810
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2026
810 points (99.4% liked)
politics
31682 readers
3692 users here now
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't see any way this is a politically coherent move for her. She just burnt her bridges with Leftist Democrats and corporate Democrats. She doesn't have the look to be a talking head on conservative media. Michigan has early voting and many have already voted. It's not like Republicans will respect her, but they use her for the moment.
I've seen some mentions of her Republican fiance effecting her, but she is a congressmen and has agency and ownership of her own endorsements. I am wondering if her mental stability is all there because I'm confused by her lack of coherency.
By choosing to run for Senate, she isn't running for re-election in the House. So she's out in January either way. She's taking the AIPAC money she's been getting for years already, and almost surely a lobbying position in exchange for trying to sabotage El-Sayed.
Agreed.
Tactically, if she wanted him to lose she should've just stuck to what she was doing, which was supporting him in words while undermining and maintaining plausible deniability. Then if he loses, you can lament that there was just no saving a flawed candidate.
Now if he wins, she's a loser twice over, and if he loses it's a phyric victory: she's the villain who lost Democrats the seat, and instead of proving his politics can't win in a swing state, the story is just that he got stabbed in the back by an ally.
The writing is on the wall. AIPAC is forever toxic for anyone with even a tiny amount of critical thinking skills. That only leaves the GOP and Zionist owned cable news shows as viable paid options.
republicans masquerading as democrats. she isn't the first.
Its the wrong move politically but the right move for AIPAC and that is all that matters for Mrs Israel comes with to me in my dreams.
Not corporate Dems. They will swing towards the money any which way it comes.
Schumer already said it was despicable. He is about as corporate dem as it gets. I would definitely say she burned those bridges.
I wonder what Jeffries thoughts are. Schumer has taken about 500k from aipac while Jeffries has taken over 1.5m. My guess is he won’t say the quiet part out loud but I’ve been surprised before.
Jeffries spoke out against her too.
He will bend back the AIPAC direction the moment people stop looking. Haley will be welcomed back as prodigal daughter the moment she is endorsed by them.
Nah, she is now too visisble a liability and would be a bigger problem than any benefit.
AIPAC will happily compensate her for her service, but will move on to less obviously controversial folks. They have no shortage of "cleaner" options, so they don't have to be especially loyal to any particular Congress figure. She can be an example of being treated well on the way out.
I don't trust corporate dems anymore. They will literally give a peer permission to tank mildly progressive efforts and then performatively pretend to be upset by it.
They are better than the fucking Nazis on the other side of the aisle but the Democratic leadership are showing themselves to be just as disingenuous.