington’s support for Israel.
Arab and Muslim voters became increasingly organised, but El-Sayed’s campaign also recognised the importance of reaching Americans outside those communities.
His willingness to build a diverse electoral coalition allowed him to connect foreign policy criticism with issues affecting a much broader section of the electorate.
At the same time, growing public debate over AIPAC’s political spending created a more challenging environment for candidates associated with the organisation.
Taken together, these factors helped create the conditions for El-Sayed’s victory.
The Michigan result does not establish that money has lost its influence in American elections or that criticism of Israel has become a universally popular political position.
It does, however, illustrate how the political consequences of Gaza, grassroots electoral mobilisation and economic dissatisfaction can intersect to produce outcomes that established political organisations struggle to prevent.
El-Sayed’s opponents tried to make the election about who he was. His campaign made it about what voters were experiencing.
That distinction, according to those who helped secure his victory, was central to the outcome.
