Skip to main content
Back to brief

Politics · November 2, 2026

Stevens shocks Democrats with last-minute Rogers endorsement

Part of: Michigan Senate: El-Sayed vs. Rogers →
5 sources →

In the final days before the Michigan Senate midterm election, Representative Haley Stevens endorsed Republican candidate Mike Rogers over Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed. Stevens, who previously lost the Democratic primary to El-Sayed, cited a renewed dispute with her former rival—partly involving an advertisement she characterized as antisemitic—as a factor in her decision. Democratic leadership, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and California Governor Gavin Newsom, have publicly condemned the endorsement as a betrayal. The move marks a shift for Stevens, who had previously criticized Rogers for his alignment with President Trump and his stances on policy issues like healthcare and abortion.

Read the original coverage

Reported across the spectrum

  • Representative Haley Stevens endorsed Republican candidate Mike Rogers.
  • Stevens lost the Michigan Democratic Senate primary to Abdul El-Sayed.
  • The endorsement occurred just days before the midterm election.
  • Democratic leadership, including Chuck Schumer and Gavin Newsom, have publicly condemned Stevens' action.

Reported by only some outlets

  • Stevens cited a dispute over an outside group's advertisement, which she labeled antisemitic, as a reason for her switch.
  • El-Sayed stated he disagreed with the advertisement but accused Stevens of reviving their primary feud.
  • Stevens previously criticized Rogers for his positions on tariffs, abortion, healthcare, and his alignment with Donald Trump.
  • Newsom suggested during a 2WAY interview that the sudden shift indicated 'something was going on there.'
  • Chuck Schumer's campaign account characterized Rogers as a 'tool' of the President and billionaire donors.

FreeDaily Brief newsletter

Get the 5-minute Daily Brief, with the topics you pick.

The Daily Brief is free

CadNews does not determine absolute truth or endorse political viewpoints. It compares publicly available reporting, identifies shared facts, highlights framing differences, and flags uncertainty.