What a Michigan Debate Taught Me About How to Evaluate Any Politician
I host a nonpartisan political podcast, which means I spend a lot of time watching politicians talk and asking one question: is this an answer or a performance?
This week I tried a new format. I took the full Michigan U.S. Senate Democratic primary debate, Mallory McMorrow, Haley Stevens, and Abdul El-Sayed competing for the seat Mike Rogers wants, and I scored it answer by answer in real time. No party loyalty, no predetermined winner. The exercise taught me something that applies far beyond Michigan, and honestly, far beyond politics. It applies to every pitch meeting and every job interview you've ever sat in.
Specificity is the tell.
Round after round, the points went to whoever could name the mechanism. McMorrow cited the No Reverse Robin Hood Act, legislation she actually held a hearing on, requiring companies that take taxpayer incentives to create the jobs they promised instead of executing stock buybacks. She cited Michigan's SOAR fund: 2.5 billion dollars in corporate incentives since 2019, zero jobs created. Agree or disagree with her politics, you can audit her claims. That's what accountability looks like.
El-Sayed is probably the most gifted communicator on that stage, and he still lost rounds, because "tax billionaires" and "get money out of politics" are destinations, not directions. The moment he got specific, he produced the single most interesting idea of the night: regulating AI companies as public utilities, the way we treat broadband. I stopped the tape and wrote it down. I'm researching it now. That's what one concrete idea can do that an hour of applause lines can't.
Stevens had strong rounds on industrial policy, and one genuinely instructive stumble. She called for abolishing the filibuster, then said Democrats should have used the filibuster to block a tax bill that passed through budget reconciliation, a process the filibuster can't touch. The moderator caught it. And here's my confession: I initially thought the moderator was being unfair to her. Then I looked up how the bill actually passed, realized he was right, and said "I was wrong" three times on air.
That last part is the real lesson. If you grade arguments for a living, you have to grade your own the same way. The fastest way to lose an audience's trust is pretending you never blow a call. The fastest way to build it is correcting yourself in public, immediately, without being forced.
The 2026 midterms are going to bury all of us in performances. The voters who cut through it will be the ones asking the boring question: what, specifically, would you do, and through what mechanism? It works on candidates. It also works on vendors, executives, and anyone else selling you a vision.
I broke down the full debate, the AI policy fight, the AIPAC and antisemitism exchange, public option versus Medicare for All, and the EV tax credit math, on this week's episode: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mcmorrow-vs-stevens-vs-el-sayed-whos-ready-to-beat/id1626987640?i=1000771862165
What's the best non-answer you've ever heard a politician give? I collect them.
Podcast Host
Navigating the vast amount of bouncing around the political spectrum my entire life I have finally figured something important out. It doesn't matter. I've been religious, been in the military, went to a liberal school and all in all none of the political biases matter. We shouldn't let toxic discourse cloud our judgement and find a solution through logic and conversation. In pursuit of this mission I created this podcast to focus on these important conversations.
