Democrats' Chances of Beating GOP's Leading Michigan Senate Candidate—Polls
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mike Rogers of Michigan received positive news in a new poll about his chances in the 2026 midterm elections, possessing name recognition that trumps most candidates on both sides of the aisle.
Why It Matters
The race for the Senate seat in Michigan, which has been a swing "purple" state in recent elections, is accelerating after Democratic Senator Gary Peters announced earlier this year that he's not running for reelection.
Rogers, a former congressman, has been in the race for months and could face competition within his party from Michigan Representative Bill Huizenga and Tudor Dixon, who lost by double digits to Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2022.
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mike Rogers speaks at his election watch party with the MIGOP on November 5, 2024, in Novi, Michigan.
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mike Rogers speaks at his election watch party with the MIGOP on November 5, 2024, in Novi, Michigan.What To Know
Rogers is the GOP front-runner, according to a poll commissioned by pro-crypto, pro-Republican group First Principles Digital. The poll was commissioned by Tony Fabrizio, a pollster for President Donald Trump.
Rogers leads Huizenga in Fabrizio's poll, 48 percent to 20 percent, while 32 percent remain undecided. The poll, which surveyed 600 likely GOP primary voters June 17-19, has a margin of error of +/-4 percentage points and was published by Punchbowl News.
Another poll in May conducted and released by Glengariff Group and the Detroit Regional Chamber showed Rogers in an even more commanding position to represent the Republican Party in 2026, leading Huizenga 61-17.
Rogers spoke with Newsweek at Trump's rally on April 29 in Warren, Michigan, expressing his support for the president and his policies. He said the state, which voted for Trump in 2016 and 2024, "is moving to the right" and putting power back into the hand of Michigan workers.
"The media and the left are screaming as loud as I've heard them scream for anything, and what they want is [Trump] to fail, which means America fails," Rogers said. "I've never seen anything quite like him. I get that you don't like his style, but I'm telling you this guy's doing the hardest work I've seen a president do to try to right the ship for the middle class of America. And Michiganders know that."
The Detroit Regional Chamber poll also showed Rogers with roughly 77 percent name ID, vastly higher than the second-highest candidate on either side of the aisle, Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive who ran for governor in 2018.
Other Democrats vying to replace Peters include Representative Haley Stevens and state Senator Mallory McMorrow.
Stevens led Rogers by 6 points and Huizenga by 8.4 points among "definite voters," the chamber poll found. McMorrow led Rogers by 1.4 points and Huizenga by 4.7 points. Rogers held a 1.9-point lead over Abdul El-Sayed, while El-Sayed held a 2.5-point lead over Huizenga.
Rogers also told Newsweek what he learned from his razor-thin defeat to current Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin, who won by less than 1 percentage point last November to replace another outgoing Democratic senator, Debbie Stabenow.
Rogers said that if Democrats run on some of the similar issues that led to widespread defeats in November, from the presidential level down to numerous House and Senate races, he believes he has a good chance to win.
"It is continuing the optimism that we preached about making Michigan a manufacturing state," he said. "Our economy has been flat here for a decade. We're going to change that. Our education system has been in decline for a decade. We're going to help be a part of changing that. I'm very optimistic about what comes next."
He also said that chaos surrounding tariffs and consumer sentiment will be "bumpy" but in the long run will allow Americans "to be a part of the equation and the conversation about what's good for America."
"You start going down the list of these things. Guess what? We're winning," Rogers said. "Doesn't feel like it, but we're winning. Stocks will go back up.
"But the difference is at the end of the day, an American worker will actually have a shot at a better middle-class life than they did before Donald Trump."
What People Are Saying
Andrew Mamo, Mallory McMorrow for Michigan spokesman, previously told Newsweek: "We're thrilled with where our campaign stands at the beginning of this race. She has a clear path to beating any Republican who comes out of their primary and is working every day to bring people together to get it done."
The El-Sayed campaign previously told Newsweek: "This early poll reflects what we've seen on the trail: our movement for working people is gaining momentum. Unlike the career politicians, Abdul has never and will never take a cent of corporate PAC money—and his bold, honest positions reflect that. As Michiganders get to know Abdul, his record of government leadership, and his vision for an economy that puts people first, we know our movement will continue to grow."
Haley Stevens campaign spokesperson Reeves Oyster previously told Newsweek: "This poll makes it clear that Haley Stevens is the only candidate in this race who can stand up to Donald Trump and Elon Musk's chaos agenda in the Senate to lower costs, grow Michigan's manufacturing economy and fight for Michigan families."
