House candidate Maureen Galindo pledges to send 'American zionists' to internment camp

[u/TheWyldMan]

https://www.sacurrent.com/news/politics-and-elections/house-candidate-maureen-galindo-pledges-to-send-american-zionists-to-internment-camp/

[u/TheWyldMan → u/[deleted]]

Sadly, she came in first in the initial primary.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/TheWyldMan]

She won 29% of the vote. Her coming in first is mainly due to the more normal candidates splitting up the rest of the vote, as well as her controversy not being as known.

The Democratic establishment is backing her opponent.

[u/bakochba → u/Interesting_Total_98]

Chris Rabb won in Philadelphia against the eatblished candidate. Chris Rabb posted on his Instagram that the Bondi Beach shooting was a false flag by Jews. He also didn't use the Zionist code word. The base unfortunately seems all in on Antisemitism

[u/Hannig4n → u/bakochba]

I live in PA-3 and Rabb’s opponents were terrible. Street was a weak candidate and Stanford’s campaign had a bizarre meltdown like 3 weeks before Election Day. Plus there was almost no turnout, only 20%, radicals often overperform in low turnout elections.

Yeah, Rabb is terrible with a poor track record and no actual ideas on how to improve the lives of constituencies, but it’s hardly a reflection of the entire Democratic Party when this is how a fairly obscure primary goes in the bluest district in the country.

[u/dwilkes827 → u/bakochba]

I totally thought you meant Raab himself from Jackass (also from near Philly) and was all around shocked for a minute there before I googled lol

[u/Mightydrewcifero → u/dwilkes827]

I'm glad I'm not the only one whose brain went straight to this.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/bakochba]

The base unfortunately seems all in on Antisemitism

That's a massive exaggeration. You're talking about one district where he won 45% of the vote and may have lost if it wasn't for the establishment vote being split up.

Also, he immediately condemned the statement when asked about it and claimed that a staffer posted it without his approval.

I realize he could be lying, but either way, his denial is inconsistent with the idea that the base is all in on antisemitism. Either he's being honest or he realized that the base would be upset if he defended the post.

[u/bakochba → u/Interesting_Total_98]

It gives me no pleasure to say this but the fever is in full swing in my party. Not from the establishment but the base itself being at best apathetic

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/bakochba]

You gave an example that contradicts your argument, since there wouldn't have been backlash from his own party if that was true. He quickly denied it due either not being responsible for the post or at least being aware of how bad it looked.

[u/Hour-Mud4227 → u/bakochba]

Then why did he apologize?

[u/Best_Change4155 → u/Hour-Mud4227]

He didn't, he blamed a staffer.

[u/Hour-Mud4227 → u/Best_Change4155]

Let me rephrase: why did he/his campaign condemn/disavow the statement?

Chris Rabb disavows antisemitic post about Bondi Beach shooting shared to Instagram

If the Democratic base were "all in on antisemitism", then disavowing it would hurt his campaign, and lose him votes; he would be incentivized to explicitly embrace it instead. Particularly since he is not the centrist variety of Democrat that leans on campaign strategies which involve picking up swing voters more loosely attached to the base. Playing to the hard-liners in the base is his approach.

Let me stress that I'm not arguing that Rabb isn't antisemitic--he may very well be. But his actions indicate that the base of his political party is not.

Meanwhile the leader of the Republican party, the idolized hero of its base, explicitly refused to condemn a self-declared antisemite and white nationalist, and received no pushback from the base at all: https://www.mississippifreepress.org/trump-refuses-to-disavow-white-nationalist-nick-fuentes-praising-carlson/

[u/Best_Change4155 → u/Hour-Mud4227]

Let me rephrase: why did he/his campaign condemn/disavow the statement?

Clear distinction, he has never apologized. His campaign released a statement. They didn't apologize either.

If the Democratic base were "all in on antisemitism", then disavowing it would hurt his campaign

He then proceeded to campaign with Hasan Piker. This is the equivalent of Trump releasing a statement condemning racism and then going to hang out with any number of white supremacist assholes.

Particularly since he is not the centrist variety of Democrat that leans on campaign strategies which involve picking up swing voters more loosely attached to the base. Playing to the hard-liners in the base is his approach.

Correct. That's why the campaign released a blanket, bland statement. Not an apology and nothing that came from his lips directly. Just something not to frighten off the normies.

Meanwhile the leader of the Republican party, the idolized hero of its base, explicitly refused to condemn a self-declared antisemite and white nationalist, and received no pushback from the base at all: https://www.mississippifreepress.org/trump-refuses-to-disavow-white-nationalist-nick-fuentes-praising-carlson/

Rabb campaigned with Hasan Piker. And received no pushback from the base at all. Piker is an antisemite, among other wonderful things.

[u/Theron3206 → u/Interesting_Total_98]

claimed that a staffer posted it without his approval.

Did he fire said staffer and make them apologise?

If not, I call BS (even with it I would be extremely suspicious), he got caught up in his "righteous" indication and said something horrific and when he was proven wrong had to run and hide behind an anonymous staffer.

Like it or not, the further to the left you go the more "anti Israel" turns into "anti Jew" (and I use Jew because there often seems to be some clever person who wants to point out that Palestinians are technical Semitic people).

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/Theron3206]

had to run and hide behind an anonymous staffer

Regardless if he's honest or not, that goes against the idea that the base is all in when it comes to antisemitism.

Did he fire said staffer and make them apologise?

He said he was a former staffer already, so it wasn't possible to do either of those at that point. Not firing the staffer when the post was made is consistent with him not knowing about it back then.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not taking his word for it, but I'm also skeptical of the accusation. A former staffer writing that without authorization is also consistent with the candidate not stating something that extreme in person, and there's a lack of similar posts.

[u/__Hello_my_name_is__ → u/TheWyldMan]

Good thing she won't come first again after this.

[u/argent_adept → u/TheWyldMan]

Fortunately, it wasn’t like she got 49.9% of the vote and a bunch of others split the remainder. If I remember correctly, there were 4 candidates running in the primary. She got 30%, 2nd place got 28%, then the other 2 got around 21% each.

[u/airforceCOT → u/argent_adept]

Getting 30% is still pretty damn scary for someone who explicitly said they are going to send millions of American Jews to concentration camps.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/airforceCOT]

She received the votes 2.5 months ago. This was before the statement we're commenting on, and also before other statements were known.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/[deleted]]

Information like this was less known before the primary, and she received 29% of the vote. The party is backing her opponent.

[u/TheWyldMan → u/[deleted]]

Yeah so even if she's a spoiler candidate, she's still getting actual Dem votes.

[u/Boobity1999 → u/TheWyldMan]

She will get absolutely destroyed in the runoff

And we will finally get to see just how deep the antisemitic strain in the Democratic Party really runs

[u/FatnessEverdeen34 → u/Boobity1999]

It's pretty bad in both parties

[u/Xanto97 → u/TheWyldMan]

I think that was before this sorta statement.

We’ll see how she performs from now on though.

[u/polkyoureyesout → u/Xanto97]

One thing to note is that people came out in record numbers to vote for Talarico or Crockett. Most people didn’t know anything about the other candidates and just checked a box. She got lucky because of the senate race and her ex-husband’s Hispanic last name she purposefully kept.

[u/ModPolBot → u/[deleted]]

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:

Law 0. Low Effort

~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

[u/BrianLefevre5 → u/TheWyldMan]

Kind of highlights why we need open primaries. As the 2 parties get smaller and more people register as independents, candidates with continue to push further to right and left. Input from voters from the center of the spectrum will be needed to balance out the craziness.

It’s almost as though George Washington was right when he said that political parties will destroy the moral fabric of the country by promoting partisanship.

[u/argent_adept → u/BrianLefevre5]

Primaries in Texas are open. The only restriction is that if you vote in one party’s elections in the first round, you can’t switch in the runoff.

[u/Gurrick → u/BrianLefevre5]

The solution isn’t open primaries (not that I’m opposed). The solution is election reform that allowed more than two parties to be viable.

[u/ThatPeskyPangolin]

Wow, also calling zionists pedophiles and saying she would have them castrated. And that's on top of the classic "Jews control everything" shtick she has spread.

There is no place in a decent society for this kind of rhetoric. There should be no place in the Democratic Party for it either.

[u/ModPolBot → u/[deleted]]

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 4:

Law 4: Meta Comments

~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

[u/motorboat_mcgee]

Hopefully the party pushes her out, there's no room for rhetoric like this, and I'm pretty firmly against Israel's current government's decisions on a lot of things.

[u/neuronexmachina → u/motorboat_mcgee]

I was curious about how close the primary was, looks like it was Galindo with 29% vs Garcia with 27%. Without other primary candidates, I think Garcia's chances are pretty good in the run-off.

The party seems firmly behind her Garcia: https://www.texastribune.org/2026/05/19/texas-35th-congressional-runoff-democrats-condemn-maureen-galindo-antisemitism/

Galindo finished first in the Democratic primary for Texas’ 35th Congressional District and is in a runoff election against Bexar County Sheriff’s Deputy Johnny Garcia. Democratic leaders in Washington and Texas have backed Garcia amidst a mysterious six-figure advertising campaign to boost Galindo, a sex therapist and housing advocate.

And this is pretty fishy:

Advertising dollars have poured into the seat, which includes parts of Bexar County and rural counties to the east, backing both candidates. All of the pro-Galindo spending has come from Lead Left PAC, a pop-up group that was formed in early May and has not yet had to disclose its donors.

Lead Left PAC appears to be tied to the GOP; Punchbowl News reported that the metadata on its website initially linked to WinRed, a major Republican donation platform. Lead Left PAC has not responded to questions about its donors or what entities are behind it.

[u/jason_sation → u/neuronexmachina]

I’m thinking this candidate is being pushed by the GOP as a spoiler candidate. We’ve seen similar tactics before. In blue states for instance, MAGA candidates have gotten “support” from Dem money to win primaries figuring they will more likely lose a general election.

[u/De4dwe1ght → u/jason_sation]

I’m reading up on this. Looking like it’s was quite prominent in 2022 by democrats. God I hate politics.

[u/Geekerino → u/neuronexmachina]

If she still wins despite her comments, then you can't exactly blame republicans when she still gets votes

[u/KrR_TX-7424 → u/Geekerino]

Its an open primary.

[u/_StreetsBehind_ → u/KrR_TX-7424]

To clarify, it’s “open” to anyone who hasn’t yet voted in the primaries or anyone who voted in the same party’s initial primary. If you voted GOP in March then you cannot vote in the Dem runoff, and vice versa.

[u/neuronexmachina → u/Geekerino]

And if she loses the primary runoff?

[u/Computer_Name]

Yair Rosenberg who writes for The Atlantic does an excellent job explaining how antisemitism functions in modern society, and I encourage you all to read his articles.

I’ll leave this excerpt here:

This ignorant status quo has proved deadly for Jews, and that alone should be enough for our society to take it seriously. But it has disastrous consequences for non-Jews as well. This is because people who embrace conspiracy theories to explain their problems lose the ability to rationally solve them. As Bard College’s Walter Russell Mead has put it:

People who think “the Jews” run the banks lose the ability to understand, much less to operate financial systems. People who think “the Jews” dominate business through hidden structures can’t build or long maintain a successful modern economy. People who think “the Jews” dominate politics lose their ability to interpret political events, to diagnose social evils and to organize effectively for positive change.

[u/ieattime20 → u/Computer_Name]

People who reach for generalized, unspecified causes for large, multifaceted problems aren't being inhibited by antisemitism (as it affects a LOT more than race or religion). They're just not wired to seek complicated, difficult causes, and gravitate towards the easy ones.

Antisemitism doesn't make you dumber or cost you the ability to solve problems rationally. It's really the other way around.

[u/Computer_Name → u/ieattime20]

Unless I’ve misunderstood you, intelligent people are not immune from antisemitism.

[u/ieattime20 → u/Computer_Name]

Certainly not! Intelligent people can very often be predisposed to very bad and irrational thinking. It's biases and bias-blindness that predisposes people towards racist ideas, not racist ideas causing bias blindness.

[u/ArcBounds → u/Computer_Name]

Yes, and you can substitute almost any stereotype and people into these sentences. Stereotyping is dangerous and the leader (not a party member) of one of the major parties has embraced it and has illustrated this principle in action as his government has been incompetent on so many issues.

[u/Tao1764]

Hopefully she gets trounced in the runoff (assuming Garcia isn't as bad or worse - don't know anything about him). Criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic, but her comments are far over that line. There shouldn't be any place for this in our politics. Unfortunately, I do not trust voters to punish inflammatory statements like this.

Good on Talarico for speaking out against her.

[u/Morak73 → u/Tao1764]

This lady sounds like she's deep down the social media rabbit hole and has full bought in to the echo chambers.

“It’s all very complex. But, it’s my perception that Zionist billionaires run the world,” Galindo said. “They’re of all religions. But, especially Israeli, Jewish billionaire Zionists who disproportionately and factually own a lot of Hollywood production studios, media companies and banks.”

Galindo told the Current she has “no hatred toward any group,” except the “billionaire Zionists and their puppets.”

[u/KentuckyFriedChingon → u/Morak73]

Has no hatred against any group*

*Except for the group that has arguably received the most hatred for centuries

[u/__Hello_my_name_is__ → u/Morak73]

It’s all very complex. But, it’s my perception that Zionist billionaires run the world

Okay, that's just kind of funny in how self-contradictory that is.

[u/ionizing_chicanery → u/Morak73]

These antisemitic conspiracy theories are much older than social media.

[u/Michaelord1 → u/Morak73]

So is it that because Texas is an open primary state, there is essentially manipulation going (beyond the spending?)

[u/Morak73 → u/Michaelord1]

I don't believe her views on Zionists or Billionaires were influenced at all by the primary being open.

[u/ModPolBot → u/[deleted]]

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:

Law 0. Low Effort

~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

[u/sipporah7]

What does it say day that she's comfortable saying this outloud?

[u/neuronexmachina → u/[deleted]]

And I've seen comments that she should immediately drop out and the GOP should stop using shell companies to spend money on her campaign.

