Rogers and El-Sayed’s debate shows Michigan voters need policy, not attacks

The exchange did include serious policy disagreements. The candidates addressed the Iran war, U.S. support for Israel, health care, immigration and tariffs on Canada. Democratic Sen. Gary Peters is retiring, leaving an open seat in a race both parties view as important to control of the Senate. The general election is scheduled for Nov. 3, as AP reported in its debate preview.

Voters need choices they can compare

The candidates’ positions deserve scrutiny on their merits. Rogers called for an end to the Iran war; El-Sayed criticized the war and supports a diplomatic solution. Their disagreement over U.S. military assistance to Israel also deserves focused questions. Voters need to hear what each candidate would press the Senate to do, not just trade barbs over the issue.

Health care demands the same clarity. El-Sayed supports Medicare for All and said families could keep private coverage if they wanted. Rogers argued the plan would shift private insurance to the government and challenged El-Sayed’s description. That dispute is a starting point, not an answer: voters should hear each candidate explain how their preferred system would work and what it would mean for people seeking coverage. Their exchange over health care shows why labels alone are no substitute for specifics.

Immigration also calls for specifics rather than caricature. Rogers described Minnesota’s enforcement operations as probably improper, while defending agents’ focus on people he said were in the country illegally and had committed serious crimes. El-Sayed has called for abolishing ICE. In the debate, he said a person without legal status who commits a violent crime should be deported, while rejecting enforcement methods that violate the Constitution.

Those positions raise consequential questions about enforcement and constitutional limits. A useful debate would give each candidate uninterrupted time to explain what policy they support, followed by a moderator’s focused question that tests the details.

Scrutiny should be sharp and fair

There is a legitimate case for aggressive scrutiny in a campaign. A candidate’s record, alliances and past statements can help voters judge how that person might use public power. Rogers’ calls to end the Iran war and resolve the Canada tariff dispute invite questions about what he would do as a senator; he has also called for the trade fight with Canada to end. El-Sayed’s proposals deserve equally direct examination, including how he would pursue them.

But an accusation is not proof, and an insult is not an answer. When candidates make claims about one another’s finances or political associations, they should be pressed for evidence and asked to explain why the claims matter to the office they seek. Otherwise, the charge can dominate the exchange without giving voters a clear account of what either candidate would change.

The strongest argument for a combative debate is that candidates should face pressure rather than deliver polished talking points without challenge. We agree that voters deserve tough exchanges. But a moderator cannot test a proposal when the candidates talk over the question—or each other. Discipline is not a favor to candidates; it is a condition for meaningful scrutiny.

Make any further debate answer the question

The race touches household concerns and national power. Health coverage, immigration enforcement, a war abroad and a trade dispute all demand clear explanations of what candidates would support, what limits they recognize and how they would use the Senate seat. The debate raised those issues; a better structure would make the answers easier to hear and compare.

We urge debate organizers to make any further debate policy-first: give both candidates the same issue-specific question, protect uninterrupted response time and require a moderator follow-up that clarifies what each would do. That format should not shield either candidate from questions about records or political ties. It should make room for answers and give voters the chance to judge them.