Poll shows Mike Rogers leading Abdul El-Sayed but trailing Haley Stevens for Michigan Senate seat

A new Michigan Senate poll released August 3 suggests former Rep. Mike Rogers (R) is stronger against Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed than against Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.), indicating a more competitive general-election path against Stevens. The survey, conducted by EPIC-MRA, found that a plurality of respondents said they would cast their ballot for Stevens or would consider doing so, while also showing Rogers ahead of El-Sayed in the matchup tested.

The poll’s general-election results center on the seat held by Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.). With Peters’ retirement creating open-seat dynamics, the survey reflects voter sentiment in a contest that has attracted multiple contenders on the Democratic side and a Republican effort to position Rogers as the presumptive nominee.

In the prospective matchups tested by EPIC-MRA, Rogers is reported to lead El-Sayed, a Democratic candidate seeking to compete against Rogers. The Hill reported that the survey showed Rogers “beats El-Sayed” while “loses to Stevens,” indicating that Rogers’ relative advantage with voters may narrow when he is measured against Stevens, who is currently serving in Congress.

The Hill’s report also described Stevens as drawing the broadest support among the choices included in the poll. According to the outlet, 44 percent of respondents said they would cast their ballot for Stevens or would consider doing so, a figure the article used to describe Stevens’ strength at the time of the survey.

The survey findings arrive as both Republicans and Democrats continue to refine their arguments for the Michigan contest and as party-aligned groups assess potential general-election coalitions. For Democrats, the result underscores the competitive nature of their primary field, while for Republicans the polling suggests that nomination choices and voter persuasion efforts will matter in determining whether Rogers can close any gap against Stevens.

Neither The Hill report nor the information in the provided package specifies detailed subgroup results, voter demographics, or the full numerical breakdown for the remaining matchups beyond the reported Stevens “consider or cast” figure and the broad “beats” versus “loses” characterization. As with any single survey, the results reflect opinions at the time the EPIC-MRA poll was conducted and do not establish how voters will decide when campaigns reach later stages of the calendar.