OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Michigan Senate Race Poll Shows El Sayed Narrow Lead Over Rogers

5 sources · updated 2026-09-19
Left 50% Center 0% Right 50%
2 left · 0 center · 2 right

What happened

Democrat Abdul El-Sayed, a physician and former Detroit and Wayne County health official, is running against Republican former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers for the Michigan Senate seat being vacated by retiring Democratic Sen. Gary Peters in the 2026 midterms. A Hill/Emerson College poll of 1,000 likely voters conducted September 12–14, 2026, found El-Sayed at 48 percent and Rogers at 46 percent, with 4 percent undecided, within a plus-or-minus 3-point margin of error; the same survey showed Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jocelyn Benson leading Republican John James 49 to 42 percent, a Washington Post survey showed El-Sayed 48 percent to Rogers’s 45 percent and Benson 53 to 41, and a Fox News poll conducted a month earlier had shown Rogers ahead by four points. The Detroit News endorsed Rogers and wrote that El-Sayed had deleted social media posts and taken down roughly 100 YouTube videos; El-Sayed’s campaign said some posts were removed “to prevent any old posts from being taken out of context” and that he “has always unequivocally condemned terrorism and the September 11 attacks.” Former Vice President Kamala Harris is scheduled to appear with El-Sayed at a Michigan roundtable on Black maternal health, and some Michigan Jewish leaders issued a public petition urging support for El-Sayed after other Michigan Jews had registered discontent with him. Rogers called on El-Sayed to return nearly $130,000 that Rogers said came from donors with identified connections to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Sourcing check · Partly on the record · 4 articles

1 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It started with unnamed sources; a named source appeared 9 hours later.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 1 of 3
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Emerson College Polling, Washington Post/Shar School and Mike Rogers
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 2 of 3
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: poll, dataset
Credits another outlet 0 of 3
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 3
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 17, 09:03 UTC by New York Times, with no named source. First named source 9 hours later, from Breitbart. First document within the hour, from The Hill (poll).
Not counted 1
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage presents El-Sayed as narrowly ahead in Michigan. Right-leaning coverage presents the same Emerson result as a race inside the error margin, with him lagging other Democrats on the ballot. The Hill called the result a slight lead. Breitbart noted a two-point edge and compared it with a wider Democratic advantage in the governor’s race on that survey. Right-leaning coverage leads with removed posts and a newspaper endorsement of Rogers; left-leaning coverage leads with Harris at a maternal-health event and omits both. Fox News labeled the endorsement a "savage rebuke." The Hill’s Harris item instead described a roundtable on Black maternal health. Those deletion charges now sit at the center of right-leaning race coverage, but the original wording is never shown. What did El-Sayed’s deleted 9/11-era posts actually say?
Bottom line

The Hill’s “slight lead” is a two-point Emerson edge that Breitbart notes sits inside a 3-point margin of error, with El-Sayed weaker than other Democrats on the Michigan ballot.

The receipts — 2 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • El-Sayed’s two-point Emerson lead is within the poll’s +/- 3 margin of error numberin Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Rogers’s campaign says El-Sayed has taken nearly $130,000 from donors with identified connections to CAIR numberin Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets frame El-Sayed as a narrowly leading Democrat with public-health credentials who is drawing national and communal support. The Hill presented the Emerson results as El-Sayed holding a “slight lead” and “narrowly lead[ing]” Rogers “ahead of the 2026 midterm elections,” and reported Harris’s planned joint appearance at the maternal-health roundtable. The New York Times highlighted a public petition by Jewish leaders urging support for his Senate bid, noting that it came after other Michigan Jews had registered discontent with the nominee.
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets frame El-Sayed as a radical whose record they say he has concealed and as a drag on the Democratic ticket. Fox News spotlighted the Detroit News endorsement, quoting the paper that El-Sayed “has worked so hard covering his tracks” that it is “impossible to know who he really is or where he would stand in the Senate” and that a candidate who hides his past “is not someone who can be trusted to be the same person after Election Day”; the paper called Rogers “the prototype of a United States Senator” and “clearly the best choice.” Fox listed removed comments about abandoning July 4 fireworks, replacing the Second Amendment with a “right to have health care,” one-time support for “defund the police,” and criticism of football’s “toxic masculinity” and “bro culture.” Breitbart argued he is “polling weaker than other statewide Democrats,” citing Benson’s larger leads in the same surveys, a “substantial educational divide” in which non-college voters favored Rogers, and Rogers’s charge that CAIR-linked money is “absolutely disqualifying” and that El-Sayed “cashes checks” from “terrorist organizations.”
Our Take (balanced)
El-Sayed’s strongest argument is the current Emerson and Washington Post likely-voter surveys placing him a few points ahead, reinforced by Harris’s campaign appearance and a public petition from some Michigan Jewish leaders. Rogers’s strongest argument is the Detroit News’s charge—tied to the takedown of posts and about 100 videos—that El-Sayed’s past is being hidden, together with his weaker showing than other Michigan Democrats in the same polls and Rogers’s CAIR-donor attack, which Rogers called “absolutely disqualifying.” The central unresolved tension is whether a slim, within-margin lead and party support should outweigh an incomplete public record and disputed donor ties as the measure of the candidate.

5 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.