Surely, if it exists, it should be released, but where our attention might better be focused is in supporting candidates who are refusing to accept pro-Israel PAC contributions and running on platforms challenging failed policies of the past.
How was this culture built via Israeli influence? That’s what I want to know.
Because for 30 years the chairs only cared about amount raised, and AIPAC thru around a lot of money. Even if a down allot candidate didn’t take AIPAC money, the party was beholden.
Another thing you’re unaware of is in 2025 the DNC pivoted from that.
The focus is back on votes and not warchests, which is why the DNC is dumping their hoarded wealth on state parties allowing all the wins we’ve been seeing.
AIPACs money doesn’t offset the votes, so today’s DNC isn’t gonna just do what AIPAC says.
The neoliberal strategy was get as much money as possible, and then counting on being the lesser of two evils. That’s not effective so we stopped.
so today’s DNC isn’t gonna just do what AIPAC says.
Which is what I’m pushing back on. Schumer and Jefferies are clearly continuing to steer the party in an explicitly pro-Israel manner. My argument is that today DNC is just as pro-Israel as it was 2 years ago. Maybe tomorrows DNC will be different, but right now, the US Democratic party supports what the US and Israel are doing in Iran.
I don’t think the actions of Schumer and Jeffries necessarily invalidate what the poster said. Those are incumbents from a previous time when the DNC was decidedly more unconditionally pro-Israel. Since those are senior members of their houses, AIPAC may be influencing them directly outside of their DNC contributions. Remember that Schumer and Jeffries are members of the Democratic Party, but do not run the DNC, per se.
Because for 30 years the chairs only cared about amount raised, and AIPAC thru around a lot of money. Even if a down allot candidate didn’t take AIPAC money, the party was beholden.
Another thing you’re unaware of is in 2025 the DNC pivoted from that.
The focus is back on votes and not warchests, which is why the DNC is dumping their hoarded wealth on state parties allowing all the wins we’ve been seeing.
AIPACs money doesn’t offset the votes, so today’s DNC isn’t gonna just do what AIPAC says.
The neoliberal strategy was get as much money as possible, and then counting on being the lesser of two evils. That’s not effective so we stopped.
You are more hopeful than I am.
AIPAC spent millions on a Democratic primary in NJ because the frontrunner said that Israeli air should have conditions.
A Bernie Sanders campaign organizer ended up winning the primary.
Sure. But the statement was:
Which is what I’m pushing back on. Schumer and Jefferies are clearly continuing to steer the party in an explicitly pro-Israel manner. My argument is that today DNC is just as pro-Israel as it was 2 years ago. Maybe tomorrows DNC will be different, but right now, the US Democratic party supports what the US and Israel are doing in Iran.
I don’t think the actions of Schumer and Jeffries necessarily invalidate what the poster said. Those are incumbents from a previous time when the DNC was decidedly more unconditionally pro-Israel. Since those are senior members of their houses, AIPAC may be influencing them directly outside of their DNC contributions. Remember that Schumer and Jeffries are members of the Democratic Party, but do not run the DNC, per se.