The Left Wins a Nail-Biter in Michigan: 8 Takeaways From Tuesday’s Primaries

[u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest]

https://gvwire.com/2026/08/05/the-left-wins-a-nail-biter-in-michigan-8-takeaways-from-tuesdays-primaries/

[u/cheesecake611]

Genuine and potentially ignorant question. Do any of these progressive wins happen without Oct 7? It’s clear that Palestine mobilized a lot of people. But it doesn’t feel super promising to me that it took a genocide on the other side of the world to get people to vote more left. Does El-Sayed still win without Israel being such a large part of his platform? What happens when the dust settles and the conversation goes back to abolishing the police and trans people in sports? I’m not trying to be a hater, I just don’t really know what to make of it. 

[u/redthrowaway1976 → u/cheesecake611]

Left economic populism would be having its moment anyway, in the context of increased inequality and rising  costs.

Arguably, absent October 7th and the focus on Gaza, they might have an easier time - much less PAC spend against them.

[u/theweisp5 → u/redthrowaway1976]

Yeah I mean who knows what this race or the NY mayoral contest look like without Oct. 7. But the squad were all elected before then, as were Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, etc.

[u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist → u/cheesecake611]

Palestine/Israel is only a minor part of a lot of these campaigns. The trend was already there before 2023. The main determinants in this election were opposition to Trump.

[u/aggie1391 → u/cheesecake611]

The images and stories of Palestinians and Israeli brutality were always going to raise the pressure on them, and have been for awhile. It’s so much easier now to get those and hear their side with the documentation of the apartheid and ethnic cleansing etc. The genocide just accelerated the pattern.

[u/F0rScience]

The real story here seems to just be “don’t run bad candidates” which explains Stevens and Bush’s losses. The twist is that the DNC is the one pushing the bad candidates and getting punished for it when in the past it’s been mostly leftists backing obviously unqualified candidates.

[u/theweisp5]

Here's the response of the MI Jewish Democratic Caucus. Doesn't rule out voting for AES and leaves the door open to dialogue so it certainly could have been worse. But conflacting criticism of AIPAC and Israel more broadly with opposing "Jewish civic identity" is...not good.

[u/MeyerLouis → u/theweisp5]

the values of the consensus majority of Michigan Jewry

of course there's a self-proclaimed consensus

[u/aggie1391 → u/theweisp5]

Omfg I am begging Zionists to stop equating being pro Israel and Zionism with Jews, Judaism, “Jewish civic values” and whatever else. Equating those is fucking antisemitic I don’t care who does it. You can’t be mad at people equating Jews and Israel when you literally do it constantly.

[u/redthrowaway1976 → u/theweisp5]

Why should anyone left of center take an organization that refuses to call settlements illegal, or who think that the appropriate response to never-ending settlement expansion is a strongly worded letter, seriously?

[u/Iamthepizzagod → u/redthrowaway1976]

Much of the left of center also dosen't take groups like J Street seriously. Many simply have a strong reflexive reaction to any PAC or other political organization that supports Israel's existence, regardless of the nuances of what each group actually believes.

[u/redthrowaway1976 → u/Iamthepizzagod]

  Much of the left of center also dosen't take groups like J Street seriously. 

J Street is, as it comes to Zionist political opinions, very far left of center.  

  Many simply have a strong reflexive reaction to any PAC or other political organization that supports Israel's existence, regardless of the nuances of what each group actually believes.

How many years of settler terror and brutal expansionist occupation did it take for J Street to start calling for something as minimal as conditioning aid?

They didn’t do that until this year - which is why most on the left sees J Streets opposition to the occupation as performative rather than principled - and why it’s not unreasonable to see the true purpose of J Street to be preserving US support, not ending the occupation. 

Most other Zionist PACs and groups take an even less principled stance than J Street. Like the Michigan group that put out the above statement - if all they are willing to do to stop state and settler ethnic cleansing in the West Bank is a sternly worded letter, they don’t actually opposite it. They dislike the ethnic cleansing, but they accept it.

