politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
7:40pt
It's a 17% difference now. I'm honestly skeptical that AIPAC money is the big cause here. It seems like he had a lot of other issues that contributed to his loss. I was reading earlier that he didn't really communicate or interface with his constituents much, while Latimer was a much bigger community presence.
This is a trend I've noticed actually. A lot of people who do take morally correct positions like to let their positions speak for themselves and not do as much communication or outside engagement. They want to let their moral high ground do the talking. And while their positions are laudable, their core job is to represent their constituents. If they ignore that, a loss isn't surprising.
The Daily had a good piece about this race. Apparently AIPAC specifically targeted him because he already had that fire alarm thing tarnishing him, and his district had a strong challenger that people were very familiar with.
AIPAC knows money alone can’t win a race. They did what a lot of political action groups do now. They want to use their money effectively, so they specifically picked a race that looked like it could be influenced. Then they threw record breaking amounts of money at it.
Oh definitely. I just think their primary influence was on the size of the margin, not the actual outcome of the election. And it still benefits them, since they can say it was a 17% margin instead of like 3-5%.