Muslim Mass Migration and the Michigan Election

Brand-new polling shows a horse race in the U.S. Senate race in Michigan and suggests that the controversial topic of Muslim immigration to that state could provide the key differentiator in the contest.

As reported from earlier polling in Michigan, by a 6-to-1 margin Michigan voters believe that there is too much Muslim immigration to their state vs. too little. Even among Kamala Harris 2024 voters, the margin declaring “too much” Muslim immigration is nearly 2-to-1 in the Great Lakes State. This new Michigan poll dives deeper into that issue and shows a clear opportunity against a candidate who openly aligns himself with extreme Muslim public figures and issues.

First, regarding the current tight state of the race, this TIPP Insights poll of 1,528 registered voters in Michigan for the League of American Workers shows Democrat nominee Abdul El-Sayed leading Republican nominee Mike Rogers by 4 points, 43% to 39%, in a poll with a margin of error of 2.6%. Currently, 11% of voters are unsure and 7% say they will vote for someone else.

But when voters are informed that El-Sayed campaigned in Michigan with Hasan Piker, who declared that America “deserved” the 9/11 terror attacks, 64% of Michigan voters say they are less likely to support the Democratic nominee. In fact, nearly a majority of Democrats declared themselves “less likely” given that information, at 47%.

Also reflecting that unease with the radicalism of El-Sayed, almost one-third (29%) of Democrats and independents said they were “not satisfied” with the Democrat nominee.

Given the razor-thin margin of victory for El-Sayed in the Democrat primary, are there enough disaffected Democrat and independent voters to sway the U.S. Senate election to the GOP for the first time in 30 years in Michigan?

The evidence is strongly affirmative on that point, especially among older voters.

Among senior citizen Democrats and independents, the number “not satisfied” with El-Sayed as nominee rises to a material 37%.

Older citizens vote, so this hesitation could prove decisive in a close race. In addition, seniors hold more restrictive views about Muslim immigration to their state, a vital issue for a candidate who only won the primary because of overwhelming support from Michigan Muslim enclaves like Dearborn and Hamtramck.

When asked if Muslim migration makes Michigan better or worse off, by a 2-to-1 margin, voters responded “worse off,” 32% to 16%. Among seniors, the numbers are revealing compared with Christian migration. Specifically, only 3% of seniors think that Christian migration makes Michigan “worse off” vs. 36% who think Muslim migration makes Michigan “worse off.”

Given these stark numbers, the sentiment of sensible Michigan patriots seems clear. They recognize that their state has a serious problem with Third World migrants who do not even pretend to assimilate into American culture and do not share our Western civilizational values.

So, with a nominee like El-Sayed, who has serious family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, this legitimate lane of criticism should be aggressively pursued. Naturally, this exposure probably should fall into the purview of outside interest groups rather than the Mike Rogers campaign itself.

But the “verdict” of Michigan voters grows clearer. Muslim mass migration is controversial and increasingly viewed with skepticism. As such, an extremist like Abdul El-Sayed represents an unacceptable choice for the patriots of the American heartland.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.