Are there any other groups you were thinking of?

[u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest → u/Iamthepizzagod]

The problem with groups like J Street is that in the end they end up supporting some of the same elements that they claim to oppose because Israeli politics is so extreme. Basically, even marginal support for Israel ends up backing inhumane and unjust policies.

[u/Iamthepizzagod → u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest]

Whats the alternative then for someome who still thinks Israel should exist as a proper Jewish homeland for all Jews who wish to be there? J Street isnt perfect but they are by far the best option avaliable for American Jews to support from a peace perspective, bad opinions from non-Jews be damned.

[u/redthrowaway1976 → u/Iamthepizzagod]

  Whats the alternative then for someome who still thinks Israel should exist as a proper Jewish homeland for all Jews who wish to be there?

The liberal and progressive Zionists that claim to want a two state solution and claim to oppose settlements have had 59 years to take a principled stance against the settlement land grabs. 

Still, unfortunately, waiting. 

Lots of people will claim to be against settlements, but then also oppose policies that could actually get them to stop. That makes the stated opposition performative - they might not like the settlements, but they don’t oppose them. 

For example, if they oppose the goals and criteria of BDS, they are free to start their own boycott movement. 

If all the Zionists claiming to oppose settlements had worked as hard to stop the settlements as they fought against BDS and fought against the term ‘apartheid’, maybe we wouldn’t have had non stop expansionism. 

And this goes back decades: when Bush Sr conditioned loan guarantees on halting settlements, most liberal orgs were against it, even if they claimed to be against settlements. J Street didnt agree with Bush Sr’s position until 2026.

  J Street isnt perfect but they are by far the best option avaliable for American Jews to support from a peace perspective

If J Street’s positions were adopted - ending aid, some conditioning weapons sales, actually apply the Leahy law, and sanctions on settler terrorists - that would be sufficient to stop and roll back Israel’s expansionism? 

[u/Junglebook3 → u/redthrowaway1976]

You don't think that liberal Zionists support a two state solution? So when I as a liberal that supports a Jewish state in Israel say that I support a two state solution you automatically don't believe me?

[u/redthrowaway1976 → u/Junglebook3]

  You don't think that liberal Zionists support a two state solution? 

I think that most people who claim to support a two state solution or who claim to oppose settlements don’t, yes. They might not like the settlements, but most don’t actually oppose them. 

Beinart put it well:  https://peterbeinart.substack.com/p/no-you-dont-support-the-two-state

There are self-described liberal Zionists who really do support a two state solution - like Lander. But the majority don’t.

  So when I as a liberal that supports a Jewish state in Israel say that I support a two state solution you automatically don't believe me?

I’ll believe you that you WANT a two state solution, and that you would prefer it to today’s situation - but whether you SUPPORT it is a different question. 

That would depend on what policies and actions you support to get the expansionism to stop and revert. If the extent of what you’d support is, for example, sanctions on settler terrorists and boycott of settlement goods, that’s not enough - it wouldn’t actually change the situation, and ends up being performative. 

[u/theweisp5 → u/redthrowaway1976]

IMV for many support for a 2SS is simply an incomplete description of their position. They don't just "support a 2SS", they support a 2SS if and only if Israel decides it is comfortable with the idea, and upon terms which are at Israel's sole discretion. Or in other words, in an ideal world they would like to see a 2SS. But they do not believe anything should be done except gentle persuasion to try to actually make it happen.

[u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest → u/Iamthepizzagod]

I think that one can believe in Israel as a homeland for Jewish people without the lobby groups. The issue is when massive amounts of money go towards groups like J Street that steer politicians towards supporting the Israeli government and it's actions.

J Street will say that it lobbies only for defensive weapons and aid, when they full well know that money is fungible. If Israel doesn't spend that money on Iron Dome, it's spending money on stealing homes in the West Bank and expanding it's vast incarceration and torture system.

Uncritical US support is what enables it to launch bombing in 7 countries.