this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2026
107 points (98.2% liked)

politics

29401 readers
2181 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
107
AIPAC may be a new litmus test for Democratic candidates. Leaders say voters' heads are elsewhere. (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 4 days ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 24 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

It's dizzying to see how many Democratic politicians and pundits were outraged at Facebook for $26k in Russian-sponsored ads, considering the hundreds of millions that AIPAC has thrown into US elections since Hillary ran for President. The folks with the Ukraine and Israel emojis in their Twitter/Bluesky names are always posting something delusional.

You can't build a strong base of support if your first alliance is to a rogue state. Americans don't like their politicians bought by any foreign government. Especially when that foreign government is involved in a genocide.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago (2 children)

You can’t build a strong base of support if your first alliance is to a rogue state.

The strategic doctrine of Democrats is the same as venture capitol. They do not build movements, they hijack them, coopt, and enshittify such that you have no other options. Their goal isn't to cultivate a field of the best possible strategies, ideologies, or politics, their goal is to reduce the number of potential option to one between them, and an objectively horrendous option, and the result, is that most people opt out.

I bring this up because what I would consider the "BLM election" (Dems lose 2020 without the BLM movement) brought into power the most pro-Israel American politician to date. You can't be for racial justice and equality at home when your #1 funding source is also the #1 source of racial injustice and inequality abroad.

DNC politicians are not movement builders, the are movement hijackers. They'll always fail towards toothlessness.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I bring this up because what I would consider the “BLM election” (Dems lose 2020 without the BLM movement) brought into power the most pro-Israel American politician to date.

Historically speaking, 2016 would have been the BLM election. The upswell of police violence aimed at minority-majority neighborhoods under Obama, combined with the economic drag of the '14 downturn, collapsed support for his successor. And while I wouldn't call Trump "pro-Israeli", he'd surrounded himself with so many neocons that it was a moot point.

I'd call 2020 the "COVID election", as the defining issue of that period was how to respond to the pandemic. Dems would have still won in a landslide without a BLM movement, in the same way Obama won in 2008, and for much the same reasons. The economic downturn pumped up angry anti-incumbent voters and turned out more apathetic centrists for Biden than MAGA shitheads. Israel was barely on the radar.

DNC politicians are not movement builders, the are movement hijackers.

That's the fucking truth. From Green Energy politics to Anti-Gun parent movements to Civil Rights marches, you always seem to find a corporate Democrat willing to put on the merch and lead the parade, then vanish back into the crowd when it comes time to put anything into practice.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I’d call 2020 the “COVID election”, as the defining issue of that period was how to respond to the pandemic. Dems would have still won in a landslide without a BLM movement, in the same way Obama won in 2008, and for much the same reasons. The economic downturn pumped up angry anti-incumbent voters and turned out more apathetic centrists for Biden than MAGA shitheads. Israel was barely on the radar.

I think you bring up some good points, but it wasn't COVID putting hundreds of thousands into the streets on a weekly basis. But also, it kind-of was, in that there was at least some financial support people were getting for a brief period of time, and this allowed them to fully express their politics. The amount of 2016 versus 2020 BLM protests; its not even comparable. 2016 BLM was still coming together as a movement; it built its strongest momentum from 2017-19, and 2020 it peaked. Those politics directly translated into what issues were being discussed during the primary, and subsequently the national campaign. It was the 2020 election where BLM's set of grievances found their way into campaigns as campaign promises/ discussion points on debate stages/ etc.

Without BLM providing outside pressure in the form of movement politics, I don't think Dem's win in 2020. I also don't think Dem's win in 2020 without Trumps utterly failed COVID response. If they (T*) would have just, not been so fucking stupid/ hamfisted by leaning into the anti-vax shit, inject bleach shit, they could have taken credit for the CDC rapid response; even a barely competent political actor should have been able to manage this.

