FULL DEBATE: Michigan Senate Race - Abdul El-Sayed and Mike Rogers go head-to-head

[0:07] Good Thursday evening, everybody. Hope you are doing well tonight, live from the Hill Studios [0:12] in Washington, D.C. This is the Hill Decision Dash 26 debate night, and it is all eyes on [0:18] Michigan as we watch these two candidates go head to head for perhaps maybe the last time [0:24] before voters actually hit the polls come November. Abdul El-Sayed, the Democrat, [0:28] Mike Rogers, the Republican, participating in a debate tonight. We are going to give you 30 [0:33] minutes of coverage leading up to it and 30 minutes afterwards. I'm not alone. We've got a [0:38] group of friends here to guide us through this crucial debate. One of them is next to me here, [0:44] Drew Petromo, my former co-host at this point. So many changes have happened. And Nicholas [0:50] Anastasio, Senate reporter. Nicholas, good to see you as always. And we also have Joe Khalil on the [0:58] ground in Michigan tonight. We're going to speak to him right now, actually. Joe, good evening to [1:05] you. I believe you spoke to Abdul El-Sayed earlier today. Tell us about that conversation and just [1:11] set the scene. What is at stake tonight during this debate? Yeah, we did. And first off, [1:21] congratulations, Corey, on being a dad. That is amazing. Had to say that first, had to say that [1:27] first. So, look, we did get a chance to talk to Abdul El-Sayed today. He had actually several [1:34] events, which may be a little surprising given that in, you know, 30 minutes he's doing this debate. [1:40] We asked him about his outreach to more moderate Democrats, particularly Jewish voters, maybe older [1:47] black voters. And the reason we asked him about that is because, as we've been talking to the Rogers [1:51] Campaign 2, they are legitimately trying to make a calculated play for those voters. They think they [1:59] can peel off some of the Democrats that may think that Al-Sayed is too progressive for them. And he [2:06] basically told us, look, I'm doing the work. I'm having hard conversations. There was a point where [2:11] he actually did apologize for a previous comment that he thought unnecessarily made people, you know, [2:18] feel like they just made them feel the wrong way. And so he said that this is the work of making sure [2:24] that you go out, that you knock on doors, that you're talking to these people. And then he sort [2:29] of contrasted that with Rogers and said he doesn't think Rogers is doing nearly the amount of events, [2:35] the amount of face time with voters that he's doing. And so I think the reason that this debate [2:41] tonight is so crucial is because there still are voters out there in Michigan, believe it or not, [2:46] who are undecided. We spoke to some of them here in Grand Rapids. And this is the only opportunity [2:51] we think that voters are going to have to see Rogers and Al-Sayed on a debate stage, [2:58] making their cases, making their arguments to win over voters. And so this is obviously a critical [3:04] moment for both campaigns, both candidates. They get a chance to do that in this setting for voters. [3:10] And again, 26 days left, they're probably not going to do this again. [3:13] Joe, do you get a sense from the voters that you spoke to that there are certain issues that they [3:19] still need to hear these candidates address or maybe certain controversies they need these [3:26] candidates to address to decide one way or the other, ultimately how they vote come November? [3:31] So we talked to a ton of voters over the last two days here, and we talked to Republicans, [3:39] Democrats, Independents. There is a through line here. Every person has concerns about the economy, [3:46] about the cost of living, about prices that have gone up, gas. You know, this is a big ag state too. [3:54] We didn't talk specifically to farmers. Actually, we did talk to one farmer. But there are those [3:59] concerns really across the board. The question is which candidate is going to be the one that [4:03] handles that better. And virtually every one of the Abdul supporters that we got a chance to talk to [4:10] said they feel like he cares. They feel like he is truthful the way that he talks to people in his [4:16] approach and that they feel like he's more focused on those issues than Mike Rogers is. But the Rogers [4:23] supporters tell us the same thing. They basically said that it may be not that they don't like Mike [4:30] Rogers, but there are a lot of Republican voters here in this state that still look at a candidate like [4:36] Al-Sayed. And what we've heard from them is they feel like he's too progressive, bordering on socialism. [4:41] Some have used the word communism, you know, again, in the sort of extreme case there. But they're [4:48] nervous about what a Senate would look like where you have a lot of Democrats that are more progressive. [4:55] You know, obviously, Medicare for all is a big point. It's enough so for Al-Sayed that he has used it in [5:02] his campaign slogan. And there are some voters that think it's going to cost too much. That would raise [5:07] taxes. It's sort of the classic conservative Republican stance on smaller government. And that [5:13] is a fear they have. So that's really, I think, the bigger themes that you hear when you go across the [5:19] state, you talk to voters. It's those things. Obviously, you know, the Israel-Gaza situation factored [5:25] in a really big way in the Democratic primary. I think a bit less so in this general election, at least [5:31] that's been our experience as we've gone around and talked to voters. I think Abdul's voters [5:35] are conscious of that. It is a reason that they support him, his stance on, you know, money and [5:42] aid to the Israeli government. But I think it's been less so. It's certainly taken a backseat [5:47] to the economy based on the, you know, dozens of conversations we've had over the last couple [5:51] of days with voters. All right. Joe Khalil live in Michigan for us. Joe, thank you so much for the [5:56] insight. If you're headed to the spin room later, keep your head on a swivel, my friend, because I know [6:00] it's going to be coming fast and furious after this hour-long debate. But we certainly appreciate [6:05] the time this evening. Enjoy the rest of your night. All right. Let's bring it back here to [6:09] the studio in D.C. Drew Petromo, Nicholas Anastasio here with me. Guys, what are you looking [6:15] at tonight? Who do you think maybe has a little bit more at stake in this debate? Who has more to [6:21] gain or lose once this hour-long slugfest is over? Drew, we'll start with you. [6:26] Well, for me, look, I'm just excited. I'm just excited. Because we're finally getting a debate [6:30] and not counting primary votes. I know people talk about Texas and Maine and Alaska. For my money [6:37] and my interest, I think Michigan is the most interesting Senate race this cycle. It has so [6:42] many interesting ingredients. Michigan, an old Democratic blue wall state that Donald Trump [6:48] has kicked down two times. But, you know, there's two Democratic senators right now, a Democratic [6:53] governor. You know, somebody named Abdul Al-Sayed running to be the first Muslim senator in a state [6:59] with a heavy Arab American population. Also, a lot of Jewish Americans there. His stance on Israel has [7:05] been controversial. Also, there's this also this fight that's been going on inside the Democratic [7:10] Party between the progressive wing and the more moderate ring. I think this even has reverberations [7:15] after this election cycle. What does this mean for 2028? If you're Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thinking [7:21] about running for president, is this a boost for progressive candidates? If Abdul Al-Sayed loses, [7:25] though, is that a setback for progressive candidates? It could mean so many different [7:28] things. And that's why I'm just fascinated about this race and fascinated about what happens [7:32] in this debate tonight. But just to answer the first question, because I didn't exactly answer that, [7:36] I think Mike Rogers has more to lose tonight because Abdul Al-Sayed, it seems like he's everywhere. [7:42] I mean, every time I feel like I open up social media, I see Abdul Al-Sayed. Mike Rogers has flown under [7:48] the radar a little bit more. And I think there's a lot of voters probably in Michigan who have heard [7:53] a lot from Al-Sayed. Have they heard as much from Rogers? And this may be a chance for him to [7:58] introduce himself to some people that haven't decided yet. Yeah, it's interesting you say that [8:01] because you look at the polling, it'll show that the race is certainly tight with a slight advantage [8:06] going to Al-Sayed. But maybe in some cases, Nicholas, he has more to do to ultimately get [8:12] over the hump. You're hearing a lot of concerns about his inability so far to really drag black [8:18] voters along in the state of Michigan. And then to Drew's point, we haven't seen Mike Rogers a lot, [8:25] except this week he really, you know, separated himself from President Trump on the whole Canada [8:29] terror for. Now, I really found it interesting that that President Trump thought he wasn't distancing [8:34] himself. He was just saying Canada needs to make a deal. We actually agree on it. But what are you [8:39] looking at tonight when you see these two guys go head to head? Who really perhaps needs to do more [8:46] to either increase their chances of winning this race or maybe, you know, draw things a little bit [8:51] tighter? I think both of them kind of have to do something because ultimately, I mean, Al-Sayed's [8:57] kind of raised the expectations. He has, I think it's pretty much been touted that he's predicting that he [9:02] could win this race by seven points. If you're going to win by more than former Senator Debbie [9:07] Stabenow won in 2018 against John James, then you can't allow for there to be deficits amongst the [9:14] black vote. You can't expect deficits amongst the Jewish vote. And ultimately, Al-Sayed's going to [9:19] have to fight for every single one of those votes. And at this debate, it means that if Rogers is [9:23] challenging him on a statement, he has a response to it. And he's probably not pivoting to something [9:28] else. But ultimately, the difficulty is for Rogers because Rogers, you know, in the last weeks of this [9:34] campaign, and especially after the primary has tacked on to a lot more stances that have shown [9:38] that he recognizes that this environment is too difficult for him to not pivot. He supports a [9:44] one year statewide data center moratorium. He's, you know, tacking on to the president's tariff war in [9:50] Canada. He's calling the president to end the Rome War as much as possible. I mean, all of these things [9:55] are things that he's done in recent weeks. And I think it shows that even in a state like Michigan, [10:00] it's very difficult for a Republican at this time, especially as the RGA pulls back some resources [10:05] for John James and the governor's race. And the reality is Republicans even acknowledge to me that [10:10] when it comes to midterms in Michigan, sometimes the electorate is too educated and for Republicans [10:16] to kind of get a lot of success, especially as we've seen changes on the education line for voters. [10:22] So ultimately, I mean, both of them have something to prove, but you know, if you want to win the [10:27] race, Rogers has to prove a lot more. All right. So with that said, guys, I'm going to have you put [10:31] your strategist hats on. Drew, let's say you're Mike Rogers' campaign manager. Nick, you're Al-Sayed's [10:36] campaign manager. What are the last things you're telling them before they hit that stage tonight, [10:41] Drew? Well, I think that if you're Mike Rogers, you don't want to be seen as the candidate who's a [10:46] continuation of the status quo, right? That's always a problem in American politics. And I think that [10:51] when you're running as a Republican, uh, with president Trump leading the party, this is a [10:56] midterm election. Traditionally, what happens is the president party loses. So how do you buck that [11:01] trend? You want to present a case to voters that you are just not running as a continuation of the [11:06] circumstances that they're already living in because they're telling pollsters that they're [11:09] not having a good time right now. They feel like the economy is not great. Cost of goods, [11:13] inflation, groceries, all that stuff. So how do you chart a path to convince an electorate that's [11:18] skeptical of the president's policies that electing you is going to change their circumstances? I think [11:23] it's a lot more natural for somebody like Al-Sayed to run against the grain. How can Rogers both keep [11:29] the, you know, he has to keep the MAGA coalition inside his tent. So he wants the Trump voter to show [11:35] out and be very strong, but he also has to acknowledge that there are people that aren't happy [11:41] with the direction of the country and, and kind of position himself as a change agent, even within the [11:47] party that's in power. It's a very difficult task, but I think he's going to be charged with doing [11:51] that. Before I go to Nick and the El-Sayed campaign, Drew, when, uh, if El-Sayed tonight [11:56] turns to Mike Rogers and says, you know, Mike, back on January 6th, 2021, you said the president's [12:01] efforts to overturn, uh, the election were serious cause for alarm. Now you're attaching yourself at [12:07] the hip to him. What changed? Why were you so against what he did all those years ago, but now [12:11] you're, you're supporting him. What, what would Mike, what would you advise Mike Rogers to say to that [12:16] question? I mean, I think if you're explaining, you're losing, I would, I would actually probably [12:20] not even want to go back to the immediate pivot, pivot, go forward, talk about what you're going [12:24] to do to change the lives of people in the state. I think his case is that he's, you know, he's been [12:29] talking a lot about education, jobs, kind of the bedrock Republican issues that Republicans have won [12:36] on in the past. Obviously I think he's going to want to lean into some of, uh, Abdul El-Sayed's [12:42] more progressive stances and position him as outside of the mainstay of the democratic party, [12:47] but I wouldn't be looking back as much as I can. And also figuring out a way to use what he says [12:53] is he has a close relationship with the president and he can speak to say, look, somebody like El-Sayed [12:58] is not going to have the ear of the president, but I can, and I will. And I'll talk to him about [13:02] these issues like the relationship with Canada. We saw the ad he put out this week saying that he [13:06] wants to end the trade war with Canada, that Canada is our friends position himself as somebody [13:11] because of his closeness of the president, that he can work quickly to change some of the issues [13:15] that are most bothering Michiganders. When he could say that Abdul El-Sayed as somebody from [13:21] the other party could not. All right, Nicholas, you got a two minutes before your candidate hits [13:25] the stage. What are you telling Dr. Abdul El-Sayed? You know, I think focus on those bread and butter [13:30] issues. I think, you know, to Drew's point, ultimately El-Sayed can kind of run against the grain [13:35] of the democratic party. And I think as much as we talk about who, you know, are we seeing a blue wave? [13:40] I think, you know, I harken Charlie Cook, who writes columns for National Journal in that it [13:45] seems like a red undertow. These parties are just not favorable at the moment, but Republicans are in [13:49] power. So voters are kind of not super enthusiastic to reward the party in power. Ultimately, El-Sayed [13:55] represents something that's very different from the traditional democratic party. And he's running [13:59] on a platform that's pretty populist in the same way that Trump and Trump-esque politicians have as well. [14:05] So ultimately, you know, if he's going to hit that debate stage, he needs to focus on those issues [14:09] and be able to not only distance himself from maybe the democratic party's missteps in the past, [14:14] but be able to focus on those issues. And especially on, you know, the more culture issues. [14:19] I think ultimately he has to be sincere. He has to be sincere [14:22] in his apology. If he's tacked onto statements he's made in the past, he basically needs to address it [14:28] and be sincere about it and not, you know, pivot away from it. Especially if he actually is trying [14:33] to fight for every single vote in this election. Another reason why I think this is a true test for [14:37] Mike Rogers is because one of the, I think, most important tools in a politician's toolbox right now [14:43] is the gift of gab, charisma. Can you duke it out in the public sphere? Maybe more now than ever. [14:48] Does Mike Rogers have riz, Drew? Is that what you're trying to tell us? That's the question I think [14:51] we're going to learn tonight. And does he have it on the level, whatever you think of Abdul El-Sayed's [14:55] policies? His ability to communicate, I think, is the envy of many politicians. [15:00] Can Rogers step on a stage and go toe-to-toe rhetorically with Abdul El-Sayed? Very interested [15:05] to see that. Nicholas, are you telling your candidate to ditch the black V-neck t-shirt [15:09] tonight or just to remain his authentic self and just be you? You know, he doesn't always wear it. [15:14] He does wear the button-ups with the blazers without the ties. So, you know, whatever he does, [15:19] I think, isn't the biggest of concerns. It's not John Fetterman. On a more serious note, [15:24] would you advise your candidate to be aware of the Hassan Piker issue that might arise tonight, [15:31] be it from either the moderator or Mike Rogers? Luckily, someone's going to try and tack him to [15:35] it. It is one of those things that has been a big national conversation. The funny thing is, [15:40] in Michigan, not everyone knows who he is, but the reality is that in the political conversation, [15:43] he's being talked about a lot. But El-Sayed privately has, it seems like, reached out to Hassan [15:48] Piker to let him know that his closeness to him could be costing him some votes. So, ultimately, [15:55] he's probably going to need some type of response to that, whether it's, I agree with him on some [15:59] things, I disagree with him on some things, or it's, I disagree with him blanket on this, [16:03] he needs to be clear about it. He can't jump around the fact. Drew, I want to ask you, [16:07] we, if you've lived in the Midwest, you know about Midwest nice. Do you think you need to see some of [16:13] that from either of these candidates tonight? Because look, to your point, we could hear words [16:18] like communism or communist mentioned, anti-Semite. Is that going to hurt or be a benefit to [16:27] Mike Rogers? Or does he have to maybe be respectful, go at El-Sayed, but not go too far [16:34] over the line, get personal, get mean? Yeah, I think you don't want to be a jerk. And I think both of [16:40] them have to be cognizant of that. Abdul El-Sayed has kind of positioned himself as an alpha male. [16:45] He's taken to baiting and daring President Trump to come to Michigan. I wonder if we hear more of [16:49] that tonight. I think that both candidates probably have to be cognizant of the fact that they don't [16:54] want to step on each other too much. And there's a line that, that can't be crossed, but I expect [17:00] there to be, you know, especially if this is going to be the only debate, early voting starts two weeks [17:05] from Saturday. This is like really crunch time. If these candidates are going to make any movement [17:09] tonight, they're going to have more eyeballs maybe now than on any other point in the campaign. [17:14] So I expect some sparring, but really only President Trump is the one that can say some [17:18] of the things he does in the debate and get away with it. I think most people are judged on a [17:22] different scale. Yeah. We'll see if we perhaps get an arm wrestling contest breaking out tonight, [17:27] because we know as to Drew's point, both of these guys are alpha males. And look, I think the Trump, [17:31] the Trump issue is the big issue. You know, Mike Rogers may say, look, Donald Trump isn't on the ballot. I [17:36] am, but yet you have Donald Trump saying pretend like I am on the ballot, which brings a whole [17:42] other level of baggage when it comes to the war in Iran, when it comes to gas prices and diesel [17:46] prices. So we'll see how both of these candidates handle that. We're going to take a quick break, [17:49] uh, switch out a few friends. We're going to come back. You're watching the Hill decision [17:52] dash 26 debate night, the Michigan debate. Stay with us. All right. Welcome back to the Hill decision [20:01] dash 26 debate night. We are about 10 minutes away from the start of the Michigan Senate debate between [20:08] Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, the Democrat, and Mike Rogers, the Republican. Drew Petromo is still here with me [20:12] in studio, but let's go ahead and welcome in Caroline Vikhil, campaign reporter for the Hill. Caroline, [20:17] good to see you. Um, let me just get your thoughts on tonight. Who do you think has more at stake? Who [20:22] has more to do in order to win over those undecided voters out there in Michigan? I think right now the [20:28] onus is on Mike Rogers. I mean, he is running in a tough environment. You're talking about Trump's [20:33] tanking approval ratings. You're seeing a U S trade war with Iran right now. You're also seeing, uh, [20:39] gas prices that are still stubbornly very high. He has to make his pitch to voters that he is not [20:44] going to be, uh, just another Republican in the Senate, uh, working off of Trump's agenda. Um, [20:51] and that is the, the difficulty that you have in these federal races is that they're very nationalized. [20:55] They're very tied to the actual national party. And so for him right now, those headwinds are a bit [21:00] steep for him. Um, but you know, a good night, uh, you know, some good viral moments for him could [21:05] pay off. Uh, what are you hearing from the strategists you talked to, uh, the lawmakers [21:09] who were eagerly watching, uh, this debate play out, watching this race, um, on either, [21:15] from either side of the aisle? I think right now what we're all watching for is, uh, the degrees to [21:20] which Mike Rogers is going to, uh, continue to distance himself. He's also, he's obviously distancing, [21:26] blah, distancing himself increasingly from Trump. He's called for the war [21:30] to stop that. And he's been, um, staking out these positions. Uh, for me, I'm looking for a [21:36] standout moment. I'm looking to see where can he shine, um, for Al Sayed, uh, the, this is sort [21:42] of his to lose right now. It's not necessarily that he has in the bag. He has some good headwinds [21:46] in his favor. Um, and so for Rogers, he's looking for some moments and some stumbles that he can use [21:51] in advertising. [21:52] Carol, I can ask you to about two criticisms that I've heard of each campaign. I want you to get [21:56] you to kind of shed some light on what people are saying here. The one, uh, for Abdul Al Sayed, [22:01] he's not doing enough to reach two traditional constituents of the democratic party, black voters [22:06] and Jewish voters. Tell me about that. Well, actually, I was just talking to Corey. We were [22:10] just talking before the show started and he made a great point that, you know, he has been doing, [22:16] taking certain steps, um, campaigning with, um, the former vice president, Kamala Harris. Uh, [22:21] uh, and it was a black maternal event, which, uh, you know, not only are you, uh, campaigning with [22:28] the former vice president, but you're also doing it on, on a voting block, uh, that is in a meaningful [22:34] way. Um, and so I think from that standpoint, he is trying to take some steps. Uh, he's trying to [22:38] walk back some of the rhetoric, uh, you know, and, and talk to, uh, uh, Jewish, uh, Michigan voters, [22:44] but you know, that is a real struggle for him is how does he, uh, differentiate himself, uh, [22:50] between these two, you know, constituency blocks right now. Um, and so for him, uh, [22:56] you know, it's a lot of, it's going to be whether or not he's going to take a farther stance on, [23:00] on Israel, the Middle East, maybe he might backtrack and, you know, on some of his positions, [23:06] potentially, uh, you know, and maybe soften some of his rhetoric around Israel. That could be [23:11] something that we watch for. But, uh, right now, uh, those are, those are two voting blocks he's [23:15] going to need. Let me ask you too about Mike Rogers. The criticism of him is like, where is [23:19] Mike Rogers? I see Abdul El-Sayed everywhere. Mike Rogers being much more picky about which [23:25] media programs he goes on. I see Abdul El-Sayed on Fox News and MSNOW. I mean, he does everything, [23:30] right? Um, the question about Mike Rogers is, is he doing enough to get himself out there and kind [23:34] of really run the type of campaign that wins in 2026? I mean, that's a great question. I mean, [23:39] and, and to that point with El-Sayed on a place like Fox, I think what's also, um, helpful for [23:45] El-Sayed is that he doesn't mind those combative moments in a way that I think for Mike Rogers, he [23:49] is playing a little bit more traditionally safe. He's not trying to royal feathers. He's trying to [23:54] be a traditionally safe sort of Republican-esque kind of candidate right now. Um, and that's not [23:59] necessarily going to win you a lot of points on the board when you have to be the one on offense in [24:04] a season like this, you know, so could he change his media strategy? Can he be on, you know, [24:09] more liberal leaning, you know, you know, networks or, you know, talking to other, you know, content [24:14] creators that he, he wouldn't normally, you know, necessarily be talking to. I mean, that could be [24:19] a point that we see coming up in the next couple of weeks. Guys, how, how, how MAGA does Mike Rogers [24:24] have to be tonight? Because we see the president on this midterm blitz really trying to turn out the [24:29] base and, and, you know, we talk about bucking that midterm trend. The hope seems to be less [24:34] about persuading those independents or those, you know, undecided voters and just bringing out the [24:40] MAGA base in a place like Michigan, Caroline. Um, what is going to be more important to this race? [24:46] Is it ginning up the ruby red Trump base by throwing them that red meat, or is it trying to get those [24:54] undecided, those independents, maybe some moderate Democrats who are a little wary of an [24:59] Abdul El-Sayed? It's all of the above. Clearly, no, but I mean, is there, is there also a danger [25:08] in being too connected to the president? Well, and so, uh, the old saying, darned if you do, [25:13] darned if you don't, uh, the G rated that we've all heard here. Um, you know, that's the tough part [25:19] for Mike Rogers, because on the one hand, you see president Trump going to these traditionally red [25:24] states that kind of signals that he needs to shore up his own Republican base. I mean, [25:29] so if you're looking at as a Mike Rogers, you're thinking, well, I hope my, you know, [25:33] I need Republican enthusiasm to at least hold study at the same time. You've also seen him [25:38] have to, uh, sort of straddle the line between whether or not to agree with Trump on things [25:42] like the war in Iran. And he's had to separate himself because he understands the economy is still [25:48] a big issue and it's frustrating. A lot of voters. We look at the independent breakdown between [25:53] different races and you're seeing a lot of independence souring on Republicans. [25:57] So it's, it's a difficult situation to be in. You want to make sure your Republicans go out to vote, [26:02] but you also don't want to leave certain voters, you know, hanging and you can't make everyone happy [26:06] here. Drew, it's the same question to you, but then also on the El-Sayed part, we've heard so much [26:11] criticism of the democratic party being very much against Trump, but not necessarily for anything. [26:15] How does, how does Abdul El-Sayed strike that correct balance? Well, on the issue of this needle that [26:21] Mike Rogers is trying to thread here, I think as a Republican candidate, you're only ever one true [26:26] social post away from havoc being caused in your campaign. So I think he does have to be cognizant [26:32] of that. Now I know, I think president Trump realizes how important Michigan is to Republican [26:36] hopes of retaining the Senate. So I think he will give Mike Rogers some leash, but that only will go [26:42] so far. So he has a difficult balancing act as for Abdul El-Sayed. I think one of his strengths, [26:48] whether or not you think this is good policy or not, is he does have a prescription for some pretty [26:54] new feeling progressive policies that are outside of the mainstay of what people have been used to. [26:59] And he can sell a vision for what people often want in elections, which is change. He's pushing [27:04] Medicare for all, which would obviously be a major change and a big remaking of how healthcare is done [27:09] in this country. Some people want it, some people don't, but it is not kind of your cookie cutter, [27:14] what you get from democratic politicians. I think the big test here is how much appetite do, [27:20] does a purple state like Michigan have for that, you know, a true progressive candidate. [27:25] That's going to be one of the most fascinating tests here. He's described himself as a capitalist [27:30] and kind of leaned into a more mainstream view of economic policy, but there is no doubt he is one [27:37] of the more progressive Democrats, especially running in a state that is a swing state and has gone back [27:42] and forth. Usually we have seen the parties tend to nominate more moderate candidates. I mean, [27:47] we saw Mike Rogers last time lost, albeit only by 20,000 votes to Alyssa Slocken, who's one of the [27:54] kind of quintessential moderate candidates in the party. And so that it's going to be a very [28:00] interesting dynamic to see him go from one election where he's facing a moderate, the next very next [28:05] election facing what will likely, what would be one of the most progressive Democrats in the Senate. [28:10] Drew, you made the point earlier tonight, mentioning the comments that AOC had made [28:15] recently where she basically said, look, if Abdul El-Sayed can win this race in Michigan, [28:19] then Democrats can win anywhere. To that point, Caroline, there has been this sort of criticism [28:24] of Abdul El-Sayed that he's already got one eye on 2028. And if he wins this Senate race, [28:30] he might try to pull the Obama and then run for president in 2028. How does he guard against that? [28:35] How does he assure Michigan voters that he is going to be their senator for the next six years? [28:41] And this isn't just him using the state as a stepping stone to potentially running for president [28:46] in 2028. I think for him that the onus is going to be keeping your head down and also offering pieces [28:52] of legislation that you already want to work on. What are priorities that you want to get passed? [28:57] Who are some of the unusual lawmakers on either party that you want to work with? [29:02] I think signaling that early on might dispel of some of those notions. At the same time, [29:07] people see him as a very aspirational and might be wanting to look for maybe the next job. [29:14] Potentially that might be something that he can't help either way, but certainly having your nose to [29:19] the ground when you start is going to help dispel some of those conceptions. [29:24] He's in that enviable spot if he does win this to have your cake and eat it too. He could always run [29:28] for president and fall back on the Senate seat. So that's the advantage of putting your name in there. [29:32] It only boosts your profile. What does he need to do to convince Michiganers of that? He could just [29:36] come out and say, I'm not running for president, but you know, he might want to leave himself some [29:40] wiggle room because you never know how the chips might fall. Yeah, I'll be curious to see [29:44] what we're talking about after this debate. I'll be curious to see sort of what what alpha male [29:51] moment we have where they where they challenge each other. I'll be interesting to see how many [29:57] Ohio State jokes we get tonight because this is certainly the most competitive thing going [30:01] on in Michigan right now because their football team certainly isn't. So look a lot to look forward [30:06] to. We are just moments away from this debate starting in Michigan, a race that could decide [30:12] the balance of power in the Senate. Both of these candidates going to be asked some very difficult [30:17] questions go at each other. As you can see, we are about to get started. We will see you on the [30:21] backside of this hour long