Wesley Bell Defeats Cori Bush, a ‘Squad’ Member and Vocal Critic of Israel
www.nytimes.com
Her defeat is another loss for progressives in a race defined by Democratic divisions over the war in Gaza, with pro-Israel groups pouring millions into a campaign to oust her from office.
  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    2164·
    4 months ago

    AIPAC is a foreign actor and shouldn’t be allowed to make political contributions.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      821·
      4 months ago

      And even if they’re allowed, they should be treated by Democrats like a donation from the Kochs. They’re a billionaire funded pro-Republican group. Anyone who works with them should be shunned.

    • alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      1392·
      4 months ago

      Agreed, but also: if I were in their district (Bush or Bowman), I might even consider voting Republican out of spite.

      Yes, AIPAC is to blame, but Democrats also need to grow a spine against AIPAC. They can’t just take progressive voters for granted.

      • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
        872·
        4 months ago

        Voting for republican as a protest only pushes things further to the right. It absolutely does not signal that you want to push the other way

        • TallonMetroid@lemmy.worldEnglish
          483·
          4 months ago

          Besides, AIPAC is a bipartisan organization, so the GOP candidate is also going to be a Zionist stooge.

        • DragonTypeWyvern
          1·
          4 months ago

          Protest abstentions are better, but also simply too dangerous when Congress is more or less split 50/50. We’re yet again being held hostage by an inherently corrupt election process.

        • alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          536·
          4 months ago

          If the Democratic congressional candidate underperforms the Democratic presidential candidate, it definitely sends a signal.

          Obviously, it only “sends a signal” if progressives say what they’re gonna do.

          But it has a double whammy: Dems get a 2 vote difference when you switch.

          • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
            41·
            4 months ago

            It definitely sends a signal, just the complete opposite one that protesting that way intends. Republicans getting more votes will be seen as a signal that the republican candidate was more popular and outperforming. It encourages people running there to act more like that republican

            Mind you that the republicans are certainly going to have an even worse take on gaza

            Edit: futher, a party looking at a primary moving the right followed by higher republican margins from a protest vote signals that the district as a whole might be moving to right

            Edit2: to really hit the point, protest votes for republicans appear identical to full support of republicans. There is no “why I voted” short section at the ballot box, only number of votes

            • alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              337·
              4 months ago

              You have to look at the bigger picture, not the short term issue.

              If progressives want to be taken seriously, and if Americans want AIPAC out of politics, then there have to be consequences.

              If Latimer and Bell hold on to the seat, corporate and AIPAC Democrats only learn that they can take progressives for granted.

              If they lose their seat, they learn that they need progressive support to win.

              Yeah, two years of a republican rep will suck. But it’s only two years.

              • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
                20·
                4 months ago

                This is missing what I am saying: Protest votes for republicans appear identical to fullthroated support for republicans. There is no “why I voted” short answer on the ballot

                All it does is signal support the (also AIPAC backed) republicans

                It will not be seen as a consequence of not choosing a progressive

                If a republican wins there, you are absolutely not going to see progressive run in that seat. You will see more and more “centrists” run. The long term picture is worse

                • alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  125·
                  4 months ago

                  I don’t think you understand how politics and elections work.

                  If people on the flanks give their voting power to “Blue (or Red) no matter who”, you end up with the Clintons and Bushes of the world. Parties have no incentive to actually do anything for their flanks.

                  When people on the flanks leverage their voting power effectively, you get MAGA and Justice Democrats.

                  Anyway, hope you learned something today. Otherwise, hope you have a nice day.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        161·
        4 months ago

        That’s a stupid fucking idea. “I don’t like the pizza toppings you ordered, so I’m going to punch myself in the testicles. That will show you.”

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    872·
    4 months ago

    I keep telling people, the AIPAC dollars are why you will never see a strong stand against Israel and nobody ever believes me…

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      4 months ago

      “Nobody ever believes me”

      2:37pst - 82 upvotes, 2 downvotes

      I don’t know about that. Seems like a lot of people believe you here.

      • harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        4·
        4 months ago

        They might be referring to people they see IRL. Like family or friends. I’m pretty sure, though, that those are made up things. Like birds and Finland.

  • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    683·
    4 months ago

    Representative Cori Bush of Missouri, one of the most outspoken progressives in the House, lost her primary on Tuesday, according to The Associated Press, falling to a campaign by powerful pro-Israel political groups intent on ousting a fierce critic of the nation’s genocide in Gaza.

    Fixed

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
    346·
    4 months ago

    From a slight bit of hope yesterday back into the reality of israel owning American politics.

    • TuEstUnePommeDeTerreEnglish
      71·
      4 months ago

      This is always a disingenuous attack. She voted against it because it was promised to passed along with Bulid Back Better. Conservatives in the senate blocked BBB, so she voted against it to show disapproval.

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    2828·
    4 months ago

    People were talking a lot about AIPAC money when Bowman lost his primary, but he lost with 41.3% to his opponent’s 58.7%. It was a wipe-out because he was genuinely unpopular after making a series of unforced blunders. I’m sure that he would have lost, although perhaps not by so much, even with no AIPAC spending.

    Now Bush lost with 46% to Bell’s 51%. That’s not nearly as one-sided as Bowman’s loss, but I still find it strange that commentators are so quick to dismiss the ability of the people of St. Louis to make their own decisions. Maybe they were actually able to think for themselves, consider the two candidates, and pick the one they preferred rather than being led like sheep?

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      381·
      4 months ago

      The idea that money is unimportant in influencing votes is quite a take.

    • Jericho_One@lemmy.world
      123·
      4 months ago

      Alternative theory:

      Being pro-Israel and anti-Netenyahu, and pro-Palestinian and anti-Homicidal death cult, is actually really popular amongst people who vote at the ballot box instead of voting online ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      520·
      3 months ago

      Agreed. Fuck PAC money but losing as the incumbent is telling.

      Edit- lot of butthurt “progressives” that can’t handle they’re not as popular as they think.