5 ms·

You can't talk about what happened in the Illinois primaries without talking about the other PACs who spent big, specifically AIPAC and other dark-money Israel-

by jmyeet 7mo ago

You can't talk about what happened in the Illinois primaries without talking about the other PACs who spent big, specifically AIPAC and other dark-money Israel-affiliated PACs that spent to defeat pro-Palestinian candidates (eg Kat Abugazaleh) without ever once mentioning Israel [1]. It's far more accurate to say that pro-Zionist groups spent big in the Illinois primary and got mixed results. Crypto just went along for the ride. There is a war in the Democratic Party between anti-genocide candidates, who enjoy 90% support in the base, and the establishment who is doing everything to defeat them, up to and including intentionally losing the 2024 presidential election [3]. Nobody cares about crypto. [1]: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/18/aipac-israel-illinois-primary-results-00833615 https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/18/aipac-israel-illino... [2]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/702440/israelis-no-longer-ahead-americans-middle-east-sympathies.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/702440/israelis-no-longer-ahead... [3]: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/dnc-autopsy-gaza-harris/ https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/dnc-autopsy-gaza-...

ourmandave 7mo ago
I don't understand why they'd throw an election so the other pro-Israel side can win.
- t-3 7mo ago
  They didn't throw the election per se, they just didn't try very hard to win a fight they could easily lose. Why burn bridges with a very important ally over something that might not end up being your problem?
tptacek 7mo ago
This is just activist cope. Voters in Illinois CD7, where I live, didn't put Melissa Conyears-Ervin (lavishly supported by AIPAC) into a tight second-place run against La Shawn Ford because Israel bamboozled them. If you look at the map of where the MCE votes came from, it's very unlikely any of them gave a shit about Israel whatsoever. Her votes followed the exact same pattern as they did in 2024, when she gave Danny Davis (the long-term incumbent) a run for his money, and when she wasn't supported by AIPAC at all. In the Illinois 9th, AIPAC supported candidate seemingly at random in an attempt to split the progressive vote and clear a path for Laura Fine. Didn't work there either. It may very well be the case that Israel is disfavored by a strong majority of Illinois Democrats (I'd certainly understand why). What your analysis misses is salience: people care about lots of things they don't vote about. Poll primary voters here; you will find a small group of them that think Israel is the most important issue in the district (they will be almost uniformly white PMC voters and they'll be disproportionately online). Mostly you're going to find voters that (a) hate Trump and (b) are concerned about the economy. It's clearly not the case that "anti-genocide candidates" enjoy a 90% share of the Illinois Democratic primary electorate, because they didn't win.
- jmyeet 7mo ago
  Did you miss the part where I said that the AIPAC and AIPAC-affiliated PAC spending never mentions Israel?
  - tptacek 7mo ago
    Did you miss the part where I pointed out that the results were identical to just one cycle ago where AIPAC wasn't a factor at all? I'm a politically engaged Illinois Democrat (to the point where I have precinct maps of CD7 and CD9 running for local political discussions), I understand what AIPAC was doing here. Unfortunately for your argument, it doesn't appear to have had any effect.
    - jmyeet 7mo ago
      First, IL-7 was nothing like it was in 2024. What are you talking about? In 2024, a 14 term incumbent, Danny Davis, was seeking reelection. Now there's some noise here because IL-7 changed in the 2021 redistricting and became more Democratic but still, Davis is a long-time veteran. Davis was a progressive but has a more mixed record on Israel funding and defence bills. He's concered with what he has called a "humanitarian crisis", which is more than most, but never gone so far as to use terms like "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" AFAIK. Davis faced challenges in 2024 but won pretty handily. One of his challengers wasa the future 2026 AIPAC chosen candidate, Melissa Conyears-Ervin. AIPAC indirectly (eg through UDP) spent millions [1] in the IL-7 Democratic primary and still came in third. So, IL-7 in 2026 was a massively funded primary in an open field with no incumbent and 2024 was a 14 term incumbent seeking reelection without massive spending. In what way are they comparable? Bonus question: if millions are spent to oppose a candidate and they still win, how can you say the results were "identical"? [1]: https://chicagocrusader.com/la-shawn-ford-wins-7th-district-primary-despite-opposition-spending/ https://chicagocrusader.com/la-shawn-ford-wins-7th-district-...
