Voting: It’s the year of the not-at-all-close call

This week the Michigan Chronicle, the oldest Black newspaper in the state, endorsed Rep. Haley Stevens for the US Senate ahead of Tuesday’s Democratic primary. I was struck by two things about the 1,200-word endorsement editorial. First, Stevens is a highly accomplished elected official who would make a fine senator. In full disclosure, I’m voting for her opponent in the primary; however if Stevens emerges victorious, I do not believe the Great Lake State will suffer from it.

As the Chronicle stated, she was chief of staff on Obama’s auto task force and helped write the Chips and Science Act, and the Center for Effective Lawmaking rated her the most effective Democrat in Michigan’s delegation during the 118th Congress.

The second striking aspect of the endorsement was its glaring omission of any mention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — an entanglement that may be the main reason Stevens could lose on Tuesday. Not once did the newspaper mention Israel, Gaza or the harshest criticism against Stevens. It’s a question that needs addressing. Why, in a state with 10 million people, would the committee spend nearly $30 million on her campaign? The Chronicle’s endorsement doesn’t argue that the money is fine or irrelevant. It failed to argue anything at all, as if it were a nonissue in the state with the largest Arab American population.

Which was particularly odd considering the same week the Chronicle endorsed Stevens, its executive editor, Jeremy Allen, went on CNN and said the money she’s received from AIPAC “has been a huge concern” in the state. “There’s going to be an initiative on the ballot in November in Michigan about removing corporate money from politics,” Allen said. “If you’re getting all this money, what are you going to have to pay for it eventually? What’s going to come on the back end of it?”

All legitimate questions that should have been addressed by anyone giving their imprimatur to Stevens. What is any endorsement worth in 2026 — really? At this point of the odyssey, you’re either OK with the Trump administration proposing more cuts to Medicare while spending millions to spray-paint statues with gold — or you’re not. Do you really need a newspaper or a big name to tell you if you should approve of ICE killing Americans? You either love that or hate it.

That’s not to say voices with large platforms cannot help draw attention to a candidate or an issue. However, the brewing civil war within the Democratic Party has a lot to do with the disconnect between its political machine and the people who fuel it.

Take, for example, Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C. He recently appeared alongside Stevens and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in Detroit. He told Astead Herndon for Vox’s “America, Actually” podcast that not only does he not use AI, he said, “believe it or not, I didn’t know what that was until about a week ago ... ChatGPT, or whatever it is.”

He also said he’s never been to a data center. Said he has a great staff who keeps him informed. Artificial intelligence began in 1956.

When this spring OpenAI closed the largest single private financing round on record, raising $122 billion ahead of a public offering. In 2025, “Architects of AI” was Time’s person of the year. And the 86-year-old Clyburn, someone who has been in Congress since the founder of OpenAI was in elementary school, came into 2026 having no idea what artificial intelligence was.

Earlier this month, OpenAI broke out of its isolated testing environment and began hacking into other AI models. Surprising? Well, in 2015, the founder wrote that “AI is probably the most likely way to destroy everything.”

A decade later jobs are being lost, misinformation online has run amok, and vast data centers are popping up like measles. Which is also popping up. And Clyburn flew to Michigan to tell voters to support Stevens. Gee thanks. Like I said earlier: What’s an endorsement really worth, or telling us, in 2026 anyway?