debate. It is hard to afford a tank of gas. [30:31] Shouldn't be this hard to pay your rent or your mortgage. Zeroing in on the key issues that matter [30:37] most to you. It's so messed up. I don't even know what to say. Too high right now in the grocery [30:43] store. Gas. Common sense would be nice. AI. There needs to be more regulations. A critical seat [30:50] in a battleground state. Over 60 percent of Michiganders think the state is going in the [30:56] wrong direction. When they come for our democracy, we won't back down. Tonight you get to decide which [31:05] candidate will get your vote. Good evening from the nation's capital. I'm your host Leland Vittert from [31:14] NewsNation. It's debate night and the stakes are high not only for Michigan but for the country as the [31:21] balance of power in the Senate takes center stage. Our moderator for tonight's debate is NewsAid anchor [31:28] and veteran political analyst Rick Alban. The debate will air around the state, stream online and across [31:35] the country on NewsNation. Before we get to the questions, let's review the rules. You will each have [31:43] 60 seconds to answer a question and follow-ups get 30 seconds. A digital clock will turn red to alert [31:51] candidates. They have 10 seconds till time is up. Each candidate will also have 30 seconds for a closing [31:58] statement. Now live from your local election headquarters and the Wood TV studios in Grand Rapids, [32:05] this is the final night of debate week in Michigan. Thank you Leland and welcome to NewsNation viewers [32:16] across the country and voters all across Michigan. Thank you for being here. We're going to start with [32:21] the subject that will impact every single person watching. Dr. El-Sayed will begin with you. Would [32:27] you support pausing the federal gas tax and what else would you advocate doing to lower fuel prices? [32:34] You have 60 seconds sir. First Rick, thank you so much for having me. Look, I'm a doctor and I'm a dad [32:40] and as a dad I know how much it costs me to fill up my gas tank. It is insane. $80, $80 to fill up your gas [32:47] tank. And yes, I would support pausing the federal gas tax. But there is one thing that is actually [32:52] causing this. It's the war in Iran. A war that has been cheerlead by my opponents since the beginning. [32:57] Called it a win, win, win. I don't know about you, but when I go to the gas tank, I don't feel like I'm [33:01] winning. I don't feel like our country is winning. Seven months on, eight months on. How long is this [33:05] going to last? We can do so much better. But here's the problem. If we don't stop this war, we don't stop it [33:11] now. We're going to continue to watch as the Iranian regime chokeholds the Strait of Hormuz, [33:17] making our energy prices higher. And you're going to pay for it, both at the gas tank and at the [33:22] grocery store. And so we've got to end that war above and beyond pausing the gas tax. We also have [33:27] to hold the oil and gas corporations who are using this moment to profiteer us, who have bought off my [33:32] opponent, accountable for what they're doing to raise our prices. Congressman, the same question to you. [33:38] Would you support pausing that gas tax? And what else would you do to lower fuel prices? [33:42] Yeah, I've been pretty aggressive about saying we need a pause, both on the state level and the [33:48] federal level. And remember when it, that 50 cents a gallon, which will help commuters, [33:52] went through the democratically controlled state Senate, they said no. Republicans tried to say, [33:57] give drivers a break. I think that's really important. The other thing we did in talking with [34:02] farmers is we need some diesel help and some diesel aggregarian diesel help for us. So I've called for [34:11] a diesel rebate, number one, and a pause on exports of diesel to give a temporary break. We can resume [34:20] that once the war comes to an end. I do believe it's going to come to an end. We need it to come to an [34:25] end. But I will say just a couple of things about my opponent here. His policies will raise your tax, [34:32] your, the cost of every gallon of gasoline, number one, raise your utility rates, cause you $20,000 for [34:39] a Medicare for all plan that a lot takes away private insurance from individuals. It is a disaster. We [34:46] cannot afford Abdul. Dr. Elsa, I want to do a follow up with you now. The United States is producing oil and [34:54] gas at near a record pace, but the products are traded on the international market. And of course, [35:00] that's what sets the price. Should the federal government implement price controls on domestically [35:06] produced production? You have 30 seconds. Look, I definitely think that's, that's something we [35:10] should consider. Look, we are in an emergency when you're paying $5 gas and $8 diesel. That's an [35:17] emergency. And I think we have a responsibility right now to make sure we do everything we can to [35:21] address it. But you just heard something out of my opponent. He said he thinks the war is going to end. [35:26] He's got a direct line to the president who's making sure the war does not end. And he's not [35:30] using it because he's true led this war the entire time. And this is not a when it ends. We need to [35:35] end it. That's what you're electing a US senator to do to stand up to Donald Trump and end the stupid [35:38] war. Congressman, follow up for you for 30 seconds. Would you be in favor of doing some type of price [35:44] controls? If these prices stay this high, you have 30 seconds? No, I think you could do it through the [35:49] mechanism of which I just described. And the doctor, well, he's not really a doctor. He says he's a [35:55] physician. Matter of fact, if somebody came into his office and he tried to treat that patient, [36:00] he'd go to jail. So listen to this guy and what he's trying to sell here today. You're going to [36:07] find out that this guy is not what he says he is. He is actually selling the best con I think I've ever [36:14] seen. This is the first round of that. And I can't wait to talk more about that. You were mentioned in [36:19] that comment. You have 30 seconds to respond. You know, my opponent here is going to make this [36:24] about him and about me. But really, in the end, this is about you. It's about whether or not you [36:29] can afford your gas, you can afford your groceries, whether or not you can see a doctor. Look, I have [36:34] a medical degree from Columbia University. He's got issues my credentials. He could take it up with them. [36:39] But it's not really about me. It's about whether or not you can see your doctor. It's about whether or not [36:44] you trust your next US senator to stand up to Trump and Trumpism. But when you're running because [36:49] Donald Trump called you and asked you to run, you can tell he's not going to stand up to anybody. [36:53] 30 seconds to respond to Mulan. Well, first of all, I'm running because in the last quarter century, [37:00] we've lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs in Michigan. The last eight years, we have the highest utility [37:06] rates in the Midwest, highest auto insurance rates in the country. Now you have to be 40 years old, [37:11] or the average new homeowner is 40 years old. Our education is now 45th in the country. That's why [37:19] I'm running. My opponent, everything he's talking about, and he won't talk about how to pay for it, [37:24] or what he does to make sure that he's taking money out of your pocket, because he can't. [37:29] Mike, you did that, man. That was your policy. NAFTA, your policy. [37:34] We'll come back to this. We'll move on right now. I want to talk about the trade battle between the [37:39] United States and Canada, what it means for Michigan jobs and Michigan prices. Congressman [37:44] Rogers, a week ago, you said this at a news conference near Saginaw. [37:50] Anytime you have that series and list of tariffs, I argue some are going to be really good for Michigan. [37:56] Some are probably not going to be good for Michigan. So what I've said and committed to is going back, [38:01] working with the president to try to get rid of the ones that there's consensus aren't helping. [38:07] But just yesterday, you released a new ad that said, quote, [38:11] here in Michigan, we know Canada is not our enemy. We need to end this tariff war now. So [38:17] in the course of a week, it seems that you've changed your tone on tariffs. [38:22] Are you saying that we need to eliminate all tariffs for Canada? You have 60 seconds. [38:28] I would like to see the deal made. I have actually called the White House this week, [38:32] talked to the Secretary of Commerce about getting the deal done. Canada still has some high tariffs [38:39] for U.S. goods, and they did it before this started. Those should be eliminated. [38:44] There are tariffs that I think are too high and not helpful for us. We ought to get rid of those. [38:49] So this is about getting the best deal possible. I'd like to see it end. I think we need to end it. [38:55] And as a matter of fact, have made those phone calls this week to make sure that we can get those [39:01] things taken care of. Now, again, remember, my opponent here wants to raise the cost of everything [39:08] you touch. He's for an energy carbon credit that would everything you touch, your groceries getting [39:13] more expensive, your car more expensive, your light and electric bill more expensive. The fact that [39:19] he's going to take away your private health insurance, turn it over to the government, [39:23] and it would cost each family about $20,000 a year in new taxes. This is the problem we've got to face. [39:31] Dr. El-Sayed, on your website, you say, quote, I support targeted smart tariffs that would help [39:36] protect Michigan manufacturing and incubate the industries of the future with unions at the [39:42] forefront. With that said, what is a Canadian tariff that you might keep? You have 30, I'm sorry, [39:49] you have 60 seconds. One that's actually logical, unlike anything Donald Trump has ever actually done [39:55] in office. Look, you're hearing somebody who has cheerlead, again, a Canadian tariff policy that we [40:01] are paying $5,600 a year for. If we were serious about using tariffs, we would do it in the way that [40:08] the UAW has advocated. The UAW has advocated for smart tariffs, where we actually hook it to an [40:14] industrial policy that makes sense. We're invested in high growth, high manufacturing capacities, and then [40:20] we use tariffs to protect our own market. This is, like everything, ham-fisted, chaotic, [40:25] self-serving that Donald Trump does. And the issue that is making Mike move, right, you talked about [40:31] his flip-flop. The reason he's flip-flopping has nothing to do with policy, has nothing to do with [40:35] your costs, has everything to do with his sagging poll numbers. He doesn't like the fact that this [40:39] is not a pathway to power for him anymore, so all of a sudden he's reverse course. He's doing an ad, [40:43] drinking a LaBats and talking about the Red Wings, pretending like he was not for this the entire time. [40:47] Be serious, my guy, like just be serious. People deserve to know that I have a leader who's going to be [40:51] serious about policy. We're going to move on to healthcare, unless you have a response. [40:55] Well, listen, what he's talking about, a few weeks ago, he said, I will go back and fight [41:01] every one of the tariffs that have been put in place. Detroit Diesel added a third shift because [41:06] of those tariffs. We have the Chevy Silverado came back to Michigan, huge billion-dollar investment [41:13] because of those tariffs. We saved Traverse City cherries because of those tariffs. He wants to undo it [41:21] because he can't see past his own political rhetoric. We didn't change. What we said is, [41:27] things move. We're trying to get it wrapped up. We want a deal on those tariff deals. [41:32] Dr. El-Sayed, 30 seconds, we have to move on. [41:35] Weak, cowardly, won't stand up until his poll numbers drop. This is what you can expect from a guy [41:41] who's bought off five million dollars from corporations to run his previous campaigns, [41:45] voted to raise your prescription drug prices or to keep them high 19 times. He has the audacity [41:50] to do an ad looking at the drug prices in Canada, except for he voted four times to keep you from [41:55] buying the prescription drugs in Canada. It's incoherent. The only thing he cares about is his [42:00] power and going back one more time through the revolving door to make, what, 14 million dollars [42:04] you made? All right. You know, listen, I can't let that stand. I mean, let me just tell you this. [42:09] I can't, I won't let this stand from a guy who is taking corporate PAC money. He snuck in the back, [42:14] he snuck in the back door to Chuck Schumer. That money is raining down on him. Oh, by the way, [42:20] corporate executive, Pfizer pharmaceutical, Nvidia. Gentlemen, we have to keep this in order. [42:25] Well, I mean, it's the hypocrisy here is absolutely astounding. Two yachts made 14 million dollars. [42:31] Do you guys know what Telefonica is? It's a corporation he advised that that was helping Maduro spy [42:36] on his own people. How much money you make off them? Can you tell us how much [42:39] money you made? Can you say? Is this like the deal that you cut with Wayne County where you took [42:44] taxpayers money to run for the United States Senate? Oh, and by the way, the woman who replaced them [42:50] got paid a hundred thousand dollars less. We're going to move to health care, democratic state. [42:55] I do want to talk about health care. I know he doesn't, but let's, let's get on. We're going to [42:58] talk about health care and guys, I'm going to tell you right now, we've got to stick to our time limits. [43:02] We've got a lot to cover. I appreciate your passion, but please let's try to keep this orderly. [43:08] We're now moving to health care. Democratic state representative Karen Whitsitt said she is [43:14] supporting Republican Mike Rogers in this race because of your Medicare for all position, [43:20] Dr. El-Sayed. Her husband has employer provided health insurance. [43:24] You will lose your health insurance if the other candidate gets in office. There's no if, [43:32] ands or buts about it. That is what Medicare for all means. [43:36] Dr. El-Sayed, you have said additional private coverage would become redundant. [43:43] In your plan, could families keep their private health care? Yes or no? You have 60 seconds. [43:48] Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. Rick, if families want to keep their private health insurance, [43:52] that's fine by me. But for too many people, if you lose a job, excuse me, if you want to lose your, [43:57] if you, if you lose your job, if you turn 26, you get married, get divorced, turn 65, all ways that you [44:03] can lose your health care in America. That is exactly what this guy has signed on to. He voted [44:08] against the ACA for God's sake. I want to guarantee every single person in this country, cradle to [44:13] grave coverage, without premiums, copays, deductibles, that doesn't have a network, that does not pay a [44:19] corporate CEO tens of millions of dollars a year, that allows you to have the security of knowing [44:24] you're not going to be one of the millions of people in this country who fall into medical debt, [44:28] to the tune of 225 billion dollars. Contrast that with him. He wants you to have to pay 50 dollars [44:32] to see a doctor. He wants to continue to be Big Pharma's champion. He called himself Big Pharma's [44:37] champion, took more money from the pharmaceutical industry than any member of Congress, more than any [44:42] member of Congress in the Michigan delegation. He, this is a guy who wants to do service for the [44:46] corporations. Of course, he's going to stand up for them. Congressman Rogers, staying with healthcare, [44:51] Flint physician and past president of the American Medical Association, Dr. Bobby McCullough, [44:57] criticized the federal healthcare legislation enacted last year that you said would protect [45:02] Medicaid. The cuts to federal healthcare programs, including Medicaid and CHIP, will shift costs to the [45:10] states and specifically to physicians and hospitals to provide uncompensated care at a time when rural [45:18] hospitals and physician practices are struggling to keep their doors open. The congressman, the doctor [45:25] says the changes will instead make healthcare less accessible. What specifically in that law leads [45:31] you to say that Medicaid was protected? You have 60 seconds. 