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.

all 53 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 27 points 9 months ago (6 children)

AIPAC will have learned from this moving forward.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Right after Susan Collins learns hers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    Full support of the dnc too:

    “Analilia Mejia ran a powerful grassroots campaign laser focused on ensuring our economy works for families, not billionaires. From skyrocketing utility and grocery costs to Trump holding the Gateway Tunnel project hostage, New Jersey families are paying the price for Trump and New Jersey Republicans’ toxic agenda. New Jersey deserves a fighter and not a spineless Trump lackey. From now until Election Day, the DNC is all-in to ensure Analilia Mejia clinches victory.”

    https://democrats.org/news/dnc-congratulates-analilia-mejia-on-her-victory-in-last-weeks-democratic-primary/

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    DNC ain't exactly showing an ability to determine outcomes any longer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Even with trump in office, democratic party registrations continue to plummet. It turns out people dont like Israeli agents who dont give a shite about them. Who could have possibly forseen this?

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/700499/new-high-identify-political-independents.aspx

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

    I'm not see that as registration. Did I miss that part,?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    hey tropicaldingdong, no you are correct. I've been reading up on it lately and looks like I cited an article that didnt talk about it. Sorry about that. Heres some that talk about registration specifically https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5462604-voter-registration-shift-democrats/ https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2025/08/20/democrats-voter-registration

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 93 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    A PROGRESSIVE Won? So the way to WIN Elections is to be Progressive? Let's give ICE MORE Money!

    -Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago

    Change has to come from the primaries. This is where the battle needs to be fought, by the time it's into an election it's over, and you end up with Republican or Republican Light.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    I'm somewhat confused by how this article is worded. If AIPAC's negative ads against Malinowski worked and caused Meija to win instead, how exactly did that backfire?

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

    From the article, looks like Meija's views on Israel are even stronger than Malinowski's. So it's even further against AIPIC's interests for Meija to have won, but I assume they hasn't considered that at the time of putting the attack ads out. But I may be wrong, the article doesn't make it quite as clear as it maybe could.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (19 children)

    ....why does this article end like mid-thought? I'm not even totally clear on exactly what happened. They funded the progressive before she made her position known?

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 9 months ago (18 children)

    The non-progressive forerunner dared to say that we might want to reconsider sending unconditional arms to Israel. In response, AIPAC released a series of negative ads against him. This split the non-progressive votes, and cleared the way for the progressive to win.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    As glad as I am to see a progressive win in the primaries, it's sickening that a foreign influence lobby has that much sway over US internal politics, and it isn't even a secret...

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

    I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, it's even worse than most people realize. AIPAC is catching on to their drop in support and is now funneling their money to politicians through proxy PACs, such as the United Democracy Project (UDP). Also, since unrestricted arms sales to Israel is not a popular position, they didn't bother attacking Malinowski on that issue. Instead, they put out ads on the topic of him funding ICE, since they knew that would hurt him more.

    Good news is that AIPAC has now paid for the focus group polling, and field tested the idea of attacking politicians on the topic of ICE support. This should embolden progressive candidates to attack establishment politicians on this issue.

    Here is a longish article on AIPAC and the NJ special election for more details. Also, Ryan Grimm has a great summary in the first third of this video. It looks like Breaking Points covers this election again today, but I haven't had a chance to watch the new episode yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I see.

    Hopefully this win and others like Mamdani's embolden a new push for progressive candidates, especially now when the republican base is weakening, and people are losing patience with establishment Dems.

    As long as elections aren't obstructed by the fascists (that's a big if), then this is actually a really good opportunity for progressive politics, if it's seized on. Like, I can't think of a better time to run on a progressive platform.

    Hopefully the tankies don't succeed at convincing everyone not to vote. They're as dangerous as maga to the progressive cause.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Be careful with Mamdani. He’s placed a few Israeli supporters in positions. I want to believe he won organically, but you never know. Maybe they were placed there due to political games he was forced to play, but still double take territory.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (13 children)

    Ah, thank you for not explaining that while literally walking out the d

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child 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
  • [+] 8 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    one of the few modern bright spots is when filling out a ballot its much easier to look at a canidates voting record and sources of money.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago
    [–] 10 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Sick.

    Real quick though, FUCK ELIZABETH WARREN. Who gives a fuck what that slimeball endorses. We could have had Bernie and now we have the fourth Reich because of this piece of shit and Democrats like her.

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

    Weird. I thought there was a huge vote before the Chee-to got in, where people could have chosen something so much better already but ...didn't. That must be Warren's fault personally as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    To be fair, the cynic in me says Sanders never would have become president. Even if the DNC had let primaries take their natural course and Sanders had come out of it with the most electoral votes, then the DNC would have just brokered their convention and given it to Biden or Bloomberg anyway. If they somehow didn't do that and Bernie was the actual candidate from the D side, the mainstream media coverage of him would have all sounded like Fox News or Newsmax fluffing Trump. All his major media coverage would have been Marxist chicken-littling. If, even after all that, Bernie somehow won in November of 2020, he never would have made it to the inauguration. He (and his VP candidate) would have had a little accident, a la Jeffrey Epstein, Paul Wellstone, Vince Foster, Terrance Yeakey, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    I've said similar about Hillary winning in 2016. Republicans were already drawing up articles of impeachment. trump or no trump, the country had already fallen into a shithole sewer and was barely keeping it's head above water. Still would have been nice to see Sanders get the nod. Just for some glimmer of hope.

  • source
  • parent