[u/Independent-Report39 → u/neuronexmachina]

I've seen people claim she is a right-wing plant to poison people's opinion of "anti-Zionists". I've also heard that AOC (who criticized her heavily) is actually not a true leftist and has become a corporate Zio-shill.

[u/ModPolBot → u/[deleted]]

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 4:

Law 4: Meta Comments

~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

[u/airforceCOT → u/sipporah7]

And got 30% of the Democrat primary vote.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/airforceCOT]

That was about 2.5 months before she made this statement.

Although she was first, getting 30% is far from being a clear favorite. She was first mainly due to votes being split among establishment candidates.

[u/obiwankanblomi → u/Interesting_Total_98]

I don't think the 2.5 months rationale you keep bringing up paints a good picture at all for Democrats. Either Dem politicians are actively hiding problematic positions until they get elected at which point they go mask off, or the Dem voters are not able to discern between morally earnest and upstanding candidates, and those who would send the Jews to camps here in America.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/obiwankanblomi]

Either Dem politicians are actively hiding problematic positions until they get elected at which point they go mask off

She hasn't been elected, or even been selected as the nominee, and her party is criticizing her these statements.

or the Dem voters are not able to discern between morally earnest and upstanding candidate

That's too vague to be a valid criticism.

[u/Barmacist]

Gentle reminder that extremism is not a rightwing only trait.

[u/KentuckyFriedChingon → u/Barmacist]

You are correct, but also: Her campaign has every appearance of being funded by a right-wing PAC, likely to prop her up as a spoiler candidate. So in this N=1 example, even left wing radicalism has (ironically) been given a megaphone thanks to right-wing dollars.

[u/DLDude → u/KentuckyFriedChingon]

This has been the gop media playbook for 30 years. Amplify fringe liberal voices as if they represent all voices. Sometimes it's not even real voices (kids using litterboxes for example)

[u/KentuckyFriedChingon → u/DLDude]

Both sides do it, GOP probably does it worse. Unfortunately Dems did the same shit in 2016 when they supported Trump as a Pied Piper strategy. That backfired horrendously and we are still paying for it a decade later.

[u/BravesWinMetsSuck → u/KentuckyFriedChingon]

Your second sentence thoroughly rebukes your first sentence.

[u/De4dwe1ght → u/KentuckyFriedChingon]

Got an actual source?

[u/KentuckyFriedChingon → u/De4dwe1ght]

The quotes in the comment I linked are directly taken from the Texas Tribune article, which is linked in that comment. Here's the entirety of what Texas Tribune has to say on the topic (they are extremely reputable as far as "local" news goes):

 Advertising dollars have poured into the seat, which includes parts of Bexar County and rural counties to the east, backing both candidates. All of the pro-Galindo spending has come from Lead Left PAC, a pop-up group that was formed in early May and has not yet had to disclose its donors.

 Lead Left PAC appears to be tied to the GOP; Punchbowl News reported that the metadata on its website initially linked to WinRed, a major Republican donation platform. Lead Left PAC has not responded to questions about its donors or what entities are behind it.

 The PAC has spent nearly $600,000 on broadcast and cable, and additional funds on mailers boosting Galindo and bashing Garcia.

 Madison Andrus, a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson, called seeming GOP interference on Galindo’s behalf “extremely dangerous.” “No matter what your politics are, using virulent antisemitism for your own partisan gain is nothing short of disgusting,” Andrus said.

In a joint statement, Jeffries and DCCC Chair Suzan DelBene pointed the finger at GOP leadership.“House Republican leadership must immediately cease propping up this antisemitic candidacy, pull spending in the race and forcefully condemn these comments,” the pair said. “This vile language by her is disqualifying and has no place in America politics, and certainly not in the Democratic Party. To embrace and uplift a fringe candidate with antisemitic — and extremely dangerous — rhetoric and views in order to win an election is beyond the pale.”

[u/Anima6778]

For the love of god and all that is holy, can we go five seconds without some politician, streamer, or candidate wanting to send people to camps?

[u/detail_giraffe]

Yeah, this is why my mental version of the slogan is "vote blue (almost) no matter who". A man's got to have a code.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/detail_giraffe]

Fortunately, she most likely isn't winning the primary.

[u/airforceCOT → u/Interesting_Total_98]

The bigger issue is that this lack of filter seems to be becoming more prevalent among Democrat candidates. The Democrat Senate nominee in Maine had this to say about a Purple Heart recipient who was wounded three times in Afghanistan:

"At least his stupidity and fat ass wheezing are available for all future infantrymen to witness and hold in contempt. Poor marksmanship on the Taliban's part is the only reason this mouthbreather made it home, he managed to make every possible s*** decision possible when it comes to small unit combat."

