this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2026
98 points (97.1% liked)

politics

28520 readers
3593 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Crockett was reportedly the GOP’s preferred opponent in the 2026 Senate elections in Texas, but had not been considered as a potential contender in the race by her own party

The Republican Party allegedly promoted favorable polls about Representative Jasmine Crockett as part of a plan to goad the outspoken Democrat into running for the Senate.

Crockett was reportedly the GOP’s preferred opponent in the 2026 race in Texas, but had not been considered as a potential contender in the race by her fellow Democrats.

That prompted Senate Republicans to disseminate a poll in July suggesting that she would be the frontrunner in the Democratic primary.

“When we saw the results, we were like, ‘OK, we got to disseminate this far and wide,’” a source familiar with the plan told NOTUS.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 21 points 21 hours ago (4 children)

I don't know about Crockett. She's taken money from AIPAC.

There's a reason why the Republicans want her to be the Dem nominee.

She's been good on some subjects, but there's that nagging doubt.

If there were no better option then yes, vote for her. But there is a better option.

[–] Garbagio@lemmy.zip 18 points 21 hours ago

My biggest issue is that even what she's "good" at, she's not really. She's witty and mean to people I think deserve it, but her voting record is almost a perfect overlap with Hakeem Jeffries. "Charismatic Jeffries" doesn't mean shit to me.

[–] baronvonj@piefed.social 11 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

I don’t know about Crockett. She’s taken money from AIPAC.

I keep seeing this claim but can't find any source for it. I can find lots of links saying there is no evidence that she has. Like this

https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/do-james-talirico-jasmine-crockett-accept-aipac-donations-fdd37f

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 5 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

She has all the policy positions one would have if they're 💯 in the bag for AIPAC.

She's like Chuck Schumer level pro Israel.

[–] baronvonj@piefed.social 3 points 17 hours ago

I see that https://www.trackaipac.com/ says she's pro-Israel, but even they don't indicate she's received any money. I'm just saying if there's no proof that she's taken AIPAC money then stop using that as a talking point against her. Use her voting record and statements, things that are verifiable.

[–] ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 15 hours ago

The last I looked, she doesn't take money from much of anybody, which is why she's one of the few who tell the truth.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

My understanding was no direct aipac but indirect. And she went on an Israel visit a few years back. She has also made multiple pro Israel statements including a denial of genocide and says Israel will always be funded by the u.s.

[–] baronvonj@piefed.social 5 points 17 hours ago

I see that https://www.trackaipac.com/ says she's pro-Israel, but even they don't indicate she's received any money. I'm just saying if there's no proof that she's taken AIPAC money then stop using that as a talking point against her. Use her voting record and statements, things that are verifiable.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago

She also defended that woman who was taking phone call text orders from Epstein during his hearing.

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago

Prove your claims