TLDR, the Dem's barely won in 2020 and without BOTH COVID and BLM, there is no practical way they could have won. Even with both in play, Trumps own incompetence could arguably have been the most impactful factor.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

it wasn’t COVID putting hundreds of thousands into the streets on a weekly basis

It absolutely was. The skyrocketing unemployment - nearly 15% at its peak - left millions of people with nothing to do but protest. Unemployment waves and protest movements are practically joined at the hip.

The right-wing anti-vax movement got similar energy off a bunch of newly-unemployed reactionaries, angry at the "lockdown" (more just one more excuse for police to harass unemployed people out in public), and jelling together through online discussion groups. J6 was the direct result of a bunch of small business owners with too much time on their hands.

2016 BLM was still coming together as a movement; it built its strongest momentum from 2017-19, and 2020 it peaked.

The Ferguson and Baltimore protests were in 2014 and 2015, culminating in a massive police crackdown in both instances. These protests also followed an ugly downturn following the 2013 Government Shutdown and the sudden stoppage of federal money into a still-recovering post-Great Recession economy. If you go back to '07/'08, you'll find another wave of civil rights protests that largely emerged in the wake of police crack downs on a newly unemployed and unhoused population on the eve of the Great Recession.

But these are symptomatic. The real underlying groundswell of opposition comes from the spike in unemployment, not the protest movement that arises from a bunch of unemployed people with nothing to do.

TLDR, the Dem’s barely won in 2020

The Dems saw a tsunami of turnout that crested in the bluest states. MAGA saw a similar swell in turnout, cresting in redder states. They met each other note-for-note in the battleground states, resulting in some very close calls across the Midwest and Atlantic Coast.

This wasn't a close election in terms of gross seats won or votes cast. Just the marginal wins in a few swing states. Had Republicans not also seen a spike in turnout from 2016, all those gerrymandered districts would have bit them in the ass (as happened in '08, '18, and what seems likely in '26). I would give BLM far more credit for the first Trump midterm than the Biden win.

I might argue that the anti-Vax movement saved Republicans more than BLM won it for Democrats.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

It absolutely was. The skyrocketing unemployment - nearly 15% at its peak - left millions of people with nothing to do but protest. Unemployment waves and protest movements are practically joined at the hip.

Yeah but the point is the movement those people funneled into ended up being BLM (or BLM adjacent), because BLM was at its peak in terms of growth and organizing. Had it been 2009, maybe those same people funnel into Occupy Wallstreet. Call it happenstance of history, and I'm not saying that BLM was borne of a whistle and milk from a thistle at twilight the year of 2019. But it was present when people had the time to take to the streets. And my point that the BLM agenda didn't find its way into electoralism until ~2018-2020 is the primary point. It took 10 years, but in 2020, it became a central primary issue among Democrats. The points of grievance found their way into the presidential platform in the 2020 election.

I might argue that the anti-Vax movement saved Republicans more than BLM won it for Democrats.

I think to be charitable we'd have to call it a wash. It was practically the same forces funneling people into both movements, and like you said, in-spite of both sides getting more turnout, the resulting victories were marginal. So I come back to the first point, that Trumps government and management of COVID becomes the theme. And if they had just.. not been such moron, if they had even been nominally competent, I think Trump wins the 2020 election handily.

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I think it's important to remember that the Democrats are not a single unified party, it's a coalition of two. One that has strong convictions, and well reasoned and popular plans for correcting the course of country, but an inability to raise the funds to support a coherent organization or run a campaign, and a second party that has no coherent values or convictions and importantly, no functional plan to govern, but significant funding from corporate owners and the resources to manage a large, national scale organization. This is how you end up with a party with AOC and Bernie at one end and John Fetterman and Andrew Cuomo at the other end. A tent that big doesn't have an ideology, a consistent platform, or any positive mandate. But also neither party is viable on its own because of the structure of the US electoral system.

