Why I Believe Mike Rogers Will Defy the Polls in Michigan
By Bob Barney — The Plain Truth
Opinion, political commentary and biblical analysis
Most political observers expect the 2026 midterm elections to deliver major Democratic gains. I understand why. President Donald Trump’s unpopularity, personal arrogance, tariffs and handling of the war with Iran have created serious problems for Republican candidates.
The Bible warns leaders against pride: “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18, KJV). It also teaches that rulers are accountable to God for how they exercise authority (Daniel 4:17; Romans 13:1–4).
Even voters who once supported Trump are questioning the economic and human costs of his policies. Nevertheless, I believe Michigan’s Senate election may produce a surprising exception. My prediction is that Republican Mike Rogers will defeat Democrat Abdul El-Sayed.
That prediction runs against the published polling. Recent surveys have placed El-Sayed ahead, including one showing him with a seven-point advantage. Any honest analysis must acknowledge that evidence. This is not a claim that the polls say Rogers will win. It is my belief that the polls may be missing something important about Michigan’s voters and America’s underlying religious culture. CBS News Detroit reported El-Sayed’s late polling lead here.
The significance of Haley Stevens
The most dramatic evidence supporting my argument came when Democratic Representative Haley Stevens endorsed Rogers, the Republican nominee, instead of El-Sayed, the Democrat who narrowly defeated her in the primary.
This was no routine endorsement. Stevens crossed party lines only two days before the election and appeared with Rogers at a Detroit church. Her decision provoked outrage among Democratic leaders and members of her own staff. It also revealed how deep the divisions surrounding El-Sayed remain inside the Democratic coalition. The Associated Press reported the endorsement and its political context.
Stevens’ endorsement does not prove that Rogers will win. Personal resentment following a close primary could have influenced her decision. Nevertheless, when a prominent Democrat who competed directly against her party’s nominee says she cannot support him, Michigan voters are entitled to pay attention.
The Bible advises people to examine evidence carefully: “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him” (Proverbs 18:13). It also says that a matter should be established through more than one witness (Deuteronomy 19:15; 2 Corinthians 13:1). Stevens’ endorsement is therefore one piece of evidence—not the entire case.
America’s religious character
My prediction rests partly upon a controversial belief: America may favor a secular constitutional government, but it has not abandoned its predominantly Christian—or, more broadly, Judeo-Christian—cultural inheritance.
That does not mean every American is a Christian. Millions are not. It does not mean that Muslims are lesser citizens or should be excluded from public office.
The Constitution explicitly prohibits a religious test for federal office, while the First Amendment protects both the free exercise of religion and the country from an officially established religion. Those constitutional protections apply equally to Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists and everyone else. The National Archives provides the Constitution’s complete text.
The Bible itself recognizes a distinction between civil government and a believer’s duty to God. Jesus said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). Christians are instructed to respect legitimate civil authority (Romans 13:1–7; 1 Peter 2:13–17), but when government directly commands disobedience to God, the apostolic principle is: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
Constitutional eligibility and electoral preference, however, are different questions.
Even many Americans who do not attend church still expect public officials to operate within a moral tradition shaped by biblical ideas: the rule of law, personal responsibility, the dignity of human life, impartial justice and the accountability of rulers.
Scripture repeatedly expresses those principles:
- “Justice, justice shalt thou pursue” (Deuteronomy 16:20).
- Judges must not show favoritism or accept bribes (Deuteronomy 16:18–19).
- Government should defend the poor and needy (Psalm 82:3–4; Proverbs 31:8–9).
- Rulers must not consider themselves above the law (Deuteronomy 17:18–20).
- “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34).
- God requires people “to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly” with Him (Micah 6:8).
I believe many Michigan voters will enter the voting booth asking whether El-Sayed’s political worldview represents that inherited tradition. His personal faith should not be treated as proof of extremism, nor should criticism descend into hostility toward Muslims generally. The legitimate questions concern what he believes, what policies he supports and how he would exercise the power of a United States senator.
Jesus taught that people should be evaluated by their actions: “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20). That principle requires judging candidates by their records and policies—not merely by their names, ancestry or religious labels.
My argument is not that a Muslim can never win an American election. Muslims already serve in Congress, including representatives elected by Michigan voters. My argument is narrower: I do not believe the United States is prepared to embrace a distinctly Islamic political direction, and I suspect enough Michigan voters see El-Sayed as representing a broader ideological shift they do not want.
Whether that perception is fair will be debated. Politically, however, perceptions influence elections.
A Democratic wave—with a Michigan exception
I still expect Democrats to perform strongly across the country. Trump has made the midterm election a referendum on himself, and that is dangerous for Republicans.
