Progressive Analilia Mejia has pulled off a long-shot win in a special election primary for New Jersey’s 11th congressional district, defeating favorite Tom Malinowski thanks to AIPAC’s intervention in the race.

Malinowski conceded Tuesday morning, saying in a post on X that Mejia “deserves unequivocal praise and credit for running a positive campaign and for inspiring so many voters on Election Day.”

“But the outcome of this race cannot be understood without also taking into account the massive flood of dark money that AIPAC spent on dishonest ads during the last three weeks,” Malinowski’s post said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (12 children)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this post (and that's not my downvote).

Edit: I like your joke and I'm happy I could help. To be fair, I already heard about this AIPAC blunder, so I didn't need to rely on how this specific article was written.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    You didn't answer his first question. The primary question he asked

    So he ended his response early like he states the article did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (8 children)

    Them:

    why does this article end like mid-thought?

    You:

    You didn't answer his first question. The primary question he asked

    Surely you can't be serious. Nobody is going to be able able to jump into the author's brain like that, and it is obviously not a serious "primary" question.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    That is right. When you don't know you don't say. You should have just not answered at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (6 children)

    Please re-read the exchange. I clearly and concisly answered the primary question, which is about what happened in regard to AIPAC funding in the election.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    How about we see that differently. The first question is what I consider the primary question.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (4 children)

    The first question obviously wasn't a serious question, but they were clearly confused about who AIPAC was funding.

    No AIPAC did not accidentally fund the progressive. Instead they accidentally went after the moderate with the best chances of winning. I was happy to clear that up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    RampantParanoia2365 2·63%·53· 4 hours ago Ah, thank you for not explaining that while literally walking out the d

    AlDente @sh.itjust.works English 1·67%·21· 3 hours ago I’m sorry, but I don’t understand this post (and that’s not my downvote).

    This you? Not understanding what the guy said in his post. The thread we are in right now. Comprehension isn't my problem. I know what I'm talking about here but you keep trying to move the goal posts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I think it is you who still doesn't comprehend what they were saying. They weren't getting sassy with me, they were making a joke while thanking me for the explaination. They made that perfectly clear in the later response.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments