After seeing incumbent Democratic Representatives successfully primaried due to calling out Israeli atrocities, I worry about the impact that a statement like that could have, even though it’s a moral stance. The zionists have a lot of money and power, as we’ve recently seen. I hope she will keep it vague until after she’s elected, then do the embargo.
After seeing incumbent Democratic Representatives successfully primaried due to calling out Israeli atrocities, I worry about the impact that a statement like that could have, even though it’s a moral stance. The zionists have a lot of money and power, as we’ve recently seen. I hope she will keep it vague until after she’s elected, then do the embargo.
Primaries are a lot different from general elections. Harris has hundreds of millions of dollars; aipac is just a drop in the bucket comparatively (and I’m sure they’re giving trump money anyway.)
The AIPAC-backed primaries are very odd things. They're *spurred* by Democratic Reps being pro-ceasefire, but that's not what actually drove most voters, nor was it what AIPAC spent most of its money talking about, nor (I suspect) was it the primary motivator for a lot of the right-wing big-money investments. AIPAC of course wants a narrative of "if you're pro-ceasefire, that position loses you your primary," when it's more like "if you're on the left flank of elected Democrats in a safe Dem seat, right-wingers will look for an opportunity to dump millions into a moderate primary challenger if they judge you to be electorally vulnerable enough for a few percentage points to make a difference, and being pro-ceasefire is one such opportunity."
As much as I agree with the reject-AIPAC type strategy of trying to make AIPAC toxic in Democratic circles, I worry that we overstate their power by implicitly acknowledging them as being an independently powerful force, rather than a convenient vehicle for existing anti-progressive forces.
After seeing incumbent Democratic Representatives successfully primaried due to calling out Israeli atrocities, I worry about the impact that a statement like that could have, even though it’s a moral stance. The zionists have a lot of money and power, as we’ve recently seen. I hope she will keep it vague until after she’s elected, then do the embargo.
Primaries are a lot different from general elections. Harris has hundreds of millions of dollars; aipac is just a drop in the bucket comparatively (and I’m sure they’re giving trump money anyway.)
The AIPAC-backed primaries are very odd things. They're *spurred* by Democratic Reps being pro-ceasefire, but that's not what actually drove most voters, nor was it what AIPAC spent most of its money talking about, nor (I suspect) was it the primary motivator for a lot of the right-wing big-money investments. AIPAC of course wants a narrative of "if you're pro-ceasefire, that position loses you your primary," when it's more like "if you're on the left flank of elected Democrats in a safe Dem seat, right-wingers will look for an opportunity to dump millions into a moderate primary challenger if they judge you to be electorally vulnerable enough for a few percentage points to make a difference, and being pro-ceasefire is one such opportunity."
As much as I agree with the reject-AIPAC type strategy of trying to make AIPAC toxic in Democratic circles, I worry that we overstate their power by implicitly acknowledging them as being an independently powerful force, rather than a convenient vehicle for existing anti-progressive forces.