Dangerous Precedent': Record AIPAC Spending Helps George Latimer Defeat Jamaal Bowman
Dangerous Precedent': Record AIPAC Spending Helps George Latimer Defeat Jamaal Bowman
"Jamaal and our movement were such a threat to right-wing power, to GOP megadonors, and to AIPAC's influence in Congress that they had to spend $15 million to defeat us," said one progressive organizer.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/16955018
"Jamaal and our movement were such a threat to right-wing power, to GOP megadonors, and to AIPAC's influence in Congress that they had to spend $15 million to defeat us," said one progressive organizer.
Remember when the DCCC was mad at AOC and said any consultants who work with candidates trying to unseat incumbents would be blacklisted? https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democratic-leaders-stand-firm-on-incumbent-favor-rule-rebuff-liberal-cries-of-blacklist/2019/04/02/117a7714-54bd-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html
Almost like the dnc goal is to always do what fucks over those wanting to move the party left
Like most people, they really really really like money
I remember when the party threw its weight behind Henry Cuellar because his opponent was a progressive, and claimed it was because he was an incumbent.
Money can't buy happiness but it can buy you the American government.
It's the best government money can buy!
No mention of Hillary Clinton endorsing the AIPAC candidate.
The precedent was the Citizens United ruling. This is just a case in point.
How is this not foreign interference? It should be doubly so if money is free speech. They are directly influencing our lives, at all.90 winning, I'd even say those tinfoil hat jyoo conspiracy theorists have some credence, its just Israel not the Jewish people.
How is this not foreign interference?
Oh, it absolutely is, but it's ok because it was used against a progressive. Which party is gonna do something about it? The one that hates progressives, or the other one that really hates progressives?
How is this not foreign interference?
Because AIPAC doesn't take any foreign money, it's funded entirely from within the U.S.
classic emotional response disconnected from reality. AIPAC is not Israel. Take your crying about Jews and apply it to Citizens United please.
You fucken think Israel has no contact with AIPAC? Really?
Lattimer looks like he has brain worms
Precedent? I don't even know why they bother when they can simply legally and openly bribe whomever wins anyway
Right? I was about to say, this can't be the first politician AIPAC has bought and placed into our government.
Yes, it's a dangerous precedent to have someone in office who calls rape and sexual violence "propaganda".
That's an awfully... interesting way of saying he lost his primary, which as an incumbent is not a particularly easy to do. Blame foreign money all you want, your voters voted for who they wanted. Primary voters are the most politically aware kind of voters, most people don't vote, even fewer take the time to vote in primaries. Apparently those voters wanted somebody new.
Then why did they spend $15 million on a primary campaign? Why does a campaign for President costs $1 billion now? Maybe 🤔 they just like spending money.
Eli5: How does record AIPAC spending prevent people from voting? It still comes down to people voting so isn't it safe to say more people voted for the person who won than people who voted for the losing candidate?
Edit: come on this isn't reddit. I'm not concerned with this question of who was running and what they are in favor of. As far as I have been attentive to politics there has always been campaign contributions from lobbyists with the intent to have their interests protected. I do not understand why or how that would affect the outcome of the election unless one candidates total campaign funds were a pot more than the others. I also don't understand why is thes any new precedent? Hopefully with this added clarity the down votes won't burry the comment and further discussion can be had.
Do you think that people are pouring millions of dollars into elections because they are stupid and wasting it? This seems like a bad faith question.
But how does that keep people from voting? I'm not being a dick it's a genuine question. Corporations dump trillions into advertising but that doesn't prevent me from comparing products and choosing the product that best fits my needs. Matter of fact, there was a post today I saw that was about the futility of targeted ads having no better results than traditional marketing.
It doesn’t. But it puts their agenda up front and center for those that can be manipulated by it a whole lot easier.
Sort of similar to how people here will urge you to not vote for Biden. Most people will see this as people essentially just shitting into a fan, but at its core, it’s really a way to circumvent having to directly show support for Trump on a left-leaning social media platform where they’d get banned.
^Holds finger right near your eyeball and says, but i'm not touching you, see, i'm not touching you.
Are you implying that by spending more money they are blocking you from seeing the opposition? That's absolutely not the case.
It would be more like people raising hands around you and you see mostly green hands and only a few blue hands and thus less-informed people will be more likely to lean towards the majority.
