In the voting booth, it’s the year of the not-at-all-close call

This article generally aligns with a Center Left point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

• The article argues that Rep. Haley Stevens is a capable, well-qualified candidate whose record — including work on the Obama auto task force and the Chips and Science Act — means Michigan would be well served if she becomes senator, even though the piece discloses support for her primary opponent.

• At the same time, the column contends that Stevens’ strengths are overshadowed by “tens of millions” in support from AIPAC and its allies, suggesting that this level of outside spending has become a defining issue in the race rather than an incidental factor.

• The piece criticizes the Michigan Chronicle’s endorsement of Stevens for omitting any discussion of AIPAC, Israel, or Gaza, especially in a state with a large Arab American population, and suggests that such silence undermines the credibility of the endorsement by ignoring voters’ core concerns.

• The article highlights comments by Michigan Chronicle executive editor Jeremy Allen on CNN, noting that Allen publicly called AIPAC’s money “a huge concern” and questioned what Stevens might “have to pay for it eventually,” and argues that these concerns should have been addressed openly in any serious endorsement.

• More broadly, the column suggests that in 2026 endorsements from newspapers or political figures are increasingly hollow, because the political landscape is so polarized that voters already know where they stand on issues like Trump-era Medicare cuts, the administration’s priorities, and the conduct of federal agencies.

• The piece argues that a “brewing civil war” within the Democratic Party stems from a disconnect between the party’s political machine — embodied by establishment figures and big-money donors — and the voters whose energy and lived experience fuel the party.

• As an example of that disconnect, the article points to Rep. Jim Clyburn’s high-profile trip to Michigan to campaign with Stevens and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, contrasting Clyburn’s influence with his admission on a podcast that, until recently, he did not know what artificial intelligence was, despite AI’s rapid transformation of the economy, politics, and information ecosystems.

• The column links Clyburn’s lack of familiarity with AI to the broader fear that party leaders are not grappling with the technology’s risks — including job losses, misinformation, and sprawling data centers — and therefore may not be equipped to guide voters through one of the most consequential issues of the era.

• By juxtaposing Stevens’ many establishment endorsements with the scale of outside spending from AIPAC and allied super PACs, the piece suggests that what endorsements now communicate most clearly is the weight of institutional and corporate power behind a candidate, rather than any meaningful alignment with grassroots priorities.

• Ultimately, the article implies that in this election “year of the not-at-all-close call,” voters are making stark choices on fundamental values, and that endorsements unmoored from frank discussion of money, lobbying, and technology feel increasingly disconnected from the realities shaping those choices.

Different views on the topic

• In contrast, reporting from Michigan outlets notes that Stevens’ supporters see endorsements as a critical signal of her effectiveness and reliability, not as empty gestures; the Michigan Chronicle has repeatedly highlighted her role in helping save the auto industry and advance a “Black agenda,” presenting backing from figures like Jim Clyburn and the Congressional Black Caucus as evidence she can deliver for Black Michiganders.^{[1][2][11][14]}

• Establishment Democrats, including Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, frame endorsements as tools that help voters identify candidates who can “get things done” and win statewide; Whitmer has emphasized that her support for Stevens is grounded in Stevens’ track record and in the belief that she is best positioned to keep Michigan’s Senate seat in Democratic hands.^{[3][4][5][6][18]}

• Outgoing Sen. Gary Peters and former Sen. Debbie Stabenow likewise present their endorsements as substantive judgments about Stevens’ readiness for the job, describing her as someone who will be “ready on day one to fight for Michigan” and who has the “grit, effectiveness, hard work, and Michigan common sense” needed in the Senate, reinforcing the idea that endorsements can help voters assess experience and competence.^[7][10]

• National coverage of the race characterizes Whitmer’s and Peters’ decisions as significant markers in a closely watched contest between the party’s centrist and progressive wings, with establishment leaders openly arguing that Stevens is more “electable” statewide and that their support can guide voters through a high-stakes primary, rather than simply echoing insider preferences.^[6][8][16]

• Reporting on Clyburn’s involvement stresses that many Democrats view the longtime South Carolina representative as a trusted voice for Black voters, citing his central role in reviving Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign and his ongoing work to shore up support in swing states; these accounts suggest that, regardless of generational gaps on technology, his endorsements carry real weight among voters who credit his political judgment.^{[16][17][19][20]}

• Coverage of AIPAC’s role in the Michigan race notes that the group and its super PAC, United Democracy Project, describe their mission as supporting candidates who back a strong U.S.-Israel relationship, and that their ads in Democratic primaries often emphasize domestic concerns like cost of living and public safety rather than foreign policy; supporters argue that this spending helps elect Democrats they see as dependable on both international and kitchen-table issues.^[9][13][16]

• Fact-checks and campaign reporting show Stevens and her allies pushing back against criticism of outside money by pointing to her legislative record, union backing, and broad coalition of endorsers, suggesting that voters should weigh both the financial support and the candidate’s accomplishments when deciding how much influence groups like AIPAC actually have over policy.^[10][13][15]

• Some national and local analyses depict the Michigan primary as a test of whether traditional markers of viability — such as high-profile endorsements, fundraising strength, and institutional support — still resonate with Democratic voters; in these pieces, party strategists argue that endorsements are one of the few signals available to busy voters trying to distinguish between candidates in a crowded information environment.^{[6][8][12][16]}

• Meanwhile, reporting on Stevens’ campaign events in Detroit shows her leaning heavily on appearances with Whitmer, Clyburn, and members of the Congressional Black Caucus, suggesting that the campaign believes those endorsements do, in practice, help mobilize voters, particularly in communities where personal relationships with established leaders remain a powerful cue.^[1][15][18]

• Taken together, these accounts present a contrasting narrative in which endorsements still matter in 2026: as indicators of a candidate’s ability to govern, as tools for party leaders to signal electability and policy alignment, and as meaningful cues for voters who continue to look to trusted institutions and figures when navigating contentious primaries.