From one angle it is certainly true that the DNC is parasitic on the popular movements of the day. From another angle, it can look like the progressive movements are parasitic on the structural and financial machine of the democratic party. In both cases though if you zoom out far enough, it becomes apparant that both of those are true, and more, but also that it's ultimately a dysfunctional symbiosis of convenience to survive in a system that is structurally incapable of producing a result that disadvantages the capital owner class. You can't actually use the US political system as it stands to correct its current failures. It's designed to fall apart if you try.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yeah I don't agree with that characterization what-so-ever and its one that seems completely oblivious to the actually politics and processes which have manifested in the modern Democratic party, outside of, and I agree with, that the party is multiple ideologies in a trenchcoat.

but an inability to raise the funds to support a coherent organization or run a campaign,

I mean this is just not fucking true. Just straight made up wholecloth.

but significant funding from corporate owners and the resources to manage a large, national scale organization.

What you think parties just drop in from the sky?

But also neither party is viable on its own because of the structure of the US electoral system.

Also, objectively not true. Mandami was opposed by both the DNC and the RNC.

but an inability to raise the funds to support a coherent organization or run a campaign,

Just.. also not fucking true.

You should stop just shitting words out your ass.

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca -2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You kiss your mother with that mouth? I said national scale You can do it on a mayoral scale, even a city the size of New York but the closest anyone ever came to pulling it off at a national scale was Bernie and he still couldn't fund a full war chest at a time with much better financial conditions for small donors.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

More importantly, I kiss your mother with this mouth; but generally I'm not here to placate your sensibilities. You being utterly oblivious to reality is a you problem and if you want to tone police, go back to reddit.

Bernie and he still couldn’t fund a full war chest at a time with much better financial conditions for small donors

Are you an idiot? Like an actual "has paperwork about the matter" idiot?

Bernie didn't lose because of fundraising. And every campaign since Bernies 2016 has practically carbon copied their approach to fundraising because what Bernie did was so preposterously effective. They redefined what is possible in politics because their approaches were so effective. Like you could not possibly have picked a worse example than Bernie for that point.

Second, and this is implicit in your statement, is the also wrong premise that more fundraising == more viable candidate. This is also not true. Yes modern political campaigns are more expensive but most raising != most likely to win candidate.

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 days ago

I didn't say more money always wins, there's plenty of evidence of that, but money is fundamental in the US to building the communications apparatus to be heard over the unhinged rants being amplified by the corporate class. You want to be heard over the fire hose of bullshit, you need full-time dedicated staff and they need to eat. The game is rigged in favour of the corrupt, even you can't deny that one, and with the wild imbalance of current wealth inequality in the US the progressive left is not well positioned to break the siege. There are regional bastions that can hold the line like Minnesota, New York, and Seattle but it's not enough to actually win given the way the US electoral system is structured to favour dollars over people.

You want my honest take? It's going to take a decade of community organizing, union organizing, and a whole lot more blood, sweat and tears to break through the point where the progressive left is able to drop the center-right DNC and stand on their own against the plutocrats trying to break people's spirits. Can it be done? Yes. Are we there yet? I don't think we are, not in most of the country. It's a much longer road than I think a lot of people appreciate. That doesn't mean it isn't worth walking, but it's going to take a lot longer to right this ship than a few years, and we need people with the commitment to do the ground work, to build community groups, to organize in places that no progressive has ever stood a chance before.

I'm not going to carry water for the pathetic old guard that are failing to effectively fight the fascist right. Call their bullshit out. But at the end of the day, the left by itself isn't big enough or strong enough to overcome the oligarch's propaganda machine. Not yet. Not where they need to be.

[–] xxam925@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago

“No the people are not concerned with morality, only that they are hampered in their pursuit of money.” Says Israel-bot spokesperson. “They just want to get ahead”.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago

The leaders who say that should lose their jobs immediately.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 5 points 3 days ago

I only learned about them in the last year or so but did not see them much but boy did they fuck around in my areas primaries this year. Their people did not win but they did eff up a few races. The are certainly on my radar now as unacceptable.