His tariffs have disrupted the economy. His conduct often appears arrogant and needlessly combative. His prosecution of the Iran war has raised questions about strategy, constitutional authority and whether the United States is fighting with any clearly defined objective.
Christ warned people to consider the cost before beginning a major undertaking (Luke 14:28–31). James similarly condemned wars driven by uncontrolled human desires (James 4:1–3). Scripture recognizes a government’s authority to punish wrongdoing (Romans 13:4), but it does not justify careless, prideful or purposeless warfare.
These concerns may produce a substantial Democratic victory nationally.
Michigan, however, could split its verdict. Voters can reject Trump’s excesses while deciding that El-Sayed is too progressive or culturally distant from their convictions. Haley Stevens’ endorsement gives Democrats and independents political permission to cross party lines without thinking they have abandoned every Democratic principle.
That is Rogers’ path to victory: not a sweeping endorsement of Trump, but a coalition of Republicans, independents and disaffected Democrats who conclude that this particular election involves something larger than party loyalty.
The prophetic dimension
There is also a prophetic framework through which I view the changing world order.
The Bible describes great political and military powers that will arise during the end-time struggle. Daniel speaks of the “king of the north” and the “king of the south” (Daniel 11:40–45), while Revelation describes “the kings of the east” and a coalition symbolized by ten kings or rulers (Revelation 16:12; 17:12–14).
The king of the north
Daniel records that “at the time of the end” the king of the south will push against the king of the north. The northern king will respond like a whirlwind and enter numerous countries (Daniel 11:40–41).
Daniel also describes a final kingdom with extraordinary military and political power (Daniel 7:7–8, 19–25). Revelation depicts ten kings who temporarily surrender their authority to a dominant end-time ruler (Revelation 17:12–13).
My interpretation is that this northern power will emerge from a reorganized European coalition. The ten kings may represent ten nations, rulers or centers of power that unite under one dominant leader—the figure commonly identified as the Beast or Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:3–4; Revelation 13:1–8).
The Bible does not specifically name the modern European Union, and the present EU has more than ten members. Therefore, a final ten-power coalition would require a political reorganization or an alliance different from the EU in its current form.
The king of the south
I believe the king of the south could arise from a vast Islamic confederation extending from western and northern Africa through the Middle East and toward Afghanistan and beyond—a kind of “United States of Islam.”
Daniel 11:40–43 indicates that this southern power will possess enough strength to confront the northern king and that the resulting conflict will engulf Egypt, Libya and surrounding territories.
However, Scripture does not use the expression “United States of Islam,” nor does it give the precise modern borders of this coalition. That geographic identification is my interpretation of how the prophecy may take political form. It should not be presented as an explicit biblical quotation.
The kings of the east
Revelation describes the Euphrates being prepared so that “the way of the kings of the east might be prepared” (Revelation 16:12). These powers then become involved in the final gathering for battle (Revelation 16:13–16).
An earlier passage describes an enormous army associated with the region of the Euphrates (Revelation 9:13–16). Some interpreters connect these passages, although the text does not explicitly state that they describe precisely the same military force.
I believe the kings of the east may represent a great alliance involving China, Russia and other Asian powers. Japan could eventually play a significant leadership role as it reasserts its military and economic influence in the Far East.
But the Bible does not specifically name modern Russia, China or Japan in these passages. Identifying those countries with the kings of the east is a geopolitical interpretation, not an explicit statement of Scripture.
The final battle brings the world’s rulers together against Christ at His return (Revelation 16:14–16; 19:11–21). Human governments will ultimately be replaced by the Kingdom of God, which “shall never be destroyed” (Daniel 2:44; Revelation 11:15).
A necessary warning
These prophecies must not be used to condemn individual Muslim, European, Russian, Chinese or Japanese citizens.
Biblical prophecy concerns governments, alliances and systems of power. Christians must distinguish between examining those systems and passing judgment upon millions of ordinary people. God is not a respecter of persons or ethnic backgrounds (Acts 10:34–35; Romans 2:11), and Christians are commanded to treat others as they would want to be treated (Matthew 7:12).
My prediction
The polls favor El-Sayed. The national political environment favors Democrats. Political history says Rogers should be struggling.
I nevertheless predict that Mike Rogers will win Michigan’s Senate race.
If I am right, the result will not necessarily prove that Michigan has become Republican. It will demonstrate that religious identity, cultural inheritance and voter uneasiness can overcome national political trends—especially when a major figure from the opposing party publicly validates those concerns.
If I am wrong, intellectual honesty demands that I return after the election, examine the evidence and explain what Michigan voters decided. Scripture commends those who test claims rather than accepting them blindly (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21).
That is what The Plain Truth should always do: make its case clearly, distinguish fact from interpretation and remain willing to test its predictions against events.