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said when Rogers announced his candidacy: "Mike Rogers is the conservative leader that Michigan needs in the U.S. Senate. As an Army veteran and former special agent, Mike understands the importance of putting service before self. We need him in the U.S. Senate to help achieve President Trump's America First agenda and to bring manufacturing and good-paying jobs back to Michigan."
What Happens Next
Michigan's primary will be held in August 2026. The general election race is widely viewed as a toss-up.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
44 minutes ago
- Politico
House could vote on megabill as soon as Tuesday
Senate Republicans released updated megabill text late Friday that would make sharp cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act's solar and wind tax credits after a late-stage push by President Donald Trump to crack down further on the incentives. The text would require solar and wind generation projects seeking to qualify for the law's clean electricity production and investment tax credits to be placed in service by the end of 2027 — significantly more restrictive than an earlier proposal by the Senate Finance Committee that tied eligibility to when a project begins construction. The changes came after Trump urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune to crack down on the wind and solar credits and align the measure more closely with reconciliation text, H.R.1, that passed the House, as POLITICO reported earlier on Friday. The changes are likely to put some moderate GOP senators, who have backed a slower schedule for sunsetting those incentives, in a tough position. They'll be forced to choose between rejecting Trump's agenda or allowing the gutting of tax credits that could lead to canceled projects and job losses in their states — something renewable energy advocates are also warning about. 'We are literally going to have not enough electricity because Trump is killing solar. It's that serious,' Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) responded on X early Saturday. 'We need a bunch of new power on the grid, and nothing is as available as solar. Everything else takes a while. Meantime, expect shortages and high prices. Stupid.' The revised text would retain the investment and production tax credits for baseload sources, such as nuclear, geothermal, hydropower or energy storage, as proposed in the Finance Committee's earlier proposal. But it would make other significant changes, including extending a tax credit for clean hydrogen production until 2028. The panel's earlier proposal would have eliminated the credit after this year. And despite vocal lobbying by the solar industry, the proposal would maintain an abrupt cut to the tax incentive supporting residential solar power. The committee's earlier proposal would have eliminated that credit six months after the enactment of the bill; now the updated draft proposes repealing it at the end of this year. It would also deny certain wind and solar leasing arrangements from accessing the climate law's clean electricity investment and production tax credits, but, in a notable change, removed earlier language specifically disallowing rooftop solar. And it would move up the timeline for certain rules barring foreign entities of concern from accessing those credits. The bill would move up the termination date for electric vehicle tax credits to Sept. 30, compared to six months after enactment in the earlier Finance text. The credit for EV chargers would extend through June 2026. The new text also provides a bonus incentive for advanced nuclear facilities built in communities with high levels of employment in the nuclear industry. And the bill makes metallurgical coal eligible for the advanced manufacturing production tax credit through 2029. Sam Ricketts, co-founder of S2 Strategies, a clean energy policy consulting group, said the new draft is going to 'screw' ratepayers, kill jobs and undermine U.S. economic competitiveness. 'All just to give fossil fuel executives more profits,' he said. 'Or to own the libs. Insanity.' Josh Siegel contributed to this report.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
At Supreme Court, steady wins for conservative states and Trump's claims of executive power
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court term that ended Friday will not be remembered for blockbuster rulings like those recent years that struck down the right to abortion and college affirmative action. The justices scaled back their docket this year and spent much of their energy focused on deciding fast-track appeals from President Trump. His administration's lawyers complained too many judges were standing in the way of Trump's agenda. On Friday, the court's conservatives agreed to rein in district judges, a procedural victory for Trump. What's been missing so far, however, is a clear ruling on whether the president has abided by the law or overstepped his authority in the U.S. Constitution. On the final two days of term, the court's conservative majority provided big wins for Republican-leaning states, religious parents and Trump. The justices gave states more authority to prohibit medical treatments for transgender teens, to deny Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood clinics and to enforce age-verification laws for online porn sites. Each came with the familiar 6-3 split, with the Republican appointees siding with the GOP-led states, while the Democratic appointees dissented. These rulings, while significant, were something short of nationwide landmark decisions — celebrated victories for the Republican half of the nation but having no direct or immediate effect on Democratic-led states. California lawmakers are not likely to pass measures to restrict gender-affirming care or to prohibit women on Medicaid from obtaining birth control, pregnancy testing or medical screenings at a Planned Parenthood clinic. The new decisions echoed the Dobbs ruling three years ago that struck down Roe vs. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion. As the conservative justices noted, the decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health did not outlaw abortion nationwide. However, it did allow conservative states to do so. Since then, 17 Republican-led states in the South and Midwest have adopted new laws to prohibit most or all abortions. On this front, the court's decisions reflect a 'federalism,' or states-rights style of conservatism, that was dominant in decades past under President Reagan and two of the court's conservative leaders, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Both were Arizona Republicans (and in O'Connor's case, a former state legislator) who came to the court with that view that Washington holds too much power and wields too much control over states and local governments. With the nation sharply divided along partisan lines, today's conservative court could be praised or defended for freeing states to make different choices on the 'culture wars.' The other big winner so far this year has been Trump and his broad claims of executive power. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has asserted he has total authority to run federal agencies, cut their spending and fire most of their employees, all without the approval of Congress, which created and funded the agencies. He has also claimed the authority to impose tariffs of any amount on any country and also change his mind a few days later. He has dispatched National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles against the wishes of the governor and the mayor. He has asserted he can punish universities and law firms. He has claimed he can revise by executive order the 14th Amendment and its birthright citizenship clause. So far, the Supreme Court has not ruled squarely on Trump's broad assertions of power. But the justices have granted a series of emergency appeals from Trump's lawyers and set aside lower court orders that blocked his initiatives from taking effect. The theme has been that judges are out of line, not the president. Friday's ruling limiting nationwide injunctions set out that view in a 26-page opinion. The conservatives agreed that some judges have overstepped their authority by ruling broadly based on a single lawsuit. The justices have yet to rule on whether the president has overstepped his power. Justice Amy Coney Barrett summed up the dispute in a revealing comment responding to a dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' she wrote. Missing from all this is the earlier strain of conservatism that opposed concentrated power in Washington — and in this instance, in one person. Last year offered a hint of what was to come. A year ago, the court ended its term by declaring the president is immune from being prosecuted for his official acts while in the White House. That decision, in Trump vs. United States, shielded the former and soon-to-be president from the criminal law. The Constitution does not mention any such immunity for ex-presidents charged with crimes, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said a shield of immunity was necessary to 'enable the the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.' Since returning to the White House, Trump has not been accused of exercising 'undue caution.' Instead, he appears to have viewed the court's opinion as confirming his unchecked power as the nation's chief executive. Trump advisors say that because the president was elected, he has a mandate and the authority to put his priorities and policies into effect. But the Supreme Court's conservatives did not take that view when President Biden took office promising to take action on climate change and to reduce the burden of student loan debt. In both areas, the Roberts court ruled that the Biden administration had exceeded its authority under the laws passed by Congress. Away from Washington, the most significant decision from this term may be Friday's ruling empowering parents. The six justices on the right ruled parents have a right to remove their children from certain public school classes that offend their religious beliefs. They objected to new storybooks and lessons for young children with LGBTQ+ themes. In recent years, the court, led by Roberts, has championed the 'free exercise' of religion that is protected by the 1st Amendment. In a series of decisions, the court has exempted Catholic schools and charities from laws or regulations on, for example, providing contraceptives to employees. Friday's ruling in a Maryland case extended that religious liberty right into the schools and ruled for Muslim and Catholic parents who objected to new LGBTQ+-themed storybooks. At first, the school board said parents could have their young children 'opt out' of those classes. But when too many parents took the offer, the school board rescinded it. The clash between progressive educators and conservative parents reached the court when the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty appealed on behalf of the parents. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the parents believed the books and stories offended their religious beliefs, and he ordered school authorities to 'to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question is to be used ... and allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.' This decision may have a broader impact than any from this term because it empowers parents nationwide. But it too has limits. It does not require the schools to change their curriculum and their lessons or remove any books from the shelves. The conservatives fell one vote short in a case that could have brought about a far-reaching change in American schools. Split 4 to 4, the justices could not rule to uphold the nation's first publicly funded, church-run charter school. In the past, Roberts had voted to allow students to use state tuition grants in religious schools, but he appeared uncertain about using tax money to operate a church-run school. But that question is almost certain to return to the court. Barrett stepped aside from the Oklahoma case heard in April because friends and former colleagues at the Notre Dame Law School had filed the appeal. But in a future case, she could participate and cast a deciding vote.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Schumer to force reading of 1,000-page GOP mega bill, delaying it by half a day
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) told Democratic senators Saturday that he will force the clerks to read the 1,000-page Republican megabill on the Senate floor once Republicans vote to proceed to the legislation, a procedural act of defiance that will take an estimated 12 hours and delay final passage of President Trump's agenda by half a day — at least. Schumer told his caucus to prepare to force a full reading of the bill, according to a Democratic source familiar with the internal discussion over floor strategy. The question is whether Senate GOP leaders will force the clerks to read the bill late into Saturday night and early Sunday morning to complete the time-and energy-consuming task or whether staff will get some time to sleep before the Senate is expected to launch into a multi-hour series of votes known as a vote-a-rama. Senate Republicans were anticipating that Schumer might force a reading of the bill as an act of protest. This is a developing story.