[u/HavingNuclear → u/airforceCOT]

Reminds me of "He's only a hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured." Luckily, the dude who said that didn't make it past the primary. His name was... waitaminute

[u/Theron3206 → u/HavingNuclear]

This is no defence to anything. Or is the goal to be like Trump?

I thought the Dems were the party of morals, integrity and treating everyone with respect?

Seems they are trying to turn into Trump 2.0, socialist boogaloo.

[u/Geekerino → u/[deleted]]

Somehow they're always the more respectable party until they aren't, and in that case how dare you hold them to a higher standard! Why should a party who claims moral superiority over the other actually have to live up to their standard, huh???!!!

[u/betaray → u/Geekerino]

The bar has been set so low by Republicans that “moral superiority” has become too easy to achieve. Democrats can clear it by not trafficking children, not openly defending corruption, and not trying to overthrow elections.

[u/Tight_Contest402 → u/Theron3206]

I thought the Dems were the party of morals, integrity and treating everyone with respect?

Where did this lead them? If our only feedback mechanism is voting, what lesson can you learn if you hold this position (read: morals, integrity, respect...) and lose handily?

[u/Theron3206 → u/Tight_Contest402]

Going down this path isn't going to bring back the people in the middle that abandoned them for Trump.

Chasing the extremely unreliable far left vote is a bad idea.

[u/Fragrant-Luck-8063 → u/Theron3206]

Maybe it will bring in new voters, like Trump did.

[u/DLDude → u/Theron3206]

How has being the party of morals worked out for the democrats in the last few elections?

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/airforceCOT]

That's an anonymous post he made in 2019, and he's denounced the account, so it actually shows him gaining a filter. A lack of filter becoming more prevalent would mean doubling down on old comments.

[u/dr_sloan → u/airforceCOT]

Aren’t you a veteran? I would expect you to know a thing or two about how irreverent soldiers can be.

[u/Connect-Rhubarb2501 → u/airforceCOT]

Idk man it’s an old comment from when he was struggling with pretty severe PTSD from his own time at war, this is kind of a low thing to attack him on honestly.

[u/__Hello_my_name_is__ → u/detail_giraffe]

I mean you can still vote blue. Vote for her primary opponent. Which everyone should, really.

Also, the slogan should be "vote blue no matter who unless they are financed by a shadowy PAC that seems to be Republican funded to intentionally make Democrats look bad", because that's what seems to be happening here.

Reminds me of the time some former KKK member and very outspoken racist entered some Republican primary race. Republicans denounced him just like Democrats are now denouncing Galindo, but of course the narrative was set already by then.

[u/shacksrus]

Tried and true election strategy. Say the most outrageous stuff to stay in the news. When called on it say something more outrageous to flood the zone.

[u/Gamegis → u/shacksrus]

She’s also a democratic candidate being funded by a Republican PAC (republicans are funding her because she’s a more beatable candidate). Quite an interesting story

[u/OpneFall → u/Gamegis]

I wish voters would punish this kind of disgusting practice, but no one really cares.

JB Pritker does the same thing in Illinois.

[u/Xanto97 → u/OpneFall]

There was a rumor that Hillary did that with trump, because they thought he’d be easier to beat.

Not sure how true it is.

[u/Mr_Tyzic → u/Xanto97]

I believe it was more than just a rumor. It came from an internal Democratic strategy memo tied to the Clinton campaign that was later released through WikiLeaks. The idea was more complicated than simply promoting Trump specifically. The strategy discussed elevating more polarizing Republican candidates, including Trump, Cruz, Carson, and others. The thinking was that either Democrats would end up facing one of those candidates in the general election, where they were perceived as weaker, or that mainstream Republicans would shift further right in order to compete in the primaries, potentially making them weaker in a general election as well.

[u/EmployEducational840 → u/Mr_Tyzic]

the "Pied Piper" memo

in an effort take Jeb Bush down, Clinton’s team planned to pump Trump up. excerpts from the memo:

“The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,”

“Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:
• Ted Cruz
• Donald Trump
• Ben Carson
We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously."

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428/

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/EmployEducational840]

planned to pump Trump up.

That's somewhat true, but also misleading because your quote says the idea was to focus on his extreme rhetoric and tie it to the rest of the party, as opposed to wanting to help the weaker candidate win like the other comments are discussing.

Edit: Her strategy most likely wasn't a significant contribution to him becoming the nominee becoming that because his rhetoric being so controversial meant that it was naturally going to get a lot of attention anyway.

[u/EmployEducational840 → u/Interesting_Total_98]

I plagiarized that from the author of the article, adding "jeb" for clarity. The article details how the democrats wanted to boost trump because he was the preferred candidate for clinton to face, I.e. they wanted to help the perceived weaker candidate for a perceived easier win

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/EmployEducational840]

Your quote says they wanted to draw attention to his rhetoric to tie it to his party, not to help him. There's a distinction between "look at these awful statements from a Republican candidate" and "look at how much better Trump is than the rest."