50 billion dollars to rural hospitals was [45:36] a good start for that. But let me just talk about this. So when I was in Congress, I actually pushed the [45:43] acceleration of generic drugs. Trust me, the pharmaceutical company's not happy about it. There are 2 million [45:50] Michigan families today who are on Medicare enjoying Part D prescription drugs, which I did champion, [45:58] because there was no prescription drug coverage under Medicare, which I thought was a terrible idea. [46:04] But what my friend here just wants to do is, he's kind of like a glitchy AI chatbot, is say the same [46:09] thing over and over and over again. But let me tell you this. He has taken money from groups associated [46:16] and support the Muslim Brotherhood. He has taken money from individuals on his campaign who openly [46:22] support Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda. He's taken money from the George Soros family. What we found out is [46:29] that this thing goes way back. Apparently they paid for his education in Colombia. Now they're paying for [46:35] his campaign. By the way, that's a billionaire. Last I checked. What degree did I get at Colombia? [46:38] We're out of time. I'm going to give you a 30 second rebuttal. What degree did I get at Colombia? [46:42] I get interviewed by him, not by you. As a doctor, as a doctor, I understand exactly what's happening. [46:46] Not a physician. Not a physician. He says I like to say the same thing. He's done the same thing [46:51] over and over and over again. You know what that is? Vote to keep your prescription drug prices high. [46:55] 19 times. That's just not true. A million dollars alone from Big Pharma. Another million dollars [47:00] from the health insurance corporations. Of course he is touting their talking points. This is a guy who has [47:04] not been serious about providing people health care his entire career. What he has been serious about [47:09] is making sure that he can monetize his time in public office. 14 million dollars, two yachts, [47:14] a McMansion in Florida. So at the end of the day, I'm a doctor. I want people to have health care. [47:19] All right, 30 seconds. We're going to move on after this. 30 seconds. How does a guy who's had less than [47:25] four years of work experience, who by the way on the campaign trail said he had 10, own a luxury [47:32] property in the United Arab Emirates? He's worth a million bucks. Somebody has to tell me how this math [47:37] works. A, his facts are wrong. Those are lies. But he is consistently not telling the truth. Well, [47:44] let me just say it. He's lying. So he lied about being a physician. He lied now about being an Egyptian [47:50] citizen or not being an Egyptian citizen. I can't figure out what he is today. But this impacts what [47:56] he's trying to tell you where he wants you to be. That's a con man. Congressman, we've got to stay on time. [48:02] I just I just want to respond to this. You can respond. Remember what I said. He wanted to make [48:06] this about him or me. But the question is about you. Can you afford your gas? Can you afford your [48:12] groceries? Under this guy who's going to rubber stamp everything Donald Trump tells him to rubber [48:15] stamp, you're going to continue to pay way more out the nose because he works for corporations and [48:20] Donald Trump. Okay, look, here's the situation. We've got dozens of questions we want to get to. [48:25] You can't litigate all of these with 14 different rebuttals. So please work with me. I want you to say what [48:30] you want to say. Do it within the body of an answer and we'll try to move along. [48:34] Let's talk about another subject this time. It's a viewer question. And here's my colleague, [48:40] Amber Kriska with that. ICE has been a source of controversy since [48:44] President Trump's second term began. This question is from Deb Morello. [48:51] My question for both candidates with regard to ICE and ICE agents, what is your plan [48:56] for holding them accountable or holding them to the same standards [49:01] as other law enforcement officials? And if the plan is to abolish ICE, [49:07] what is your plan for keeping our borders and citizens safe? [49:11] Congressman Rogers, you've been supportive of President Trump's [49:15] immigration enforcement strategy. Name one instance or one circumstance in which you [49:20] believe the administration went too far. You have 60 seconds. [49:24] You know, I think the public efforts in Minnesota were probably not appropriate. I actually [49:30] did fugitive raids when I was an FBI agent in Chicago. You always want to go in quiet, [49:36] get the bad guy, get out of the neighborhood for less problems. So that to me was something [49:41] that they could have done differently. They made that correction. They made that adjustment. [49:45] But it has been the largest decrease in murders ever recorded, almost 20 percent across the nation. [49:52] Why? They were targeting murderers and rapists who were here illegally doing bad things. As a matter of [49:58] fact, just in this town, we had Ruby Garcia, who was killed by an illegal immigrant, who if he had [50:04] not been here, we'd still have Ruby alive today. So if you think about what we need to do to make sure [50:11] that neighborhoods and Americans are safe, that's exactly what we need to do. And I would apply the [50:17] same law enforcement standards to the FBI as I do the ICE agents. I think they do fine. Doesn't mean [50:22] every one of them is perfect. Dr. El-Sayed, you've made your position clear. You want to abolish ICE. [50:27] Let me give you a scenario. If an undocumented immigrant in Michigan commits a violent crime, [50:34] serves a sentence, and has a deportation order under your system, would he be deported? You have 60 seconds. [50:40] Yes, but you don't have to do that by violating the whole constitution in the way that ICE has been [50:46] enabled to do by this rogue administration. ICE right now is not about immigration enforcement. ICE [50:52] is about terrorizing our streets. He's talked about what happened in Minneapolis. I went there. He said [50:58] it was probably not right. I mean, definitely not right. They killed two people. You can keep a safe [51:03] and secure southern border. I believe we have to keep a safe and secure southern border, which is crazy to [51:08] me because my opponent, he voted against border funding when he was in Congress. And now he likes to [51:12] talk about being a tough guy on the border. Those are not the same thing as what ICE is doing. I think [51:16] we can go back to an era like INS when we enforced immigration policy at the edge of the constitution, [51:23] and we respected the constitution in doing it. But I also think we need a pathway to citizenship for [51:27] folks who are stuck in limbo right now. You've got this tough guy attitude to immigration that's not [51:32] keeping us safe. In fact, it's terrorizing folks in our streets. It's not funding the southern border, [51:36] which needs to be kept safe. But what it is doing, it's weaponizing an agency of the government [51:41] at the tune of Donald Trump and his goods. Congressman, in the interest of a short rebuttal [51:46] of 15 seconds, he talked about one of your votes when you were in Congress. You know, [51:51] this is really fascinating to me. He has called for open borders, decriminalizing crossing the border, [51:56] giving illegals identification and allowing them on Medicare. You can't get a worse plan than what [52:04] you hear from Abdul. Go to StopAbdul.com. Every one of his deleted tweets and videos are there. [52:09] 15 seconds, Doctor. Very educational. 15 seconds, Doctor. [52:12] That's awesome. Good for you. Look, at the end of the day, I think we have to have a safe and secure [52:16] southern border. That's why I wouldn't vote against border funding like him. But we also have to obey [52:21] our constitution. We are a country of laws and a country of immigrants. And I think we need a pathway [52:27] to legal immigration for folks. Thank you both. I want to turn now to the war in Iran. You have both [52:32] indicated you want it to come to an end. And we talked about this a few minutes ago. But what does that [52:36] look like? Doctor El-Sayed, can the war in Iran come to an end if the Strait of Hormuz isn't fully [52:43] open and if Iran has the ability to produce a nuclear weapon? You have 60 seconds. I might be [52:49] old fashioned, but I believe in diplomacy. In fact, diplomacy is what the Obama administration had used [52:54] to negotiate a scenario in Iran where we did not have proliferation of nuclear material. We were at a [53:01] steady state, except for Donald Trump just doesn't like anything that President Obama has done. So he [53:05] decided to rip it up in his first term and then his second term decided to make war that was [53:09] completely unnecessary. So I do think that we can end the war and we can actually by peaceful means [53:15] diplomatically address this challenge. But look, this is what happens when you start wars you never [53:19] should be fighting. We literally taught the Iranian regime that they had a choke on the Strait [53:23] Hormuz and now we're living in that reality. But that's what happens when you've got a ridiculous [53:28] leader like Donald Trump who does not know what he's doing and jumped into this war for God knows what [53:33] reason. And the whole time my opponent backstopped it. Win, win, win. Are you winning? Are we winning? [53:39] Is anyone actually winning? That's the kind of policy you're going to get from a guy who wants [53:43] to be a sock puppet for the Trump administration. No thinking, no thought. Whatever Donald Trump says, [53:48] jump. He says, how high? I'm going to give you 10 seconds. And once again, [53:51] the question, can there be an end of the war if the straits is not open and if Iran has the ability [53:58] to produce a nuclear weapon? 10 seconds with a yes or no, please. Yes. And we do that at the edge [54:03] of diplomacy rather than war that's raising our gas prices and our grocery rates. Congressman Rogers, [54:08] same question to you. You ever both of you have said you'd like to see this war come to an end. [54:13] But if the straits aren't open and if Iran has the ability to possess a nuclear weapon, [54:19] can you have an end of the war 60 seconds? Well, this is why I've called to an end of the war. [54:24] Militarily, they have set back the nuclear program at least 20 years. They've decimated their army, [54:29] navy, their air force. They still have some limited capability to inflict harm on their neighbors, [54:35] so this would be the time to wrap it up. That was the stated intent. But this is, I think, [54:41] the issue that is maybe the most important. My opponent here would not condemn the IRGC, [54:48] which today is hanging two 19-year-old kids for saying that they want freedom in their homeland. [54:54] This is the same IRGC that has killed American troops in Iraq. It has blood on their hands, [55:01] tried a terrorist attack here in the United States. If you can't condemn the IRGC, you have no business [55:08] in the United States Senate. And if you think about why, you know, his supporters funnel money [55:14] through the, from a group that supports the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a huge problem, [55:20] and that is an ideological problem that we cannot allow to walk into the United States. [55:25] Quickly, in 10 seconds, can the war be ended if the straits are not open, and if Iran can [55:33] produce a nuclear weapon? Well, no, it can't if they have a nuclear weapon. But the, all of the [55:38] information is, they do not have that capability any longer. So, I mean, that's, you're asking a [55:43] question of a hypothetical. The information that is available says that they're, they've been set [55:48] back 20 years. So, I just want to say, he's been cheerleading this war for the better part of 20 [55:52] years. And I will condemn any, any use of force against a domestic population abroad. That's not [55:59] hard to do. But I also condemn a war we shouldn't be fighting, because here we are fighting this stupid [56:03] war, because people like him have been pushing for it for 20 years. When you've got an international [56:07] problem, he's got a war for that. That's his approach. Every single situation, Iraq, Iran, [56:12] and what other wars is he going to cheerlead? That is dangerous. We cannot have that in the US. [56:16] Can I tell you what's dangerous? This is important. 15 seconds, please. [56:19] He can't condemn a terrorist act that happened on our soil in the state of Michigan. He can't bring [56:24] himself to condemn. I did condemn it, and you know it. Oh, you did not. Come on, my guy. [56:27] You absolutely did not. Don't make stuff up. Don't make stuff up. [56:30] Talking about making stuff up. I literally condemned it. You know it. This guy can't condemn it. He can't [56:34] condemn Hamas. He can't condemn the Muslim Brotherhood. He says his home is Egypt. This is all [56:39] starting in my home. We are going to move along. We can continue this conversation in the second [56:45] half of the show. He does own a home in Florida. He took it off the market. I don't know for why, [56:48] but he just took it off as a home in the United Arab Emirates. All right, we're done. Staying in the [56:52] Middle East. Congressman Rogers, you pledged— At least Florida is in the United States. Not in Michigan, [56:55] my guy. I'd like to be part of the debate, too. So let's do this. We'll stay in the Middle East. [57:02] Congressman Rogers, you have pledged unconditional support for Israel's right to defend herself. [57:09] Is there any action by the Israeli government that would cause you not to support sending U.S. [57:14] military assistance? You have 60 seconds. A pretty hypothetical question. I support, [57:22] just staunchly, their right to exist, the right to exist for the Jewish state, and the right to defend [57:28] itself in a very difficult neighborhood. And if you think about why my opponent is so wrong on all [57:35] of this, his biggest funders, his biggest funders are from a group that supports the Muslim Brotherhood. [57:43] He gets money from people who support openly— Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda. His family was even [57:51] included in those discussions. Listen, this is the most important thing that we do when we go back to [57:57] Washington is keep America safe. I wore the uniform of the United States of America. I was a special [58:03] agent with the FBI to keep America safe. These are the most important issues. The prattling and [58:10] repetition of his argument does not solve the dismantling of terrorist network that America demands. [58:18] Got 10 seconds. Is there anything Israel could do that would lose your support? [58:23] Listen, if they're talking about using nuclear weapons, they would definitely lose my support. [58:27] All right. Thank you very much. I've never heard them say that, though. [58:29] Dr. El-Sayed, you have opposed direct U.S. military funding to Israel. But if Israel were [58:36] attacked tomorrow by Iran or another state actor, would you vote to provide defensive weapons necessary [58:42] to protect the Israeli people? Yes or no? And you have 60 seconds to explain. [58:46] I've been absolutely clear. I want our tax dollars spent here to provide schools here. And by here, [58:51] I mean Michigan, not Florida. I want to make sure we've got good schools here and health care here. [58:56] I want to make sure that we are taking care of people here. That is my priority. You know, [59:01] you asked a hypothetical question about being attacked by Iran. But let's be honest about [59:05] what happened here. Israel has pushed us to go to war in Iran. And of course, my colleague, [59:10] who thinks there's a war for everything, went right along with it. And here we are. Israel had clear war [59:16] aims. They wanted us to go to war with them. And their war aims were what? The annexation of Southern [59:20] Lebanon. Ask yourself, are we safer because of that war? He wants unconditional support for a foreign [59:26] government. I want unconditional support for kids in our schools, unconditional support for our health [59:32] care, child care, things that he would vote to defund. So it's just inconsistent to me to be running [59:37] for Senate from Michigan when you're more focused on what's happening to a foreign government than you [59:41] are focused on what's happening to folks right here in Michigan. It's just not serious. [59:46] If there was attack, would you provide defensive weapons for Israel? I don't want our tax dollars [59:52] buying