Pro-Stevens groups erase El-Sayed fundraising edge in Michigan Senate race 57%

By Simon D. Schuster0%

7/24/2026, 4:36:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Negativity Bias, and Recency Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 16% saturation with 116 hits. Analysis detected 703 faulty-reasoning hits from 724 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.7% and a BS Rank of 57% (9,591 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 56.20% of the article peer group.

The Democratic primary to succeed retiring US Sen. 
Gary Peters has grown increasingly acrimonious in its final weeks. 
Abdul El-Sayed, left, faces Haley Stevens. 
(Simon Schuster/Bridge Michigan) 
Democrat Abdul El-Sayed outraised rival Haley Stevens in the first two weeks of July, reporting $2.3 million in contributions 
Campaign spending in the US Senate race has been dwarfed by super PACs, which are pouring money into ads to boost Stevens 
The latest disclosure reports come with less than two weeks until Michigan’s Aug. 4 primary 
LANSING  Abdul El-Sayed again raised more money than rival Haley Stevens in the fiercely competitive Democratic primary for Michigan’s open US Senate seat, but outside groups continue to spend much more to boost Stevens. 
New federal disclosures filed Thursday show El-Sayed, the former Wayne County health director, raised about $2.3 million in the first two weeks of July. 
Stevens, who serves in the US House, raised $921,000 . 
But in the same two-week period, two super PACs spent a combined $12.1 million to benefit Stevens, primarily through a deluge of television and social media ads. 
Outside groups spent $656,000 on El-Sayed. 
Super PAC spending dominates Michigan Senate race 
Fact-check: How much money did Stevens get from DTE? 
Fact-check: Is Abdul El-Sayed a millionaire? 
The disclosure reports, which provide the final full picture of candidate finances before the Aug. 4 primary, underscore the pitched financial battle in a race that has become a proxy battle for the future of the Democratic Party. 
Stevens has racked up endorsements from the establishment wing of the party. 
In the latest period, her top donors included Larry Bell, founder of Bell’s Brewery, who gave $2,500, along with 96 attorneys and 23 CEOs. 
El-Sayed, a progressive favorite, reported contributions from Crooked Media co-founder Jon Lovett, whose network El-Sayed hosted a health podcast for, and Jibran Jahsahn, the vice president of engineering for chipbuilder Nvidia. 
Cherry Republic’s CEO also gave $2,500 to El-Sayed. 
Presumed Republican nominee Mike Rogers raised about $314,000 for his campaign in the first two weeks of July. 
Rogers has raised about $7.6 million so far, and without any primary competition, he’s managed to keep $4.4 million of that in the bank headed toward the general election. 
Stevens had $2.8 million in remaining cash as of July 15, while El-Sayed had $2.5 million. 
Super PACs spend big 
Despite El-Sayed’s fundraising edge in the closely watched Democratic primary, outside groups have given Stevens a lopsided advantage in total spending. 
For the cycle, Stevens’ campaign has spent about $9 million, while super PACs supporting her have poured more than $45 million into the race, primarily through television ads touting her or criticizing El-Sayed. 
By comparison, El-Sayed’s campaign has spent nearly $12 million so far, while outside groups supporting him have spent $3.3 million. 
Those figures do not include TV air time reserved for the final weeks of the primary campaign, which is expected to push Stevens’ total support to more than $52 million, according to Ad Impact data reported Monday by MIRS subscription news service. 
For a comparison, in Michigan’s $200 million US Senate , super PACs spent about $56 million through the primary and general election to benefit Gary Peters, who is retiring at the end of the year. 
The majority of Stevens’ outside assistance has come from United Democracy Project, an offshoot of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. 
The group has spent nearly $25 million to boost Stevens, including $14.1 million since the start of July. 
Another PAC called A Stronger Michigan, has spent more than $16 million on ads to boost Stevens since its creation in late May. 
The PAC is funded almost entirely by Center Forward , a dark money group that does not disclose donors and promotes centrist candidates. 
Most of the outside money supporting El-Sayed has come from the Fighting for Michigan PAC , which has spent about $2 million on the race. 
The group’s latest filing shows $30,000 from the Institute for Middle East Understanding, Inc. and $25,000 from the American Committee for Middle East Rights. 
Rogers, meanwhile, has had a steady trickle of positive advertising on his behalf paid for by groups such as the Republican-backed Senate Leadership Fund, which has pledged to spend more than $45 million to support him through the general election. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.9%Simon D. Schuster: 2.1%Bridge: 3.0%Confirmation Bias2.9%This article: 2.8%Simon D. Schuster: 3.7%Bridge: 1.2%Anchoring Bias2.8%This article: 9.5%Simon D. Schuster: 3.1%Bridge: 3.0%Availability Heuristic9.5%This article: 9.1%Simon D. Schuster: 3.3%Bridge: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic9.1%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 1.8%Bridge: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.0%Simon D. Schuster: 13.9%Bridge: 6.8%Framing Effect16.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.0%Simon D. Schuster: 1.2%Bridge: 0.7%Status Quo Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 2.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 1.9%Bridge: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.0%Simon D. Schuster: 8.5%Bridge: 7.0%Negativity Bias14.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 2.2%Bridge: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.4%Bridge: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Simon D. Schuster: 0.9%Bridge: 1.6%In-Group Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Simon D. Schuster: 1.9%Bridge: 1.9%Halo Effect3.3%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.2%Simon D. Schuster: 4.4%Bridge: 1.4%Recency Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.8%Bridge: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 1.7%Bridge: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.9%Bridge: 3.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.8%Bridge: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 1.1%Bridge: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 1.0%Bridge: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 1.8%Bridge: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 2.1%Bridge: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.8%Bridge: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.9%Bridge: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 1.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 2.4%Bridge: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 1.5%Bridge: 0.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 1.9%Bridge: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.2%Simon D. Schuster: 4.0%Bridge: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice15.2%This article: 5.2%Simon D. Schuster: 1.1%Bridge: 1.7%Indoctrination5.2%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Simon D. Schuster: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Simon D. Schuster: 0.7%Bridge: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.2%

724 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.