This explains why he wasn't the only one who was part of the strategy, since they obviously can't all be the winners of the primary.

[u/EmployEducational840 → u/Interesting_Total_98]

the article doesnt say "look at how much better Trump is than the rest." the article says the opposite - the clinton campaign perceived trump and a couple of others to be worse candidates than the rest, so the campaign said they wanted to elevate "the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack", thinking they would be the easier competition. its stated in the article tagline "They Always Wanted Trump. Inside Team Clinton’s year-long struggle to find a strategy against the opponent they were most eager to face."

[u/Best_Change4155 → u/Xanto97]

It's a bit different. Hillary elevated Trump, but used him as a proxy for Republicans at the time (now, of course, he actually is the proxy for Republicans). Pritzker (and certain Democratic groups) actually fund and run ads promoting nutjobs, saying they are "more conservative" etc.

[u/Best_Change4155 → u/Gamegis]

She’s also a democratic candidate being funded by a Republican PAC (republicans are funding her because she’s a more beatable candidate). Quite an interesting story

Democrats famously do this, with little consequence and good results for them.

[u/Burntac6969 → u/Best_Change4155]

Democrats famously do this, with little consequence and good results for them.

They lost to trump last election.

[u/tlk742 → u/Best_Change4155]

It works until they lose. Im pretty sure both sides do this...its a high risk high reward strategy though. It's also a strategy of opposition party to attack the leading candidate so more fringe candidates get out of the primary.

[u/TheWyldMan → u/Gamegis]

Even if she is being funded by republicans, she did come in first in the initial primary. Dems did vote for her.

[u/shacksrus → u/TheWyldMan]

Texas has open primaries. So we can't be sure. If republicans are giving her money it makes sense to assume republicans are voting for her too.

[u/ionizing_chicanery → u/shacksrus]

Even though Trump won the district by 10 points the Democratic primary got 54,558 votes while the Republican primary only got 42,762.

So it's pretty likely at least some Trump voters voted in the Democratic primary. But as the district is majority Latino I'd expect them more to be ancestral Democrats who still vote Democratic downballot rather than Republican saboteurs.

[u/TheWyldMan → u/shacksrus]

29% of the primary?

I can find comments on this very platform defending her. I can see comments on blueksy attacking AOC for denoucning her.

[u/__Hello_my_name_is__ → u/TheWyldMan]

And that's why Twitter/Bluesky/whatever isn't a reflection of reality and comments there shouldn't be used for anything, really.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/TheWyldMan]

She won less than a third of the vote before comments like these were stated or well-known.

[u/DestinyLily_4ever → u/TheWyldMan]

If you intentionally seek out the most vocal and polarized communities online then yes, you will see that. To get a sense of normal ranges of opinions, it would be better to talk to regular people

[u/tooshooptowoop → u/Gamegis]

Well it's a good thing that tactic has never spectacularly backfired.

[u/PornoPaul → u/Gamegis]

I recall the DNC doing the same thing. Except that noew up in their faces. I wonder if this will do the same.

[u/De4dwe1ght → u/Gamegis]

I’ve seen you mention this a couple times. Your source didn’t work. Got a source?

[u/TheUnderCrab]

This should put the win in the bag for Johnny Garcia on May 26th. The Dems are usually pretty good about rejecting these extremist ideas at the polls. 

[u/MydniteSon]

...they've gone from dogwhistles to bullhorns.

[u/Interesting_Total_98]

She most likely isn't even going to be in the general election. Although she came in first in the initial run, she only won about 29% while Garcia won 27%.

The rest was split between various candidates, and the party has consolidated around Garcia.

Galindo's controversial statements didn't get much attention during her initial run.

[u/TheWyldMan]

Maureen Galindo, a candidate in the runoff in the Dem primary for Texas's 35th district, created headlines with a post saying she would turn ice facilities into prisons for american zionists and ice officers. She also said it would serve as a castration processing center for pedophiles which she said would be most of the zionists.

Galindo is not exactly a fringe candidate, having come in first in the initial primary that led to this run off. She has made other controversial comments such as "all American candidates and elected officials who have ever taken Israeli money tried for treason."

Democrats rushed to condemn her comment on the ICE facility and blame her candidacy on Republicans. But while I applaud them for condemning her, her comments were not all that far off from what is typically visible on more left leaning platforms such as Bluesky or Reddit.

Do you think Galindo is a one off or just a symptom of rising antisemitism on the left?

[u/Kit_Daniels → u/TheWyldMan]

Look no further than Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes or any other number of right wing populists and you’ll see that antisemitism is just on the rise, period, in America right now. It’s hardly a partisan problem, though I may guess that the growth rate is greater on the left, if only because the right got a head start.