weapons for other countries. I don't know what's so hard about that. That's a no. [59:56] I'll answer the question. Absolutely. He won't. He will not. Matter of fact, [1:00:00] he would not even support the Iron Dome. I don't want to support a foreign government [1:00:03] to have our weapons. We cannot do this for every question. Dr. El-Sayed, our next question addresses [1:00:11] concerns from some in the Jewish community about your position on Israel. A supporter told News [1:00:17] Nation's Leland Viert at a rally that Israel is a bigger problem or a bigger threat, I should say, [1:00:23] to the United States than Iran. Leland then asked you which country you consider the greater threat [1:00:30] to the United States. And here's part of your response. You're going to be a senator. What do you [1:00:35] view as the biggest threat? I've been more than extremely clear about this. I don't want our tax [1:00:39] dollars being used to subsidize war abroad. I don't want our tax dollars being used to fund [1:00:43] unconditionally foreign militaries. I think it's important that we be the first among equals to [1:00:49] enforce international law against any and every country that breaks it. So this sort of like [1:00:54] hypothetical who's a bigger threat is a dumb question. I'm sorry. Dr. El-Sayed, we didn't quite, [1:00:59] we got the part that you thought it was dumb, but we didn't understand or kind of get to that answer. So [1:01:06] I'm going to ask you again tonight, who do you think is a bigger threat to the United States? [1:01:09] Israel or Iran? You have 60 seconds. And again, Rick, I'm just going to say that [1:01:13] that's a ridiculous hypothetical because here's what's happening right now. Our ostensible ally [1:01:18] in Israel has lobbied us to go to war with Iran. We have watched as Iran has responded by bombing [1:01:27] all kinds of countries in the Middle East and then choking off the world's energy supply. So this is [1:01:34] a situation in which I don't think we should be apart. I don't want to be pushed into war by Israel, [1:01:39] and I don't want to be in a war with Iran. I want our money spent here to buy schools and healthcare [1:01:45] and childcare here. I don't understand why that is so inconceivable. Now, I've got a guy to my left [1:01:51] over here who thinks that the best use of our money is to go fight wars abroad. What has that given us? [1:01:55] It's part of the reason why he was in Congress. Twelve trillion dollars, the national debt blew up [1:02:01] because he's never seen a war he didn't want us fighting. So I don't consider an ally a country that takes [1:02:06] us to wars. We don't need to fight. And I don't want to be fighting wars. We don't need to fight. [1:02:11] I just think that makes both of them kind of dangerous. I'll ask one last time. Israel or Iran? [1:02:17] That's again, a ridiculous question. I think both of them have proven dangerous in their own way. [1:02:22] One at risk of attacking us, one getting us into wars. We have no business fighting. [1:02:26] Thank you. Congressman Rogers, Axios reported that your allies ask AIPAC not to advertise on your behalf. [1:02:33] And Axios also reported that you talked with the chair of AIPAC. And the next day, [1:02:38] they discontinued an ad on your behalf. Do you welcome AIPAC's public support, [1:02:43] given that you do support many pro-Israeli positions? You have 60 seconds. [1:02:48] Anybody that wants to help my campaign stop a guy who can't condemn terrorism in our own country, [1:02:54] because he's so close to the people who are supporting the Muslim Brotherhood? [1:02:57] Again, I'll take all of that help. And matter of fact, I think he's a little concerned [1:03:02] about the two properties he owns, United Arab Emirates. I think the other one is Egypt, [1:03:07] if I'm not mistaken. Can you correct me? Where's the other one? Yeah, no. [1:03:10] Uh-huh. Yeah, that's exactly right. He doesn't want to talk about it. [1:03:12] $2.7 million in Florida, my guy. Yeah, I'll talk about it. [1:03:15] Two yachts. You know what? Did you sell your yachts? [1:03:16] I'd never owned a yacht in Florida, brother. Oh, really? Where's your yacht? You had two of them. [1:03:20] Let me tell you this one thing. Today or yesterday was October 7th. This is why you should get [1:03:26] absolutely angry. He could not bring himself to even acknowledge the pain, the terrorism, the rape, [1:03:34] the murders, cutting off of women's breasts, putting children in ovens, and killing them in [1:03:40] front of their families. Could not even muster. So I've condemned that. He could not even muster. [1:03:45] I've condemned that, but I didn't turn it into political theater like you just did. He did not. [1:03:48] All right, let me tell you this. I just need to respond. No, no, no. He's interrupted me for about half of [1:03:53] my time. So I'm so sorry, but like, I just, I'm not somebody who tries to make political theater [1:03:57] out of other people's pain. So I gave people space to grieve. Your whole campaign is political theater. [1:04:00] And you turned it into political theater. I'm sorry. Including putting on a white jacket. [1:04:05] That's shameful. Gentlemen, gentlemen, we're going to take a break from this pleasant conversation. [1:04:12] And when we come back, we're going to talk about a topic that has been making headlines across the [1:04:16] country with data centers. First, a reminder, candidates enter the spin room once our debate is over. [1:04:23] This QR code will take you to our live post debate coverage. We'll be back in 70 seconds. [1:04:29] Cause long enough. You have 60 seconds. [1:06:33] Well, they need to have water control systems that you're not using more and more water. [1:06:42] They need to show up with their power. I've said that they should also 100% of every dollar, [1:06:49] if a community wants one of these facilities, every, every dollar of the generated property tax [1:06:55] should go to defray the cost of everyone that lives in that municipality. Dollar for dollar, [1:07:00] it should go down. There's just so many questions that people need answered. You can't bigfoot this. [1:07:05] I think you need that time to answer those questions. If people go forward and want one, [1:07:11] there might be a way to get this done. I will tell you that my opponent here, who likes to attack and [1:07:17] make lots of accusation is actually invested into the data centers. He's got $100,000 in a mutual fund [1:07:24] directly invested in the companies that do data centers. So it's really important that we have [1:07:30] this pause, answer people's questions and make sure a guy like this isn't making the decision on this. [1:07:35] Thank you, Congressman. Dr. El-Sayed, you've called for public control of AI companies. [1:07:42] Why should the federal government have an ownership or governing role in private AI? And you can respond [1:07:47] to the congressman's comments as well. You have 60 seconds. What a joke. I mean, I own mutual funds. [1:07:53] He's personally invested in the company and the company that controls the real estate for the Saline [1:07:59] data center. And I think I should ask him if he wants a moratorium, should the construction stop on [1:08:04] his personal investment? Because I'd love it to. I've been clear we need a terms of engagement. I've been [1:08:08] clear that we need government that's not bought off by corporations, not bought off by big tech, [1:08:14] not bought off by the very people who benefit, who have personal investment stake in the companies [1:08:19] that are driving us to the edge of what the people who are developing this technology say could cause [1:08:24] real doom, real harm. And look, I think we need people who actually understand the technology. [1:08:29] I've been very clear we need a terms of engagement on the data centers. I've been very clear that we need [1:08:33] to put AI under democracy. And if the corporations and their CEOs are right that this is going to take [1:08:38] nearly 50 percent of our white collar jobs, I think it's important for the public to have a real stake [1:08:43] rather than private investors to the tune of 2.6 million dollars in the data center put in your [1:08:48] backyard alone. I'm going to go to you for 30 seconds. I'm going to go to you for 30 seconds and then [1:08:54] we're going to move on. So this to me is the most important thing, you know, rapid accusations and other [1:08:59] things. He had a top staffer flee his campaign talking about how this guy's a manufactured [1:09:06] candidate. He watched him say one thing to one group and say another thing to another group. [1:09:12] This guy is so full of hypocrisy, it's just hard to fathom. When he starts going through these [1:09:20] things and rattles them off, what he's basically telling you is he will say anything to win. And by [1:09:26] the way, that's what his sister said to him. He would say anything he needed to get elected. [1:09:31] And this is all this nonsense that he dribbles out there. Mike, Mike, you done? You could have [1:09:35] showed up to the last debate if you actually had things to say. You could have showed up to the [1:09:38] third debate that you turned down. Let's be clear. So you've got a situation in which this guy, [1:09:43] personally invested in AI, doesn't want to talk about AI. Instead, he just wants to point to me. [1:09:47] But remember what I told you at the very outset, he wants to talk about himself, he wants to talk about [1:09:51] me. But he doesn't want to talk about you. You who are worried about having a data center in your [1:09:56] backyard. You who are worried about AI taking your job. You who are worried about the doom of AI. He [1:10:01] does not want to talk about you because the policies being pressed are the ones from Donald Trump and [1:10:05] he will not stand up to Donald Trump. Notice Trump saying no breaks on AI, even though we know it's [1:10:09] risky. He won't say a thing. All right. What I want to talk about is sticking with the next question, [1:10:14] technology for a moment. Flock cameras and other information devices have many people worried about [1:10:21] privacy. Should the federal government put guardrails on these cameras? Dr. El-Sayed, [1:10:27] you have 60 seconds to answer. Yes, absolutely. I just, yes, absolutely. Absolutely. I think the [1:10:33] idea of being surveilled wherever you are without your consent is a very dangerous thing. Now Mike [1:10:38] is going to have a hard time answering this question. I cannot wait to see what he has to say. [1:10:42] Because when he was in Congress, he literally told somebody from the stand, if you don't know your [1:10:46] privacy is being violated, is your privacy really being violated? It's like the peeping Tom vote he's going [1:10:51] after everywhere. And I'm sure you want it. The question to me is, why do we continue to have [1:10:57] a situation in which we're watching more and more technology steal more and more of our data, [1:11:01] the very big tech corporations that are buying his campaigns, all those attack ads you're seeing, [1:11:05] big tech and big pharma. But the big tech part is really scary because you don't know what they [1:11:09] have on you. And he said, again, another quote, we would love to have just a bit of what Google has on [1:11:15] you. Can you imagine that? That guy right there. That's what he said. I don't think we should be [1:11:19] surveilling people. I think it's a ridiculous thing. And yes, I think when people have their [1:11:23] privacy violated, yeah, you really did have your privacy violated, even if you didn't know it. [1:11:28] Congressman, same question. Should the federal government put guardrails on this technology? [1:11:32] I think local government needs to do this. I'm a big believer in the Fourth Amendment [1:11:36] swore that oath to the Constitution when I was an FBI agent. Protecting Fourth Amendment [1:11:43] rights is critically important. I think the states can do it. If they're just using it for citizens who [1:11:48] have committed no crimes, I would not be for that at all. And you know, my opponent just [1:11:52] doesn't understand the national security infrastructure. So he's trying to jumble it [1:11:56] all up on people. But I will tell you this, those programs were really, really important in catching [1:12:03] people who were suspected of terrorists and being terrorist, committing a terrorist act. That's really, [1:12:10] really important. And why would that bother you? Well, if you have someone in your family that might be on [1:12:15] the side of the watch list? Are you going to go ahead and say that I'm, go ahead and say it. [1:12:18] No, I'm going to say, did you not have family? You've been tiptoning around the whole time, [1:12:21] just say it. No, I haven't been tiptoeing it. Go ahead and say it. Do you know why? Do you know [1:12:24] why? It's because of your policies, because of your policies. That's so right. That literally [1:12:29] use surveillance. Is this his question, sir, or is it mine? Use surveillance. So I'm just saying, [1:12:32] if you want to come out and say something, go ahead and say it. No, no, well, let's do this. [1:12:35] You're ridiculous. All right, let's open up this can of worms. I'll tell you what my mother did. [1:12:40] She was a small. You go after my mom. I'm not going after your mom. What your mom was working [1:12:46] at. I was going off to that organization that was indicted for funneling money to Al Qaeda. Look, [1:12:51] that's your mom. My mom worked at a law, Smokell Chamber of Commerce. I'll put my mom up any day [1:12:56] for that. All right. We'll give you a rebuttal and we're moving away from this subject. He wants this [1:13:01] to be about anything but his own record. He's okay. Because he can't talk about it. He's okay if the federal [1:13:05] government spies on you, but he wants to make this about anybody else going after my mom, my sister, [1:13:10] got nothing to actual say about me. I'm a dad and a doctor. I'm trying to get money out of politics, [1:13:14] put money in your pocket, pass Medicare for all. He wants to take every corporate dollar he can [1:13:19] to jump hoops for Donald Trump. We have another viewer question. Amber [1:13:22] Kriska is back with that question. Our next question is from William Bush. [1:13:28] His focus is on social security and whether it will still exist. If you were elected, [1:13:35] the social security trust fund is predicted to become insolvent during your term in office. [1:13:40] There's no more kicking the can down the road. Can you please tell me two specific things you [1:13:46] intend to propose or support in order to keep the program solvent? [1:13:52] We thank him for that question. We're going to put a little finer point on it, [1:13:55] knowing that social security is going to be in trouble and it's a safety net for so many people. [1:14:02] I'm going to give you some choices. You may come up with your own, but which alternative would you [1:14:05] propose higher payroll taxes, taking the cap off, eliminating the cap on income, a higher retirement [1:14:12] age or lower scheduled benefits? You have 60 seconds. Well, I think there's probably more [1:14:17] options than that. I will tell you this, my family counts on social security. I had a [1:14:21] brother that was disabled on disabled social security, really, really important for their family. [1:14:27] My parents counted on it for their retirement. My in-laws are currently counting on social security. [1:14:33] We cannot. What's happened is a scheduled 22% cut in 2032. Cannot let that happen. [1:14:40] I think this has to be a bipartisan solution. I'd propose that committee, put them in a room, [1:14:46] lock the doors and say, don't come out until we have a real solution that can get bipartisan support. [1:14:52] The other thing, and I tried this early on in my congressional career, to say any money that [1:14:56] the federal government borrows out of the social security fund, which I think is wrong, has to get [1:15:02] paid back first at the next fiscal year. And what that would do is start to measure and tamp down [1:15:07] other spending at the expense of social security. Dr. Al-Sayed, same thing. What alternative would you [1:15:14] propose to support to close that gap? Higher payroll taxes, eliminating the income cap, a higher [1:15:21] retirement age, or lower scheduled benefits? You have 60 seconds. I think the answer is obvious here. [1:15:27] We should eliminate the cap, right? It's only fair that the rich should pay their fair share. [1:15:32] People need and deserve social security. Now take one step further. I think it's ridiculous [1:15:36] that you get social security taken off your paycheck every single month, only to have to pay taxes on [1:15:41] social security once it actually kicks in. I think we need to eliminate that tax. And the reality of [1:15:46] it is that Republicans, MAGA, all the eras, whether it was the neocon era that he was a part of, [1:15:50] or the MAGA era that he wants to be a part of, they've been against social security for [1:15:54] a long time. Donald Trump has said very clearly that he does not believe that this is sustainable [1:15:58] or should be something that we continue to invest in. Instead, he wants money for wars that people [1:16:03] like Mike Rogers are perfectly happy to go and fight. So look, I think that this is a critical [1:16:08] thing. We have to get at it. I actually think, though, that the question for us is this. Do you elect [1:16:14] a U.S. Senator in Michigan who wants to fight the Trump agenda, or do you elect a U.S. Senator [1:16:19] in Michigan who literally said that he answered the call from Donald Trump and is therefore running? [1:16:23] Who is going to actually get to work to save social security? To another topic now, you both [1:16:29] say Michigan needs substantially more housing. Your approaches are different. Dr. El-Sayed, you say [1:16:35] America needs a building boom, but you additionally want government action against large corporate [1:16:42] investors and speculators buying housing. What type of action do you want to see happen in Congress [1:16:47] towards this 60 seconds? Yeah, I just don't think big corporations should be able to buy housing and [1:16:52] speculate on it. I don't think that that is legit. It takes housing stock off the market and creates a [1:16:58] situation in which it increases the price of housing for folks who would be first time homeowners. I also [1:17:04] think we just need to build a whole lot more. We need to address a lot of the red tape that has made it [1:17:09] very difficult for folks to get those projects zoned and licensed. But I also want to take on [1:17:14] Airbnb and Vrbo. Now, you know, I don't know what Mike intends to do with his house in Florida, but [1:17:19] you know, he said that he wants to rent it out. We can do the house swap with yours in the UAE. [1:17:23] Airbnb and Vrbo this thing. So look, what Airbnb and Vrbo has done is allowed very rich people [1:17:28] to buy excess housing and then rent it on a market that artificially inflates the price of housing for [1:17:33] everybody else. And I just think that we need to make sure that Airbnb and Vrbo pay their fair share. [1:17:38] I also think we need a renter's bill of rights to enable renters to have those rights in case [1:17:42] he decides to rent to somebody and decides to be a slum landlord. So I just think it's important to [1:17:46] put basic curbing on the power of big corporations in our lives. Congressman, your housing message is, [1:17:53] quote, train more builders and fire more bureaucrats. I want you to explain that. And also, [1:17:58] would you support prohibiting large investment firms and of buying thousands of single family homes? [1:18:04] You have 60 seconds. Yeah. This whole affordability issue is absolutely critical to answer this [1:18:09] problem. If you go to StopAbdul.com, you can see all of the costs that my opponent has talked about. [1:18:15] He deleted it all. He didn't want you to see it. We found it. News for you. You can see it at [1:18:20] StopAbdul.com. You can see the exact cost he's trying to impose. So the last eight years, we've had [1:18:26] about $25,000 in new regulatory costs for every house. For every $1,000, you increase the value of [1:18:33] that house or the cost of that house, 3,200 Michigan citizens can't afford that house. We have to tamp [1:18:40] down on those regulatory environments. You know, I did the education savings plans for Michigan, [1:18:46] about 400,000 people enjoying those plans here in the state today. And what we want to do is I want to [1:18:52] make sure that they have the same kind of thing for new homeowners to save tax-free, have your boss [1:18:57] to kick in tax-free, have your grandma kick in tax-free, so you get to that 20%. You do that, [1:19:04] you reduce the regulation, you increase the ability for them to be able to afford that down payment. It [1:19:10] gets people into the house. We're going to move on to a subject that we could have talked about for the [1:19:16] last 40 years, although the number keeps getting higher, and that's the federal debt. It's now more than [1:19:22] $40 trillion. Interest rates are high, investors are issuing warnings, and first-time homebuyers are [1:19:31] having a hard time getting into the market. Congressman Rogers, can you tell voters one [1:19:36] significant spending cut or tax change or entitlement reform that you would support, even if it's [1:19:42] politically unpopular, to start reducing that debt? You have 60 seconds. So I was the chairman of the [1:19:49] House Intelligence Committee in the United States Congress. At the time of Iraq and Afghanistan, [1:19:54] at that time, Russia was trying to get nuclear, excuse me, torpedoes. China was going after us [1:19:59] in space. It was a pretty precarious time for the country. I took a look at that budget. I worked in [1:20:04] a bipartisan way with my ranking Democrat. We sat down over the course of the summer and we cut out [1:20:10] $11 billion of a $78 billion budget. That just wasn't done back then. It was never done. Then we made sure [1:20:16] that that money didn't get added in in the six years that followed our cut in that budget. [1:20:22] I think there is fat and waste in every department, and I put the Department of Defense in there as well. [1:20:28] I think if you go after the fraud, the fraud numbers now are about $500 billion, and you go after [1:20:34] waste in each one of these departments, like I have done in a bipartisan way, I think you can get that [1:20:40] math down to a good place pretty quickly. Dr. El-Sayed, it seems something has to change. Can you point [1:20:46] to a significant spending cut or entitlement reform or tax change that you would support even if it's [1:20:53] not politically popular? You have 60 seconds. Tax, billionaire, wealth. It's that simple. We could [1:20:59] return $4.6 trillion simply by taxing billionaires. Look, I don't know about anybody. He's going to get [1:21:05] precious about billionaires here in a second, but I don't think it's important for a billionaire to make a [1:21:09] second billion. I think it's more important for the average person to be able to make their first [1:21:12] hundred thousand. If you could think about what you could do with $4.6 trillion back to our federal [1:21:20] budget, think about what it would mean for things like health care, things like child care. And the [1:21:25] reality of it is that while my colleague was in Congress for 14 years, they accrued a 12 trillion [1:21:31] dollar deficit, 12 trillion dollars. The 40 trillion we have, 12 trillion alone came while he was in [1:21:37] Congress. So he's going to talk a big game about balancing budgets. It didn't really quite do that, [1:21:41] did we? Why? Because every time his party's in power, we do two things. We cut taxes for the richest [1:21:46] people or, and we go to war. And that's exactly what Donald Trump has just done with the one big [1:21:51] ugly bill and the Iran war, and he's backstopped the entire thing. So what do you think you're going [1:21:55] to get with him? More deficit, more debt, only to tell us we can't have health care. I'll give you 30 [1:21:59] seconds. Yeah, this is the guy. He just does not want to explain what his proposals are. That's why he does [1:22:04] this really pretty talk. You learn that in Oxford, I guess, how to talk pretty. But I will tell you [1:22:08] what, it's dangerous. They're going to take away your personal health care. And the new cost is [1:22:14] $20,000 in new taxes per family. Oh, and by the way, you have to answer to the government. Oh, [1:22:19] and by the way, he supports the death panels that Canada implemented. Do you want the government [1:22:24] making those decisions at a more expensive cost and less access? So well, I'm not done yet. [1:22:30] You are, because we're at the end of the show. We're going to run out of time. 30 seconds for [1:22:33] you, Dr. Elson. Yeah, in case I wasn't clear, tax, billionaire, wealth. Look, I actually went to, [1:22:38] I learned that at Michigan, where I actually went to school. I don't just parade around in the Block M. [1:22:41] The reality of it is that we can do this. It's just math, more money in, less money out. So ask yourself [1:22:48] whether or not this war is good for you. This guy voted to keep prescription drug prices high. He's [1:22:53] enthralled to all the corporations that have nickel and dimed you $64,000 alone from DTE. Not true? Not true? [1:22:58] Not true. Not in the Senate race. Not true. We've got to stay on time. Now, our final question, [1:23:02] and here it is. We have had a number of people ask questions from viewers and expressing concern [1:23:08] about the divide between right and left. So starting with you, Dr. El-Sayed, who do you work for? Can you [1:23:14] name one Trump policy you would have voted for because you believe it was right for Michigan? You have 60 [1:23:21] seconds. I work for the people of the state of Michigan. I have never taken a dime from a corporation to [1:23:26] run a campaign. This guy took more money from corporate super PACs than anybody in the Michigan [1:23:33] delegation when he was in Congress. Called himself the champion of big pharmas. I don't work for them. [1:23:37] I don't work for big insurance, who's also bought them off. I don't work for big tech, [1:23:40] who's bought them off. I don't work for DTE, who's also bought them off. I work for the people. [1:23:45] And I believe as such, we have a responsibility to work with anybody who is going to champion [1:23:49] the issues that people have. Actually, that policy that you asked me about, Rick, about the question of [1:23:55] whether or not we should have corporate speculators buying housing, that's something that Donald Trump [1:23:59] seemed to agree with me with. Congressional stock trading, something he's done. Also, [1:24:03] Donald Trump agreed with me with. I don't own personal stock. I'm not trying to make myself rich [1:24:09] off of my job in public service. This guy has done exactly that. 14 million dollars. That's what he made [1:24:15] when he left Congress doing the work for the corporations he had just previously been regulating, [1:24:19] who had bought them off when he was in Congress in the first place. We have to go 60 seconds. [1:24:23] This is so offensive to me. This is incredible. And it is not the truth. And you know, it's not the [1:24:28] truth. Like I said, interrupt. You're like that AI chat bot. That's a little glitchy. You just say [1:24:34] it over and over and you make accusations for a guy that you did it. No, I did not. Never. I never [1:24:41] traded a stock. $64,000 in duty. Did you or did you not take it? Oh my gosh. Did you or did you not? [1:24:46] So that means you're bought off by George Soares family. That means that you're bought off by Hamas, [1:24:52] Hezbollah, Al Qaeda. Those people who are supporting you, pour that money into your campaign. [1:24:57] This is a very- You begged Chuck Schumer, begged Chuck Schumer. Matter of fact, you had to sneak by [1:25:01] the trash cans in the back of the building to beg for that money. So here's the guy to send money out [1:25:07] of politics until it gets to shove into his pocket. Who's paying for your ass? That tells you- [1:25:12] Who's paying for your ass? That tells you- 10 seconds. That absolutely tells you who he is. [1:25:16] The guy on his staff that said he will say anything to get elected and tell you one thing [1:25:21] one time and another the next time. He's a manufactured candidate. We've come to the end [1:25:25] of our discussion. This is absolute nonsense. Thank you both very much. You have 30 seconds to wrap up our [1:25:29] debate beginning with you, Dr. El-Sayed, and you must stay on time. 30 seconds. Look, I told you what this [1:25:35] debate was going to be. Him pointing at me and saying all kinds of foreign names or him talking [1:25:39] about himself. And I told you, I'm interested in you. I understand that gas is too expensive. [1:25:45] Groceries are unaffordable. I understand that it's really hard to see a doctor and I want to solve that. [1:25:50] And the reason we haven't is because we've got corporate politicians who are going to do the bidding [1:25:54] of people like Donald Trump, the war in Iran, the tariff war, all the money he's taken from pharma. [1:25:59] Ask yourself if that's helped you. I believe in money out of politics, money in your pocket, [1:26:03] Medicare for all. 30 seconds, Congress. We cannot afford Abdul and we cannot risk his ideology. [1:26:10] Think about what he's proposing. The largest, most massive tax increase in the history, [1:26:15] taking over your private health insurance and giving it to the government. Huge increases in [1:26:21] your energy costs, that 30% alone in utilities. It's a carbon tax that affects everything that you buy. [1:26:29] I'm Mike Rogers, United States Army officer, FBI agent. Don't listen to this guy. I will make and [1:26:36] fight for a better Michigan. Thank you, candidates. I appreciate you being here. Thanks to News Nation, [1:26:41] our broadcast partners, and to all of you who are watching. Don't forget to go to Wood TV Plus for the [1:26:47] spin room right now for more on tonight's debate, including reaction from the candidates. [1:26:51] And the final word is good night from Grand Rapids. Thank you. Good luck. [1:26:58] And with that, we say good evening from Washington, D.C. You have been watching the Michigan Senate debate [1:27:04] here on the Hill and Decision Desk 26 debate night. A feisty, fiery debate there in Michigan. Both [1:27:12] candidates landing a few punches. We're going to spend the next 30 minutes or so going through it. If you're [1:27:17] watching us on YouTube, go ahead and throw some comments, some questions into the chat. We may [1:27:21] get to some later on tonight. My name is Corey Smith. Joining me here in studio, we have Drew Petromo [1:27:27] of the Hill and Nicholas Anastasio, Senate reporter with the, remind me, Nicholas, just- [1:27:35] National Journal. National Journal. National Journal. My apologies. We'll start with you, [1:27:38] Nicholas. What did you think about tonight? What stood out to you? What are people going to be [1:27:43] talking about tomorrow? It's going to be the fight. I mean, this was the feistiest Senate debate we've [1:27:48] had so far. You know, obviously there's still more to come and there's one more in Michigan, [1:27:52] but ultimately this was just the feistiest Senate debate. Perhaps one of the more feistier debates [1:27:58] in general, if you're looking at House or Governor. I mean, the reality is both of them were fighting. [1:28:03] The moderator was very much getting tired. There was a point where they went to commercial break and it [1:28:08] seemed like they still were debating. I wonder what they were still debating about, but I think that [1:28:13] that's just going to come down to is that these two really fought and, you know, I think if you're [1:28:17] on the right, maybe you're going to side with Mike Rogers. If you're on the left, you're going to side [1:28:21] with Abdul Saeed. But for the voters in the middle, I think the bigger question is going to be who [1:28:26] actually sold their argument the most. I think they tried their best to not just be positive about [1:28:32] themselves and I think most of it was about what the other opponent was doing. I think the big focus [1:28:38] will still be the biggest issues. I think there were some more culture issues that kind of stayed out of it. [1:28:43] I think the big thing was Rogers definitely tried to keep tying El Saeed to the Muslim Brotherhood, [1:28:49] you know, trying to tack down that lane. But, you know, the reality is that Rogers was also trying to [1:28:55] tack El Saeed down on affordability and the reality is that El Saeed was hitting him all the way back. [1:29:00] So I think the feistiness is going to be the main topic. I don't know if this really helps people [1:29:04] make their decision, but we'll see. [1:29:07] Drew, what do you think? [1:29:08] Drew, I think it was a 10 round heavyweight fight where there were no knockouts and it's [1:29:12] now going to go to the scorecards and that's going to ultimately be the voters. I think if you were [1:29:17] Mike Rogers or Mike Rogers camp, there could have been some concern that