[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 4 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Take their money, then don't support Isreal in congress. Easy peasy. Let them waste their efforts.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

You'll lose to anti Israel Republicans on our head promoting this strategy

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Or just not vote for AIPAC/Israel friendly candidates in the primary...

We could vote for ones that when in office will try to actually change the laws and prevent PACs from buying elections....

That's the only way to fix the problem. The DNC has zero control over what a PAC does, we need progressives in office to change the laws, and the path to that is getting people to vote in Dem primaries no matter what.

Billionaires are spreading this shit, because they want people to give up on the DNC and not vote in dem primaties.

[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What laws will pass SCOTUS? Until we have the ability to pass an amendment against it, play dirty.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

play dirty

How?

Like, walk me thru what happens if the DNC "bans" AIPAC, and AIPAC spends on/against someone in a Dem primary again.

What do you think the consequences should be?

How would we avoid AIPAC spending a trifling amount to trigger that consequence on candidates they're opposed to?

What happens when AIPAC springs up the next day with a new acronym?

Take a second and think how the things you want accomplished can actually be accomplished. Then join with the DNC who's been trying to come up with a way they can actually do anything as just a party to limit PACs.

[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 0 points 4 days ago

No, not DNC. Make a PAC, use shell companies or whatever to keep from being identified, and pretend you love Israel and support Zionism. Then turn around and fund anti-Israel candidates. Do the same thing for oil and gas, religion, vaccines, whatever. Just a giant "trust me bro" network they can't call out because dark money. Just keep some convincing white guys and ai chat bots to field any concerns the donors have.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Don't know what's the anti-AIPAC but even better if every dollar you get from AIPAC works directly against them (without the perception of hypocrisy).

[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Who cares about hypocrisy in the face of genocidal maniacs. Just lie to them directly, we support Israel etc., funnel the money through other PACs, and keep up the lies until they are gone. Every dollar you leech from them is one that can't be used for their purposes or against yours.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago

in theory this goes for all donors but you are going to be judged by the company you keep.

[–] dan1101@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

A couple informative sites:

https://www.trackaipac.com/congress

https://www.rejectaipac.org/rejecters

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world -4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

DNC may have a good point that the last few elections saw big wins for them because their only strategy was to be AntiTrump.

With what has happened with Iran and the latest actions of AIPAC I'm thinking that strategy might have mixed results.

Ultimately getting Trump and his goons out of office will probably be top of voters minds on the larger national scale.

Guess we will see next election. Who know maybe gas prices will dip on election day and all the bird brains will praise Trump for it and vote for him again.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago

big wins for them because their only strategy was to be AntiTrump

Do you mean the DNC or individual campaigns? Because as a party Democratic campaigns, especially in orimaries, are not monolithic. Some get leadership or dccc or dsc support, but they are mostly independent.

The last major thing that the DNC was responsible for was Harris.

Guess we will see next election.

I mean we're having elections all the time, and trends are very very clear. Trump is extremely unpopular but so is DNC leadership. Schumer and Jefferies are basically persona non grata when it comes to endorsements. Deep Trump districts are handing back 15+ points but only if there is an authentic candidate to vote for. But the civil war within the DNC is real. Leadership doesn't want to hand back power and would happily sabotage races to get to pick the loser.

Maybe you just don't follow politics or elections? But we have elections every couple weeks. It's an ongoing assessment.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

DNC may have a good point that the last few elections saw big wins for them because their only strategy was to be AntiTrump.

You're ten months behind...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/dnc-chair-on-the-path-to-winning-back-voters-and-lessons-democrats-can-learn-from-mamdani

That's the DNC chair saying "not trump" isn't enough and we need candidates like Mamdani in both policy and charisma...

Shits a lot better than billionaires tell you it is.