[u/TheWyldMan → u/Kit_Daniels]

Republicans did just reject Massie

[u/Computer_Name → u/TheWyldMan]

Because he - occasionally - criticizes Trump.

[u/Maladal → u/TheWyldMan]

Not wanting to be involved with Israel doesn't make one an antisemite.

[u/LeeSansSaw → u/TheWyldMan]

Not a fringe candidate? She got 29% of the vote in a primary.

Every single elected Democrat who has commented was to denounce her.

What makes her not a fringe candidate?

Are we really taking comments on social media as proof of mainstream beliefs? If that’s the bar, man do I have some doozies for you.

[u/TheWyldMan → u/LeeSansSaw]

She came in first in the primary.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/TheWyldMan]

Getting less than a third of the vote before these comments were stated or exposed and not having the support of the establishment does suggests that she's fringe, especially since this is about a House primary.

[u/LeeSansSaw → u/TheWyldMan]

She got 29% of the vote.

[u/TheWyldMan → u/LeeSansSaw]

enough for first place

[u/LeeSansSaw → u/TheWyldMan]

But not enough to win

[u/Stat-Pirate → u/TheWyldMan]

Do you think Galindo is a one off or just a symptom of rising antisemitism on the left?

Oh, we're concerned about what candidates say now?

Are Trump's many comments and actions all one-offs, or a symptom of rising antisemitism on the right?

Not to mention "They're eating the dogs, the people that came in, they're eating the cats". Another one-off, or a symptom of xenophobia on the right? And the Jewish space lasers? Certainly must be a one-off, not a symptom of rising symptom of rising antisemitism on the right, I'm sure. And those leaked chats from Young Republicans? Certainly another one-off, and not a sign of rising antisemitism on the right.

Man, just lots of one-offs. Guess this is just a major problem on the left.

[u/Iceraptor17 → u/Stat-Pirate]

Oh, we're concerned about what candidates say now?

As long as they're not trump or endorsed by him.

[u/TheWyldMan → u/Stat-Pirate]

Guess this is just a major problem on the left.

Y'all are running someone with a Nazi tattoo

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/TheWyldMan]

You failed to address their point, which is about problems on the Republicans side. What's the excuse for Trump lying about Haitians to deport them back to their extremely dangerous country while also believing that we should bring in white Afrikaners over a genocide that doesn't exist?

Y'all are running

Platner said he got it in his early 20s and didn't know what it meant, which is plausible because it's not universally known, and there's no pattern of him supporting Nazis.

[u/Iceraptor17 → u/Interesting_Total_98]

Didn't his deleted reddit account get leaked or found out or something?

I'm sure if it exists it'll be found there

[u/TheWyldMan → u/Iceraptor17]

Alot of comments defending rape and saying things like women should wear kevlar panties.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/TheWyldMan]

I see one 2013 comment where he victim blames, though doesn't go as far as saying rape is okay. His comment was about mocking women he says should've known better.

I nonetheless agree that it's abhorrent, but given the date and lack of examples, it's not surprising that people didn't disqualify him. It's extremely rare for popular politicians to be sunk by a handful of very old comments that they regret, and this is true for both sides.

[u/Back_at_it_agains → u/TheWyldMan]

Okay, and? Those comments are bad. What should be done about it then? Should the Democrats kick him out of the party and then put themselves at a further political disadvantage, while the other side does things much worse and gets away with it constantly? While their voters ignore it?

This is the game that constantly gets played. Ignore your own sides morality/ethnics, but attack Democrats at every opportunity because you know they hold their politicians to higher standards.

[u/TheWyldMan → u/Interesting_Total_98]

His former campaign manager disagrees:

“Graham has an antisemitic tattoo on his chest. He’s not an idiot, he’s a military history buff. Maybe he didn’t know it when he got it, but he got it years ago and should have had it covered up because he knows damn well what it means.”

I believe him not knowing what it was when he got it, but I refuse to believe that he didn't know what it was after 18 years. It's not that obscure.

The problem is that he has some other sketchy stuff like being a fan and appearing on an antisemitic podcasts or retweeting an antisemite: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/platner-sat-lengthy-interview-antisemitic-075439570.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/platner-deletes-social-media-post-213306292.html

[u/__Hello_my_name_is__ → u/TheWyldMan]

or retweeting an antisemite

Okay that one is just funny. What's worse, retweeting an antisemite, or being on the exact same antisemite's podcast?

Because Paul Gosar, Mark Meadows, Kari Lake, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Kash Patel have all been on that same antisemite's podcast before. Some of them multiple times!