because of Abdul El Saeed's [1:29:23] rhetoric ability, that his ability to speak extemporaneously, he seems like he's just been [1:29:29] in a lot of arguments and has a lot of muscle memory of how to have these debates that you weren't [1:29:33] going to be able to hang with him. But I think he showed himself to be a capable debater there. [1:29:38] I don't think he watched that debate and saw one person was just outclassed rhetorically. [1:29:42] And so I think that's a win for the Rogers camp, but I don't think that there's going to be a moment [1:29:47] from that that is a major blow to either campaign. Both sides seem to come in with the talking points [1:29:52] that they wanted to hit. They got to those, they got to them even if the question wasn't really about [1:29:57] that. And we were talking during the debate, this seems like a tactic. We see more and more [1:30:01] debates now. It doesn't matter what the question is. The candidates come in with [1:30:04] their points that they want to hit and they're going to get to them repeatedly, [1:30:07] no matter what the question is. And we certainly saw that tonight. [1:30:10] Yeah. Only in today's politics can you get a question on healthcare, Medicare for all [1:30:14] and end up talking about the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Al Qaeda. But that's what we got tonight. [1:30:19] And it appeared at one point, you kept seeing Abdul El Saeed kind of goading Mike Rogers into just go [1:30:24] ahead and say it. It sounded like to me he wanted Mike Rogers to call him a terrorist of some sort. [1:30:30] That's sort of what I got. But to Drew's point, we did get Abdul El Saeed and both Mike Rogers [1:30:35] going to the well on a few things multiple times. I lost count of how many times Abdul El Saeed said [1:30:40] this election is about you. I lost count of how many times Mike Rogers said Abdul El Saeed is not [1:30:45] really a doctor and owns a second home in the UAE. And I guess, Nicholas, I bring that up just to say [1:30:52] it seems like in this political moment we live in right now, when we have these crucial debates, [1:30:57] voters don't really learn anything. Yeah, I think the thing for Rogers is that he's trying [1:31:04] to make El Saeed as unfavorable as he can. The reality is that his favorability ratings aren't [1:31:10] any better. The reality is that both of them, you know, to an extent could be seen as underwater. [1:31:15] Maybe they're attacked a little bit and voters are a little bit undivided. But Rogers, you know, [1:31:20] during the 2024 campaign has struggled on a lot of the attacks, especially the carpetbagging [1:31:25] attacks, you know, related to him having a residence in Florida. So ultimately, the thing [1:31:30] for both of these candidates is should just be the less unfavorable one. And that's why these [1:31:35] character attacks are such a big part of this campaign and why El Saeed has been so willing [1:31:41] to bog Rogers' down as much as possible. And the same with the Rogers side as well. So it detracts from [1:31:47] the policy a lot of the time. I think the thing that was notable with El Saeed, and a lot of it is, [1:31:52] I think it comes from his public speaking skills, is that he was able to, I think, diffuse a lot of [1:31:57] what Rogers was doing throughout the debate to the point where it felt like you were only hearing [1:32:02] El Saeed at times when Rogers was trying to lop something. But if El Saeed was trying to lop [1:32:06] something, Rogers was kind of getting caught up a little bit. So I think that kind of broke through, [1:32:11] but a lot of this is very rhetorical. I think when it comes down to the policy, [1:32:14] if you wanted a very deep answer on some things, then I don't think you got it. And I think with the [1:32:19] questions, there were some limitations for the types of things that maybe some voters are hearing [1:32:24] just because of how much this race has kind of opened up so many questions across the spectrum. [1:32:28] Yeah, I didn't think I'd hear the phrase my guy used so many times in the debate. But I guess it [1:32:33] speaks to maybe the youth of an Abdul El Saeed. Drew, El Saeed kept hitting Mike Rogers on the war in Iran [1:32:41] and being in lockstep with Donald Trump. And you even saw Rick Alban, the moderator, [1:32:46] who I got to say, I think did a very good job tonight. The whole production was good. [1:32:50] Yeah. I mean, look, they brought in other people to ask questions. [1:32:54] Yeah. Wood TV does a great job. Tough job. Because this is the second debate, [1:32:57] I believe we watched them. Yeah, we watched the Haley Stevens, Abdul El Saeed debate earlier this year. [1:33:02] How do you think Mike Rogers handled the criticism on the war in Iran? Because even [1:33:06] that direct question that Rick asked him, can you end this war with Iran still having some level of [1:33:12] control in the strait and oil prices still being high and still having the capability of having [1:33:17] a nuclear weapon? And he seemed to kind of give a non-answer beyond just saying, you know, [1:33:25] I don't think he can, but we got to end the war at some point. I mean, I think it's a difficult [1:33:28] position that these Republican candidates are being put in. And somebody like Mike Rogers, [1:33:32] who has a long career in national security, was the chair of the House Intelligence Committee for many [1:33:39] years and has been supportive of the war on terror era wars in the past is in a difficult position [1:33:46] because this particular conflict is so unpopular. I do think that he showed himself to be pretty nimble [1:33:53] when it comes to answering that question and acknowledge the pain that many people are feeling [1:33:57] because of the impacts of the war, but also reiterated what we've heard from other Republicans [1:34:02] that he, they, he draws a line at Iran achieving a nuclear weapon, whether that's going to be enough [1:34:07] for a public that is vehemently opposed to the president's policy as it pertains to Iran, [1:34:12] I think is left to be seen. Um, I, I mean, I think that Abdul El-Sayed did a good job of prosecuting [1:34:20] that point and showing that, you know, his line here in some ways is an easier one to take. [1:34:26] If you like what is happening now and Americans are telling pollsters that they don't, then can, [1:34:30] then you can vote for Mike Rogers. If you want change, I am that candidate. What the Rogers [1:34:36] campaign is trying to say is the change that he is offering is radical and outside the mainstream. [1:34:42] Um, the, again, not to go back to a, a boxing analogy, but if you believe the pollsters and [1:34:49] you believe what our friends at DDHQ are saying, Abdul El-Sayed came into this fight with a lead [1:34:54] and it's going to be incumbent on right Mike Rogers. Again, if you believe the polls to change the [1:34:58] dynamic, I don't know if he did there. And on an issue like Iran, I do think he's on his back foot [1:35:03] there just because of the unpopularity of the conflict with the American people. [1:35:06] Nicholas, sticking with Drew's analogy, did, did Mike Rogers land any punches here? Any haymakers [1:35:11] really sort of stand out to you that maybe threw Abdul El-Sayed off guard that he may ultimately [1:35:16] have to address in the days and weeks after this debate? You know, I, I think a lot of pundits and [1:35:21] a lot of folks that kind of look at elections and even strategists in general talk about how [1:35:26] a lot of the feelings that voters kind of have are pretty baked in, you know, at the beginning, [1:35:30] you know, right after Labor Day. And especially now that we're in the thick of October already, [1:35:34] you know, if any voters were convinced, they were convinced at the margins. I think this debate, [1:35:39] it was just a feisty match between the two. Obviously, if you're in for the entertainment, [1:35:44] you're going to pay attention to it. You know, if anything, it probably energizes some Democrats who [1:35:49] maybe didn't know as much about Abdul El-Sayed, maybe for Mike Rogers, you know, they felt like it's a [1:35:55] little bit more energizing for them on the Republican side. Although, you know, this is the type of year [1:35:59] where it seems like Democrats could get more enthused than Republicans. It's very hard to see [1:36:05] how this debate really does a ton, especially because if Rogers was going to, I think, catch [1:36:11] El-Sayed off guard, El-Sayed would have had to been struggling out a lot of answers. The reality [1:36:15] is that El-Sayed was answering every single question. He wasn't avoiding at least some of the [1:36:20] things like being able to name one Trump policy that he supported. There are some Democrats that [1:36:24] wouldn't even try and answer that question. So there's a reality where he was able to, I think, [1:36:29] have an exactness in the way that he was answering while Rogers, I think, was trying to ponder his [1:36:33] answers to be a little bit careful because there is a reality where there is a true social post [1:36:38] waiting to criticize Rogers if he's too critical of the president. Drew, coming in, we know that [1:36:44] Abdul El-Sayed was struggling somewhat with black voters and with Jewish voters. We got the very direct, [1:36:49] and I thought it was a good question, Israel question, that Abdul El-Sayed continuously said [1:36:53] was a ridiculous question. The question being which country is more of a threat to the United [1:36:58] States and our national security? Is it Israel or Iran? What did you make of him saying it is both of [1:37:05] them but in different ways? Israel, you know, in America, sending money, taxpayer money to Israel [1:37:12] for its defense and to prosecute its war, and then Iran just being a direct terror threat for America. [1:37:18] Yeah, both Israel and Iran dangerous in their own way as the thing, what he ended up landing on. [1:37:23] Look, I think that if you are a voter who is concerned about his policy toward Israel, if you [1:37:29] are concerned about these descriptions and the way that Mike Rogers frames it is that, you know, he has [1:37:36] connections to these terrorist groups. Of course, Abdul El-Sayed refused that, but if you come into this [1:37:42] viewing process and you're concerned about that already, I think Mike Rogers did a good job of [1:37:47] highlighting those aspects. And I imagine there are some perhaps Jewish supporters of Israel [1:37:53] in Michigan that are torn on this campaign because maybe they don't like the policies of President [1:37:58] Trump but have strong feelings about their support for Israel and are trying to figure out how they [1:38:03] can weigh that. I think Mike Rogers scored some points on pointing out, you know, in his eyes [1:38:08] and his explanation that Abdul El-Sayed has suspect connections. So I think he was actually pretty [1:38:14] effective there in landing some blows. I noticed that Mike Rogers also didn't confirm or deny the [1:38:19] reporting that Rick brought up from Axios about this call perhaps with an APAC staffer saying, [1:38:26] hey, don't put out this public ad for me because he was maybe worried about some blowback there. Nick, [1:38:31] what did you make about how Mike Rogers answered that question? Because he is Vietnamese on the side of [1:38:35] Israel is our ally. They are in a tough region. We have to stand by them. And he said, you know, [1:38:43] is there anything that would make you not support Israel? And he used if Israel wanted to use nuclear [1:38:48] weapons. I thought the moderator perhaps might ask, you know, about what's going on in Gaza and the [1:38:54] targeting of civilians. Would that be a deal breaker there? But he decided not to. What did you make of [1:38:59] Mike Rogers answers on that on that issue? I mean, look, it's a it's a difficult thread. Obviously, [1:39:04] I think a big element of Mike Rogers campaign is to really introduce Jewish voters into the fold, [1:39:09] especially Jewish voters. I mean, the Jewish block in general is not a monolith, but there are a [1:39:14] contention of Jewish voters that have made it clear that they do not want to support a candidate that is [1:39:18] anti-Israel or too skeptical of Israel. And so for Mike Rogers campaign, that is a block that they're [1:39:25] looking to make inroads with, not just in Michigan, but across the country. But at the same time, [1:39:30] you know, I think there was a recognition that for those who are non-Jewish, for those [1:39:34] who are outside of that, or maybe on, you know, the views of of the Israeli government within the [1:39:40] United States have drastically changed over the years, especially on the Democratic side, [1:39:44] on the independent side, and even on the Republican side. So it's a threading of a needle where [1:39:49] you don't want to, I think, show so much difference that you start to alienate voters that do not [1:39:53] understand that or do not understand the connection to the Israeli government as much, [1:39:58] or the country of Israel. But ultimately, if Mike Rogers is trying to take out some of those [1:40:03] blocks that otherwise would go to Democrats, he kind of has to stay in that zone of, I'm an ally [1:40:08] of Israel, but I'm not going to appear like I'm just going to do every single thing that the Israeli [1:40:13] government's asking me to do. The Jewish vote, I think, is going to be interesting to watch in [1:40:17] Michigan, but so is the Arab American vote. And I remember on election night 2024, looking at these [1:40:22] heavily Arab precincts in Michigan and seeing them, almost a tie between Kamala Harris and [1:40:30] President Trump and being just thinking like, wow, that this, this is a big sea change that we saw [1:40:35] for this one election, because there was so much anger at the Biden administration over what has [1:40:39] happened in Gaza. Does somebody like El Abdul El Sayed drive up the Arab American vote in a way that [1:40:45] perhaps offsets some of the votes he loses from some moderate or perhaps conservative Jewish voters [1:40:51] who are concerned about his policies towards Israel? So I'm going through the list of questions [1:40:56] we got. And I had about a baker's dozen question about 13 plus the closings. Was there anything that [1:41:03] that wasn't asked about tonight that you thought would be asked about? I thought and fully understanding [1:41:11] that Michigan is its own state and that Latinos are not a monolith. They did talk about immigration, [1:41:18] but there are other issues that Latinos care about, but we didn't get necessarily a [1:41:22] Latino issue question tonight. Given that voting bloc's importance, especially in this midterm, [1:41:29] from a Republican standpoint, we know Donald Trump is bleeding a lot of support among Latinos who really [1:41:36] propelled him to his second term in office and Democrats not necessarily immediately picking up that [1:41:42] vote because they are, they are offering the Latino vote or something other than just not being Trump. [1:41:47] Anything that you guys thought was going to be asked tonight that didn't get asked? [1:41:51] It doesn't seem like there was a lot of Trump focus in this debate. Nothing about Trump corruption, [1:41:56] nothing about should Trump be impeached, nothing about 2020, I mentioned bringing back into 2020, [1:42:01] January 6th, some of these issues that Mike Rogers was critical of president Trump for back in 2026, [1:42:07] and it seemed to kind of soften his approach and kind of sided with the way president Trump sees some of those [1:42:12] issues. So I was surprised this kind of stayed out of the realm because president Trump takes so much of [1:42:18] the oxygen of our political debate. I thought maybe that would be more of a focus. I know El Sayed [1:42:23] continued to try to tie Mike Rogers to Trump, but we didn't, it didn't seem like it was a debate that [1:42:29] mostly existed around the space that president Trump occupies. Nicholas? I think the interesting thing, [1:42:34] and it's, it's been a feature I think in past Senate elections, but I think this is kind of [1:42:39] an interesting Senate cycle that, you know, the type of question, I didn't expect this question, [1:42:44] but sort of a question around Supreme Court justice confirmations. I mean, there's discussion, [1:42:49] you know, Justice Alito said he'll think about retiring next year. That doesn't mean he's going [1:42:52] to retire, but it is an open possibility. And the reality is that a lot of Senate cycles in the past, [1:42:59] especially in 2018, you know, the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, some Republicans view that as