Progressives face an existential threat from AIPAC. And there's nothing to stop it.

[Ramsey Barner]

Progressive Democrats just watched pro-Israel super PACs spend jaw-dropping sums to wipe out two top liberals in Congress. And leaders fear they have no way to stop it from happening again in 2026.

Those groups, chiefly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s super PAC, spent a combined $25 million on ads to defeat Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.) this summer in what became the two most expensive House primaries ever. As a result, two more mainstream Democrats, George Latimer in New York and Wesley Bell in Missouri, are advancing in safe blue districts rather than two stalwart progressive voices.

After both Bowman and Bush crumbled under that avalanche of spending, prompted by their criticism of Israel in the country’s war with Hamas, progressive Democrats have awoken to a bleak new reality that could haunt them for years to come: They have no organized way to counter that kind of money. And they fear AIPAC and allied groups will be more empowered to take on even bigger targets next cycle and beyond because they know their strategy works.

[Much more at link]
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/13/progressives-aipac-elections-threat-00173709

[Think. Again.]

1. I believe (hope?) that the downward spiral...

...of the rightwing that we're beginning to see will at least weaken their many tentacles, but of course I would prefer the complete elimination of rightwingism as a political force entirely, to avoid it re-infesting society.

[Frank D. Lincoln]

2. I wonder if AIPAC would be able to do this without Citizens United?

Just curious.

[BrianTheEVGuy]

3. The reason "progressives" lost is simple

And it’s the same reason Trump will lose in November — extreme positions don’t sell to mainstream voters.

If people wanted extremism, no amount of money could stop them from voting for it.

They don’t want extremism. Voters knew Bowman and Bush, who both forgot about their constituents and pursued a set of policies that didn’t serve the people who elected them. So the people chose candidates who would focus on their concerns instead.

There’s a lesson in there, and it’s not “Jewish voters and Jewish American political organizations should be banned from participating in the political process.”

[Ontheboundry]

4. This is the winning reply

Maybe people just dont like them that much? I was actually in St Louis when the primary was happening, and I didn't get the feel that bush was in everyone's mouth. I didn't see lots of t shirts, buttons etc. I was even in her district the Monday before

[BrianTheEVGuy]

5. Exactly

Voters didn’t send Bush and Bowman to blow up and remake society in a far left utopia. They sent them to optimize our existing society and help others realize its potential. When Bowman and Bush turned their backs on their voters, voters responded by sending reps to DC who cared about everyday concerns rather than “democratic socialist revolution.”

Ironically, the most successful member of the Squad, AOC, gets this. She keeps her values while also listening to her constituents. It’s why she is so successful — she is gifted at explaining how she believes her ideas will help the people in her district.

There’s a lesson in there.

[Igel]

6. This kind of logic produces a prediction.

Look at races and the spending for each side.

The side with the most spending should almost invariably win.

Now, I'd argue that there's a bias towards more money = more winning, but that's often because more popular candidates have an easier time raising funds. (So we have to modify the hypothesis by focusing on large donors providing a certain %age of a candidate's spending.)

I've lived through a lot of "we must win, we have a bigger war chest" losing campaigns and a lot of "we're screwn, they're outspending us!" winning campaigns that falsify the prediction.

Money matters; money isn't determinative, beyond a certain amount. (Much like money for an individual or family; increase $ and happiness increases up to a certain $age, then it's basically flatlined.)

[betsuni]

7. What does "progressives" mean?