Weirdly enough, I haven't seen any comments denouncing that when it happened then. I guess that's only a rule for Democrats.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/TheWyldMan]

Your quote is just an assumption. It doesn't contain evidence that he knew or any alleged information that sets a patter, such as hating Jews or saying Hitler was great.

It's association with Nazis actually was obscure. The military didn't catch it.

he has some other sketchy stuff

The tweet was about Iran, and was quickly taken down. The interview didn't discuss anything antisemitic, which is odd if both of them were find with it.

This is more consistent with bad vetting when you consider the lack of evidence coming directly from him.

[u/TheWyldMan → u/Interesting_Total_98]

The interview didn't discuss anything antisemitic, which is odd if both of them were find with it.

Ignoring the part where he says he's a long time fan of the podcasts?

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/TheWyldMan]

The vagueness of the comment and how recent the channel's popularity was indicates that it's an empty pleasantry.

[u/Stat-Pirate → u/TheWyldMan]

Who is "y'all" here? I'm an independent ever since the Republican party left in me in the dust when they sprinted to the hard Right. And, for reference, that candidate had that tattoo covered until such time as they can have it removed, so your claim isn't really accurate.

And I notice the distinct lack of comment on Trump's words and actions (or the other examples I provided). Could it be that you should have used neutral phrasing rather than presenting it as a problem "on the Left?" Or do you simply think that the problem has already risen on the Right, rather than being "rising?"

[u/__Hello_my_name_is__ → u/TheWyldMan]

Is that better or worse than inviting actual Nazis to dinner?

[u/dr_sloan → u/TheWyldMan]

Whether or not you chose to believe Platner’s excuses and apologies, the fact that he’s tried to make amends for something said/done a decade plus ago already places him leaps and bounds above the behavior of the President and Vice President who embrace their comments.

[u/SoCalCognac → u/Stat-Pirate]

In fairness the left does spread some really antisemitic messaging of their own. Such as the minimizing of Jewish trauma, or saying that Jewish people in the west “should be considered oppressors” because they are white.

[u/DestinyLily_4ever → u/SoCalCognac]

Which major democratic leaders are saying those things?

[u/ionizing_chicanery]

I don't know which of her horrific and hateful views were made public before she got nearly 16,000 votes in the March 3 primary, but I certainly hope those people were overwhelmingly unaware of them.

TX-35 was one of the districts intended to be made into a safe pickup by Texas Republicans with their new gerrymander. I think Democrats kind of wrote it off, rather unwisely as Trump only won the new district by about 10 points in 2024.

But they definitely can't afford to ignore it now, and with the party overwhelmingly condemning Galindo's comments and all the press this is getting I would be very surprised if she doesn't lose the May 26th runoff in a landslide.

If somehow she were to win I very much hope Texas Democrats withdraw her nomination even if it mean forfeiting any chance of winning the district.

[u/neuronexmachina → u/ionizing_chicanery]

I don't know which of her horrific and hateful views were made public before she got nearly 16,000 votes in the March 3 primary

All the remarks from the article are from the past week. Heck, I've been searching and I can't find a single article about her from before the primary.

My suspicion is there was a big primary turnout due to Talarico vs Crockett, and voters basically just randomly chose downstream candidates or based their primary vote on what was written in the official voter guide.

[u/ionizing_chicanery → u/neuronexmachina]

Apparently one of the primary losers endorsed her for being an "outsider ready to take on the establishment" or whatever. Then rescinded the endorsement after all this news dropped.

Maybe voters should stop treating a complete lack of qualifications and political history like a positive thing.

[u/neuronexmachina → u/ionizing_chicanery]

Maybe voters should stop treating a complete lack of qualifications and political history like a positive thing.

One can certainly hope.

[u/ArtanistheMantis]

Is her campaign advisor from Munich? If this were satire I'd say it was too on the nose

[u/RunThenBeer]

The mostly darkly amusing part of this is that I quite literally didn't know which party she was from until I clicked through. Shameful stuff.

[u/ExcelFreezesOver → u/RunThenBeer]

If she were Republican, the title would have mentioned it

[u/AnwaAnduril]

Rep. Omar could have a sidekick in Congress if she wins

[u/WillyNilly1997]

She is merely speaking the minds of her far-left voters. The Soviet Union and the Polish People’s Republic almost did that in the first half of the Cold War. I am not flabbergasted by their remote ideological heirs calling for something of such semblance.

[u/ModPolBot → u/[deleted]]

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:

Law 1. Civil Discourse

~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.

Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

[u/ModPolBot → u/[deleted]]

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:

Law 1. Civil Discourse

~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.

Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

[u/Sharp_Mechanic5316]

Like this forum is titled, we need moderate/reasonable candidates if they want to take on the maga crowd. We don’t need extremists or people bent on revenge or looking for click-bait statements- and no ‘skeleton in closet’ weirdos.

[u/HurasmusBDraggin]

Is she a plant?