      - tptacek 7mo ago
        MCE got the same votes she did in the 2024 primary in 2026. It's not complicated; just get the precinct level results, give them to Claude, and tell it "put this on a map". Remember you'll need precinct results both from Cook County and Chicago. She played in exactly the same parts of the CD7 map that she did last cycle, and ranked the same. Tell me what AIPAC had to do with that, given that AIPAC was not involved in her 2024 run.
thuridas 7mo ago
I Will never understand why US allows this kind of political intervention.
- tptacek 7mo ago
  Pesky thing called the First Amendment.
  - wyre 7mo ago
    Citizens United cough
    - tptacek 7mo ago
      A case where the opposition claimed that under a correct reading of the Constitution they had the authority to ban books. I don't like lobbying and campaign finance either, but people shouldn't pretend these are simple or absurd arguments.
  - vkou 7mo ago
    Money is speech, and is sacred, but books with gay people in them aren't speech, and need to be carefully controlled.
  - kubb 7mo ago
    They really interpret the First to protect lobbying and campaign donations? I mean the Second as written also isn’t primarily about the right to pack heat, so it’s not that surprising.
  - chimeracoder 7mo ago
    The First Amendment does not explicitly mention campaign spending (or political campaigns at all), and until 2010, the First Amendment was not considered to apply to monetary spending in political campaigns. The right to petition the government is explicitly protected, but that doesn't apply in the case of IL-9, which was an open race and therefore none of the candidates were actually elected representatives.
tootie 7mo ago
AIPAC was promoting the third place finisher. They opposed both Biss and Abugazeleh who finished first and second.
- delecti 7mo ago
  In his victory speech, Biss credited J Street. So still Israel, just not AIPAC specifically.
  - tootie 7mo ago
    J Street is specifically anti-war, anti-settlement and pro-justice.
HDThoreaun 7mo ago
Kat Abugazaleh was a carpet bagger with literally 0 experience governing. The fact that she came close to winning is an indictment on our meme obsessed voting population and imo proof that ranked choice is absolutely needed. There were multiple bonafide progressives in the race with local roots and experience in the state house but the progressive movement abandoned them in favor of a candidate who ran their campaign from tiktok with 85% of the fundraising from out of state. Honestly a disgrace.
- jmyeet 7mo ago
  That's a long way of saying "Kat ran a better campaign". I have criticisms of her campaign, specifically 1. She was a carpet-bagger (as you said). She moved in Illinois in 2024 I believe; 2. She initially ran in a district she didn't live in. I believe she initially lived in IL-7 but ran in IL-9 and moved there at some point; 3. She chose to primary a relatively good candidate, Jan Shakowsky. My working theory is she was trying to fly under AIPAC's radar by primarying a relatively pro-Palestine candidatei; and 4. She essentially advocated for going to war with China over Taiwan for literally no reason. Nobody in her district cares about this. You can blame that in part on having a bad foreign policy advisor but the buck stops with the candidate. And despite all of that and millions being spent against her by pro-Israel groups she still got ~30% of the vote and came second. But as for "better candidates", I'm sorry but my advice is "run a better camapign".
  - __loam 7mo ago
    This is what I've been saying to the people who blame the voters for Trump's win in 2024. Democrats knew how dangerous he was and how weak of a candidate he should have been and they still decided to skip the primary and run an unpopular candidate so late in the race after it became clear that Biden wasn't going to make it after the first debate. They met a serious and decisive moment with incompetence and the public is facing the consequences of that. They should be taking this all more seriously and doing introspection on the loss rather than blaming the voters.
  - HDThoreaun 7mo ago
    Oh I agree she ran a better campaign given that there isnt ranked chocie voting. Im just stating that I am very unhappy that 25% of the dem electorate are looking for clown meme candidates. Thats by far the biggest lesson from her campaign, 25% of primary voters do not care about anything other than memeage. I cant say thats a good way to get competent politicians but it is now the world we live in. > But as for "better candidates", I'm sorry but my advice is "run a better camapign". I know this is wishful thinking but itd be nice if politics had just a little bit of substance instead of purely being a popularity contest where competence at governing is irrelevant. Also Kat still lost. If the progressives backed one of the local candidates they likely win, so its hard to really say she ran such a great campaign. She blew it for them

