Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed spent his Saturday going after two women who weren't in his fight—and the party that lectures America about racism can't seem to find its voice.
The stakes are plain: a man who wants to represent Michigan in the U.S. Senate just signaled that minority women who step outside progressive orthodoxy are fair game, and that rural white Americans are assumed racists by default. Ordinary voters deserve to know who's asking for their vote.
It started after Vice President JD Vance slammed El-Sayed at an Ohio rally for his stated adherence to Sharia law, saying the practice would be alien to his grandfather, whom Vance calls "Papaw." El-Sayed's response wasn't to defend his positions. It was to go after Vance's wife.
"So do we think JD is taking Usha with him back in time to meet Papaw, or no…" El-Sayed posted, a clear reference to Usha Vance's Indian ethnicity. The implication: Vance's midwestern grandfather must be a racist who wouldn't welcome a woman of color into the family.
El-Sayed's campaign did not return a request for comment from Fox News Digital asking him to explain exactly what he was implying.
Journalist Emily Schrader called it straight: "You are a racist creep."
Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, pressed the point: "Why does Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed just assume that all White midwestern grandparents are racist?"
Earlier that same day, El-Sayed took a swipe at Natalie Harp, executive assistant to President Donald Trump. Far-left media and Democrats online have spent two weeks pushing innuendo about Harp and Trump having an improper relationship. El-Sayed piled on: "Natalie, I think he's had a little too much iPad for the week. He needs his rest."
The condescension was unmistakable—a man lecturing a professional woman like a child.
Tudor Dixon, a Republican former gubernatorial candidate in Michigan, connected the dots: "He goes after Usha. He goes after Natalie [Harp]. This coward picks on women who are not in his fight. Imagine how he would treat female staffers in the halls of Congress."
Even Democrats supporting El-Sayed's opponent, former Rep. Mike Rogers, broke ranks. An X account run by Democrats for Rogers posted: "This is why there were ads in the primary correctly highlighting how sexist and misogynistic Abdul is. He has so much contempt for women. If you're over the politics of division. Reject Abdul El-Sayed."
GOP strategist Matt Whitlock called it what it is: "Just a bad campaign, bad candidate, bad instincts. Sitting at home on a Saturday morning tweeting bad takes that any normal campaign would shut down."
The context matters. El-Sayed was already under fire for campaigning with far-left socialist Hasan Piker, who said "America deserved 9/11" and later apologized, according to Reuters. Rather than answer for that association, El-Sayed chose to mock women.
Both the Mechanicsburg Patriot News and the New York Post covered the backlash. The Post framed the posts as "racist and sexist" in its headline; the Patriot News led with "racist creep." Neither outlet buried the story. But the broader establishment press has been slow to treat a Democratic Senate candidate's race-baiting with the same urgency it would bring to any Republican who made comparable comments about a Democrat's family.
El-Sayed is running to represent Michigan—a state with plenty of rural white voters he just assumed are bigots, and plenty of minority voters who might wonder what happens if they think for themselves. The question isn't just what El-Sayed meant. It's whether Michigan voters will hold him to account for it.
