On Oct. 17, Michigan’s Democratic Senate Candidate Abdul El-Sayed was questioned by a town hall attendee on whether or not he condemned the Muslim Brotherhood, an officially nonviolent Islamist movement with global offshoot chapters that have been linked to terrorist attacks. Later revealed to be an aide for Republican Senator Josh Hawley, the heckler said he was asking because he hadn’t “heard [El-Sayed] disavow them yet.” The implication is clear: El-Sayed, who would be the first Muslim senator in U.S. history, has loyalties above the United States for that very reason. These kinds of allegations are not new for him, nor for any Muslim elected official in the country.

More interesting was his response. Rather than turning the question into a patient teaching moment, El-Sayed pointed out the inherent bigotry in the line of questioning. He then compared his campaign to that of John F. Kennedy, who faced similar accusations of being more loyal to the Catholic Church than to American needs. Afterward, he espoused the virtue of the Constitution and pledged loyalty to it above all else. Finally, he won the argument by rejecting the idea of incorporating religious doctrine into national laws, which the heckler supported.

In a time when many Democratic officials are afraid to speak out against Islamophobia, El-Sayed has taken a bolder approach that surpasses others in his party. By going on the offensive, El-Sayed did more than just defend himself and his faith. He presented himself as a fighter who will take on the political risk of defending vulnerable groups.

Even New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, on the eve of his election, said, “And I thought that if I behaved well enough or bit my tongue enough in the face of racist, baseless attacks, all while returning back to my central message, it would allow me to be more than just my faith. I was wrong. No amount of redirection is ever enough.” Although Mamdani went on to win his election, he missed the chance to present himself as a defender of the community he relied on to win.

In that same speech, Mamdani said that he was thinking “of those Muslims in this city who do not have the luxury of being the Democratic nominee.” In Michigan especially, standing up for them is a necessity, as Muslim voters make up a valuable portion of its Democratic coalition. Many of them voted for a third party in the 2024 election, as both parties adopted pro-Israel platforms during the height of the war in Gaza. Future Democratic electoral success will require winning these voters back. Today, many of these same voters are concerned about Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the organization that El-Sayed vowed to abolish before he won his primary.

Many may assume this article is championing progressive candidates. However, El-Sayed has broken from progressives on several issues. Unlike other progressive candidates who are Democratic Socialists, El-Sayed identifies as a capitalist. A casual look at his policy platform reveals many stances popular across the Democratic Party and beyond, such as regulating data centers, protecting manufacturing jobs, funding schools and supporting Ukraine. Is he a progressive? Undoubtedly yes, but moderate Democrats could absolutely use similar strategies and rhetoric to find success.

Take, for example, Texas’ Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico, who has made similar populist promises. These include data center regulation, calling for an end to offensive weapons sales to Israel, criticizing dark money and advocating for a public healthcare option. At the same time, he has referred to himself as a “border security Democrat” while still calling for ICE reform. The result? A previously unthinkable polling lead for a Democratic candidate in deep-red Texas.

So why is Talarico seen as a moderate while El-Sayed is seen as progressive? Race is an undeniable factor, but rhetoric is another. El-Sayed called for “abolishing ICE,” while Talarico wants to “replace” it with an agency focused on public safety. El-Sayed supports “Medicare for All,” while Talarico is instead focused on driving down costs through breaking up healthcare monopolies. Both candidates present similar ideas but in different ways. Their mutual polling advantage suggests these strategies are working.

Since the 2024 election, discourse within the Democratic Party has centered on progressive versus moderate candidates. These two elections paint the conflict as a false dichotomy. Whether a candidate is called progressive or moderate depends largely on perception, based on factors both in and out of their control. As these races show, either perception can be beneficial in one’s area. It is more important for candidates to present bold visions for their campaign and inspiring stories of themselves. This is the area where both candidates find the most common ground. Talarico’s background as a middle school teacher who watched his students and family struggle with poverty (20) has inspired voters the same way El-Sayed’s story of a medical student who decided to fix our broken healthcare system has.

Both Senate candidates were clearly inspired by their communities and have proven brave enough to make the changes they have been clamoring for. That is why they both won their primaries and why their races have drawn so much attention. As the midterm elections approach, many have been biting their nails, wondering whether a more progressive or moderate candidate in each race would fare better. But after examining their similar policy platforms and connected backgrounds, it is clear that their history and passion make them the most competitive choices.

We don’t need either a more progressive or a more moderate candidate to win. We need candidates who can prove themselves as passionate fighters.

Kevin O’Connell is a junior majoring in political science. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.