by jmyeet 7mo ago

ourmandave 7mo ago

I don't understand why they'd throw an election so the other pro-Israel side can win.

t-3 7mo ago
They didn't throw the election per se, they just didn't try very hard to win a fight they could easily lose. Why burn bridges with a very important ally over something that might not end up being your problem?

tptacek 7mo ago

This is just activist cope. Voters in Illinois CD7, where I live, didn't put Melissa Conyears-Ervin (lavishly supported by AIPAC) into a tight second-place run against La Shawn Ford because Israel bamboozled them. If you look at the map of where the MCE votes came from, it's very unlikely any of them gave a shit about Israel whatsoever. Her votes followed the exact same pattern as they did in 2024, when she gave Danny Davis (the long-term incumbent) a run for his money, and when she wasn't supported by AIPAC at all. In the Illinois 9th, AIPAC supported candidate seemingly at random in an attempt to split the progressive vote and clear a path for Laura Fine. Didn't work there either. It may very well be the case that Israel is disfavored by a strong majority of Illinois Democrats (I'd certainly understand why). What your analysis misses is salience: people care about lots of things they don't vote about. Poll primary voters here; you will find a small group of them that think Israel is the most important issue in the district (they will be almost uniformly white PMC voters and they'll be disproportionately online). Mostly you're going to find voters that (a) hate Trump and (b) are concerned about the economy. It's clearly not the case that "anti-genocide candidates" enjoy a 90% share of the Illinois Democratic primary electorate, because they didn't win.

jmyeet 7mo ago
Did you miss the part where I said that the AIPAC and AIPAC-affiliated PAC spending never mentions Israel?
- tptacek 7mo ago
  Did you miss the part where I pointed out that the results were identical to just one cycle ago where AIPAC wasn't a factor at all? I'm a politically engaged Illinois Democrat (to the point where I have precinct maps of CD7 and CD9 running for local political discussions), I understand what AIPAC was doing here. Unfortunately for your argument, it doesn't appear to have had any effect.
  - jmyeet 7mo ago
    First, IL-7 was nothing like it was in 2024. What are you talking about? In 2024, a 14 term incumbent, Danny Davis, was seeking reelection. Now there's some noise here because IL-7 changed in the 2021 redistricting and became more Democratic but still, Davis is a long-time veteran. Davis was a progressive but has a more mixed record on Israel funding and defence bills. He's concered with what he has called a "humanitarian crisis", which is more than most, but never gone so far as to use terms like "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" AFAIK. Davis faced challenges in 2024 but won pretty handily. One of his challengers wasa the future 2026 AIPAC chosen candidate, Melissa Conyears-Ervin. AIPAC indirectly (eg through UDP) spent millions [1] in the IL-7 Democratic primary and still came in third. So, IL-7 in 2026 was a massively funded primary in an open field with no incumbent and 2024 was a 14 term incumbent seeking reelection without massive spending. In what way are they comparable? Bonus question: if millions are spent to oppose a candidate and they still win, how can you say the results were "identical"? [1]: https://chicagocrusader.com/la-shawn-ford-wins-7th-district-primary-despite-opposition-spending/ https://chicagocrusader.com/la-shawn-ford-wins-7th-district-...
    - tptacek 7mo ago
      MCE got the same votes she did in the 2024 primary in 2026. It's not complicated; just get the precinct level results, give them to Claude, and tell it "put this on a map". Remember you'll need precinct results both from Cook County and Chicago. She played in exactly the same parts of the CD7 map that she did last cycle, and ranked the same. Tell me what AIPAC had to do with that, given that AIPAC was not involved in her 2024 run.

