this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2026
38 points (100.0% liked)

Progressive Politics

3959 readers
872 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 1 points 3 hours ago

This article is basically just about how much money each person has and not at all about policy.
Really puts current politics as you would expect to see it. Not policy, not information on the top runners, just how much money everyone is getting or having spent against them.

The primary also saw nearly $6 million of spending from outside groups focused on Israel, immigration and other issues, plus numerous endorsements from prominent figures with an interest in who will next represent this slice of North Jersey.

United Democracy Project, a super PAC aligned with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, spent almost $2.3 million on television and digital ads, mailers and phone banking to oppose Malinowski, a longtime supporter of Israel and former recipient of money from AIPAC, according to data from the Federal Election Commission. A UDP spokesperson told The New York Times that the group opposes Malinowski because he supports conditions on U.S. aid for Israel.

Malinowski has received a more than $700,000 boost from The 218 Project super PAC and has raised on his own more than $1.6 million, more than any other candidate.

The Democratic Lieutenant Governors Association’s PAC has also spent more than $1.6 million in advertising to support former New Jersey Lt. Gov. Tahesha Way, according to the tracking firm AdImpact. Way has lagged behind opponents in fundraising.

Way has also received a $350,000 boost from the mysterious Article One Inc. super PAC, which was formed a little more than a week ago and has only received a single donation from the Guzman Foundation. The super PAC is affiliated with a joint fundraising committee called Article One Victory, which is fully funded by the billionaire financier Robert Granieri.

Meanwhile, the veterans-focused PAC VoteVets on Tuesday unleashed a $300,000 ad campaign in support of Army veteran Zach Beecher, according to AdImpact.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 points 5 hours ago

I don't even need to know who they are, I'm supporting the Progressive. Any Dem that's afraid to define themselves as Progressive might as well be MAGA.

Now, that I've done my civic duty, and read up a bit, he's just another MAGA-lite DINO who is only running to keep the party and the House from moving left. He's literally the enemy, might as well be full MAGA.

[–] how_we_burned@lemmy.zip 7 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

For those who can't be assed reading the story it's democrat primary between a corpo democrat (who has 28% of the vote) being funded by your favourite Zionist super PAC and a heap of other corporate entrenched oligarchs against a grass roots progressive candidate (who at the time of the article had 28.7% of the vote)

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 10 points 12 hours ago
[–] yonderbarn@lazysoci.al 10 points 14 hours ago

I read the CNN article about this race just a few hours ago. They gave quotes from the top four candidates and all of them gave broad, generic statements. Only Mejia said something that really captured my attention. Fitting she worked on the Bernie campaign.

Also from the article, Malinowski is known as someone who abandoned his old district especially after getting hounded by the ethics committee for holding stocks worth $1m in health companies during the pandemic.

[–] rem26_art@fedia.io 5 points 13 hours ago

man opening the mail in ballot and seeing 11 people on it was kinda wild. I figured this one would be close.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

We're on our way to having the person likely to represent the district for a decade winning with 31% of the vote. It's a great system we've got.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

This is a sign of a healthy race, no? More options are a good thing no matter what and lower the threshold for plurality victory. I'll take 31% winning in a race of 11 different candidates than a 50.07% winning in a race of two.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 6 hours ago

Lots of people entering is good as a measure of democratic engagement, but lots of people in a race distorts the result of a FPTP race away from something that could reliably be declared to represent the majority. We won't know that the person with a plurality won because they best represent of the desires of the voters or simply because an opposing ideology had more candidates and split their vote. A person with less than a third of the vote being the winner is not good democracy.