a [1:43:03] good thing for them. And it's very interesting, this cycle that that kind of isn't a big topic. And [1:43:08] in some of these states, even in the red states that are in the toss up categories, you have voters [1:43:14] that are saying that they want Republicans to hold control of the Senate, but they're backing [1:43:18] Democratic candidates. And I think it's the sign that voters view the Senate in a very different [1:43:23] way. And they're not thinking about it from a Supreme Court justice confirmation standpoint. [1:43:27] They're viewing it from a different standpoint where they want the Senate to act a little bit [1:43:30] differently. So it would have been curious to see how that answer goes down, given that [1:43:35] it would have been curious to see how Rogers answers on that and outside answers on that. [1:43:39] To that point, also sort of being Senate focused, we didn't get a question on the filibuster and [1:43:43] whether or not it should be eliminated. We didn't get anything on election integrity, which is something [1:43:48] that Democrats have have certainly been raising as we continue to lead up to the election and the [1:43:54] Save America Act that the president continues to push. And I was also surprised. I know he spoke about [1:44:00] Medicare for all and taxing billionaires to pay for it. Just given his public health profile, [1:44:05] I'm surprised that Abdul El-Sayed made no mention of the policy changes that RFK has brought in. [1:44:11] We got no mention of the current measles outbreak that is going on in the United States right now. [1:44:16] I thought that would have been a chance, not just for him to hit President Trump and Mike Rogers' [1:44:21] support of President Trump, but also bring in some of those ancillary characters like RFK Jr. [1:44:28] We didn't get anything on Pete Hegseth and the war in Iran and how he has conducted himself over [1:44:35] these last few months. So it's always interesting to see sort of what is left on the table that didn't [1:44:42] get picked up by the moderators, perhaps because they were at times shouting over each other. I'm sure [1:44:47] if you ran a clock on just the, can you please be quiet part of the debate, it probably evens out to [1:44:53] about five minutes. But we've got about 15 minutes left. We're going to take a quick break. When we [1:44:57] come back, we're going to continue the conversation about what we saw tonight and what both of these [1:45:01] campaigns may be saying tomorrow and the weeks to come before the election. We'll be right back. [1:47:10] All righty. Welcome back to the Hill Decision Desk 26 debate night. Corey Smith here with you for [1:47:16] another 12 or so minutes. Drew Petromo also by my side. And Sophia Vento, campaign editor for [1:47:22] The Hill. Sophia, thank you for being here. Let's just get your quick thoughts on what we saw tonight. [1:47:27] Maybe who won this thing? What moments stood out to you? Well, it was largely personal. You know, [1:47:32] I don't think we got very many policy proposals, you know, here and there. But I think almost every [1:47:36] single question devolved into some sort of bickering or jab about the other candidates. So, [1:47:42] you know, it was definitely nice to see them on the debate stage. Obviously, this is the first time that [1:47:46] they have met face to face. And I think it probably gave a, you know, most voters in Michigan are [1:47:51] definitely aware of who these two men are. But to see them, you know, bring sort of come to blows on [1:47:56] the debate stage, obviously adds more chatter as we really approach election day. As for winners, [1:48:02] I mean, I think El-Sayed was definitely really, you know, he's such a wonderful communicator where you [1:48:08] can really see him sort of perform in that way. But I think Rogers honestly did hold his own and was [1:48:14] pretty quick with it. So hard to say whether there was a clear winner, I'd say, given it [1:48:19] pretty much devolved into chaos most of the time. There were certainly some key zingers that were [1:48:26] brought in. I'm going to do my one. I know, I know I'm going to steal it on the subject of [1:48:34] FLOT cameras. And Abdul El-Sayed basically said that Mike Rogers supported FLOT cameras and had made [1:48:41] a statement in the past about is your privacy really being invaded if you don't know it's been [1:48:46] invaded. And Abdul El-Sayed said, I guess he's trying to shore up the peeping Tom vote, which I did not [1:48:53] have on my bingo card whatsoever. And then at one point when he said it, I looked over to Mike Rogers [1:48:59] and even Mike Rogers appeared to like chuckle a little bit, almost as if to say, all right, [1:49:03] that's pretty good. That's pretty good. But Drew, what, what, sorry to take yours, but what else did that [1:49:07] out to you? That's a good one. I thought that, I thought it was kind of funny. Mike Rogers kept [1:49:12] questioning whether or not he's a doctor. The moderator was referring to him as Dr. El-Sayed [1:49:16] and he went to medical school and graduated from medical school, but I guess never was a [1:49:20] practicing doctor. And that's the distinction that Mike Rogers wants to make here. And there was a [1:49:25] point where El-Sayed accused him of political theater. And Mike Rogers said, your whole campaign [1:49:31] is a political theater, including when you wore that white coat and dressed up like a doctor. [1:49:35] So every time he kind of mentioned doctor, he was kind of like, doctor, not really doctor. [1:49:40] So I thought those were pretty funny lines from Mike Rogers when he was just kind of poking fun at [1:49:45] at the notion that he's a doctor. Anything stand out to you, Soph? [1:49:48] I'm curious to see if this AI chat bot line. Yeah, he went back to that a few times. [1:49:53] I think it was twice, maybe three times. I'm curious to see if we see that in an ad or some social media [1:49:59] posts. I also wouldn't be surprised if we see sort of the AI language just come onto the [1:50:04] campaign trail more with candidates to describing their opponents. But yeah, I'm not sure that one [1:50:10] maybe landed, but it's an interesting time. There was another one that they both kept going [1:50:15] to that I would love to see like focus grouped out. Like what, which of these, and maybe you guys [1:50:20] can weigh in. What do you think? What's more effective here where El-Sayed sends Mike Rogers, [1:50:25] he wants an unconditional support for Israel. I want unconditional support for education and [1:50:29] healthcare. Mike Rogers says he gets money from people who support Hamas and Hezbollah. [1:50:35] This is like two different views of this. And I would just love to know when voters hear that, [1:50:40] and I think it's probably different depending on who you are, but those are, it's just like such [1:50:44] an interesting attack line from both of them. And I wonder what is more effective. [1:50:48] Well, I think if you're, I think if you're Abdul El-Sayed and he made reference to this where he [1:50:51] basically wanted Mike Rogers to call him a terrorist, especially in a state like Michigan with a large Arab [1:50:58] population, I think that's going to help Abdul El-Sayed, you know, because he can stand in front [1:51:05] of those voters and say, look, look who he tries to paint us as because of our name, because of the [1:51:11] way we look. But then on the flip side, you know, Abdul El-Sayed saying, you know, I want, [1:51:17] I want our tax dollars spent here to provide healthcare and schools. Well, look, because of what [1:51:21] is going on in the Middle East, there is a large section of the Jewish population here in America [1:51:26] that feels targeted right now. And so perhaps maybe Abdul El-Sayed wasn't as sensitive to that. [1:51:34] And look, you talk about a focus group, it depends. I think some people hear criticism of Israel, the [1:51:41] the country, the state as anti-Semitic, other people, other people don't. So it's a, it's a fine [1:51:47] balance to strike. And I don't know perhaps if Abdul El-Sayed did that. Sophie. [1:51:53] I mean, I think obviously that was going to be a main focus of the debate and has been a main focus [1:51:58] on the campaign trail. And I'm not sure he's going to be, you know, necessarily change any minds on [1:52:04] his views at this point on Israel and whether he, you know, he was asked, you know, explicitly some [1:52:09] questions on it. And I don't think that that is necessarily like his aim at this point is people [1:52:16] are going to have their views. And, you know, he has very strong views obviously on the Middle East [1:52:21] and policy there. And I think that he has a lane and he chose it and he'll, whether that resonates [1:52:26] with voters is the question. But yeah, I don't, I'm not sure we'll see really any fluctuation on his [1:52:31] stance and trying to bring it back to, you know, these more domestic issues, whether that resonates. [1:52:36] Obviously, you know, the economy is a concern now. People are concerned about education and these [1:52:40] issues and the war is sort of something a lot of people can point to as something that is maybe [1:52:45] negatively affecting their lives. So, I mean, I don't, we'll have to see if it's effective, [1:52:51] long story short, but I'm curious to see how it plays out. I also think that's a pretty small sliver [1:52:55] of voters that Mike Rogers is talking to people who feel so strongly about the Israel issue that [1:53:01] they're willing to change their vote from a candidate they would normally vote for. I mean, [1:53:05] I think there are those people, especially Jewish, typically people who typically vote for [1:53:09] Democrat, but I think that's a small subsection of the Jewish vote and of the Democratic vote. [1:53:14] People, when they, when pollsters ask them, what's the most important issue? This is in 2003 or 2004, [1:53:20] where that was a huge issue. Foreign policy, what was happening in the Middle East was a huge issue [1:53:25] and ranked up high. Now it's the economy and affordability. And the truth is, it's the Iran [1:53:30] war that many people think that is driving up prices. So I think that, you know, that framing, [1:53:35] I just wonder if that's really going to move people the way a discussion of the cost of groceries and [1:53:40] the impact the conflict in the Middle East is having on people's pocketbooks. Well, to that point, [1:53:45] we talk about things that we didn't hear a lot about tonight. We didn't hear anything on SNAP, [1:53:50] on Medicaid, on rural hospitals. I know Abdul El-Sayed mentioned the one big, beautiful bill [1:53:56] at one point, but we didn't get a lot of that discussion when we were talking about the affordability [1:54:02] issue. You know, gas and diesel prices were mentioned sort of tangentially via the war in [1:54:07] Iran. But, but not directly, which is interesting because as much as Abdul El-Sayed kept saying this [1:54:14] is about you, I think he could have done a better job of really making it local politics and, and [1:54:21] talking about what different parts of what people in different parts of the state are experiencing and [1:54:28] how he could perhaps change, change that for them and perhaps be a voice for them in the Senate. [1:54:35] And so I think we especially heard that in the, in the Canada tariff war part where Mike Rogers really [1:54:40] tried to almost accuse El-Sayed of wanting to do away with the tariffs that hurt, that, that, that, [1:54:49] wanting to do away with the tariffs that actually helped Michigan. And he actually brought some receipts [1:54:53] there where he mentioned plants that were staying open late, building the Chevy Silverado in Michigan [1:55:00] because of the president's tariffs. And I think part of that is because you can't talk about tariffs [1:55:05] and the positive benefits of them without also having to discuss the, the negative aspects that [1:55:10] they bring. Yeah. I think that if you're defending the tariffs, I mean, he just made a commercial saying [1:55:16] that the trade war with Canada has to end and to then go back to the well and say, well, but actually they [1:55:21] do have some benefits and maybe if you work in that specific sector and the plant that you work at has, [1:55:27] has benefited from that. But I think there's probably more people, at least if you read what [1:55:32] they're telling the pollsters is that the tariff and the fight against Canada and the way I think [1:55:37] specifically the way it's been handled, my dad's from Michigan. I spent a lot of winters in Michigan. [1:55:42] I've been there a lot. There's a very close connection between Michiganders and Canadians, [1:55:47] especially in places like Detroit, Windsor's right across the river. There's a lot of cross border, [1:55:51] commerce, friendships, vacations. We didn't hear about the Gordie Howe bridge situation. [1:55:55] We did not buy. I think the, that commercial that you saw from Mike Rogers was an acknowledgement [1:56:01] that there's some feelings that have been hurt and people in Michigan feel like, like Mike Rogers said [1:56:07] it in the, in the campaign, in the ad, the Canadians are not our enemy. They're our friends. And so I think [1:56:13] trying to backtrack on that and say, oh, but there's also actually some good things that has come of [1:56:17] this trade war. That's not really what Michiganders are telling pollsters that they're feeling right [1:56:24] now. We, the evidence of that is the campaign ad that the Mike Rogers camp just put together. [1:56:30] Sylvia, what do you, what do you think people are going to be talking about tomorrow? I mean, [1:56:34] did you see any moments where we may see something become an ad or an attack line that maybe either [1:56:40] Abdul El-Sayed or Mike Rogers are really going to lean into, or do they sort of retreat to their own [1:56:45] sides, try to try to shore up their bases, uh, and make sure they can drive that turnout. Um, [1:56:50] and hope that maybe on a night like tonight, um, the undecideds out there, the independents out there [1:56:56] who were, who still don't know where they're going, might've been able to make their decision [1:56:59] based on tonight. Well, it's abundantly clear that El-Sayed is making this about Trump, you know, [1:57:05] almost every answer he tied Mike Rogers back to Trump. And, you know, obviously trying to, [1:57:12] you mentioned, obviously a lot of local issues weren't talked about, but you know, Trump is [1:57:16] deeply unpopular right now with obviously Democrats, a lot of Republicans and a lot of [1:57:20] independents. And those are the voters, those independents that, uh, El-Sayed will need in his camp [1:57:25] on election day. And I think he's taken that lane of really tying this election and Mike Rogers to [1:57:31] Trump and whether that will be effective, we'll have to see. But I mean, we'll definitely see that [1:57:36] continue, um, obviously with, uh, the president's, uh, low approval ratings and, you know, obviously [1:57:42] those economic issues we've already discussed and we've seen that already, but again, you know, [1:57:46] it was really clear that is the tack he's taking with this race. And, you know, to your point, [1:57:52] you're obviously like so many of the issues are local when you're voting for your senator or for [1:57:56] your governor, but in an election year like this, where we have this pretty staggering disapproval for [1:58:03] the president, um, whether that's effective, well, you know, he's betting on that. [1:58:08] Drew, we'll give you the last word. You got about 30 seconds. [1:58:10] Well, I think if you're Mike Rogers, you came into this debate feeling like you have to make [1:58:15] a change. If you believe the polls, if you believe the prognosticators, he's down in this race. Did he [1:58:20] do something in this debate that's going to change the trajectory of it? I don't know. This will get [1:58:25] cut up a million ways, but I think he has more work to do if we believe the polls to change the dynamic [1:58:31] heading into election day. He's got about two weeks to do that. All right. We're going to have to leave [1:58:34] it there. Thank you so much, everybody. If you joined us tonight, we really appreciate it. For [1:58:37] more coverage, you can go to the hill.com. Be sure to subscribe to the hill insider because you get [1:58:42] all the juicy tidbits that we weren't able to get into tonight and check out our friends at DDHQ as we [1:58:47] continue to watch this race progress. For Sophia Vento, Drew Petromo, and all our friends who joined us [1:58:52] tonight, I'm Corey Smith. Thank you so much. We'll see you next time.