thuridas 7mo ago

I Will never understand why US allows this kind of political intervention.

tptacek 7mo ago
Pesky thing called the First Amendment.
- wyre 7mo ago
  Citizens United cough
  - tptacek 7mo ago
    A case where the opposition claimed that under a correct reading of the Constitution they had the authority to ban books. I don't like lobbying and campaign finance either, but people shouldn't pretend these are simple or absurd arguments.
- vkou 7mo ago
  Money is speech, and is sacred, but books with gay people in them aren't speech, and need to be carefully controlled.
- kubb 7mo ago
  They really interpret the First to protect lobbying and campaign donations? I mean the Second as written also isn’t primarily about the right to pack heat, so it’s not that surprising.
- chimeracoder 7mo ago
  The First Amendment does not explicitly mention campaign spending (or political campaigns at all), and until 2010, the First Amendment was not considered to apply to monetary spending in political campaigns. The right to petition the government is explicitly protected, but that doesn't apply in the case of IL-9, which was an open race and therefore none of the candidates were actually elected representatives.

tootie 7mo ago

AIPAC was promoting the third place finisher. They opposed both Biss and Abugazeleh who finished first and second.

delecti 7mo ago
In his victory speech, Biss credited J Street. So still Israel, just not AIPAC specifically.
- tootie 7mo ago
  J Street is specifically anti-war, anti-settlement and pro-justice.

HDThoreaun 7mo ago

Kat Abugazaleh was a carpet bagger with literally 0 experience governing. The fact that she came close to winning is an indictment on our meme obsessed voting population and imo proof that ranked choice is absolutely needed. There were multiple bonafide progressives in the race with local roots and experience in the state house but the progressive movement abandoned them in favor of a candidate who ran their campaign from tiktok with 85% of the fundraising from out of state. Honestly a disgrace.

jmyeet 7mo ago
That's a long way of saying "Kat ran a better campaign". I have criticisms of her campaign, specifically 1. She was a carpet-bagger (as you said). She moved in Illinois in 2024 I believe; 2. She initially ran in a district she didn't live in. I believe she initially lived in IL-7 but ran in IL-9 and moved there at some point; 3. She chose to primary a relatively good candidate, Jan Shakowsky. My working theory is she was trying to fly under AIPAC's radar by primarying a relatively pro-Palestine candidatei; and 4. She essentially advocated for going to war with China over Taiwan for literally no reason. Nobody in her district cares about this. You can blame that in part on having a bad foreign policy advisor but the buck stops with the candidate. And despite all of that and millions being spent against her by pro-Israel groups she still got ~30% of the vote and came second. But as for "better candidates", I'm sorry but my advice is "run a better camapign".
- __loam 7mo ago
  This is what I've been saying to the people who blame the voters for Trump's win in 2024. Democrats knew how dangerous he was and how weak of a candidate he should have been and they still decided to skip the primary and run an unpopular candidate so late in the race after it became clear that Biden wasn't going to make it after the first debate. They met a serious and decisive moment with incompetence and the public is facing the consequences of that. They should be taking this all more seriously and doing introspection on the loss rather than blaming the voters.
- HDThoreaun 7mo ago
  Oh I agree she ran a better campaign given that there isnt ranked chocie voting. Im just stating that I am very unhappy that 25% of the dem electorate are looking for clown meme candidates. Thats by far the biggest lesson from her campaign, 25% of primary voters do not care about anything other than memeage. I cant say thats a good way to get competent politicians but it is now the world we live in. > But as for "better candidates", I'm sorry but my advice is "run a better camapign". I know this is wishful thinking but itd be nice if politics had just a little bit of substance instead of purely being a popularity contest where competence at governing is irrelevant. Also Kat still lost. If the progressives backed one of the local candidates they likely win, so its hard to really say she ran such a great campaign. She blew it for them