Illinois 9th Congressional District · Democratic primary · 2026
What if the pro-Palestine vote had coalesced?
Abughazaleh wins by 12,014
The pro-Palestine vote split three ways. Consolidating a quarter of it would have flipped the seat. Consolidating the whole of it would have ended in a 12k vote landslide—drag the slider and see.
A quick refresher, because this race ended three months ago. In March 2026, Illinois’s 9th Congressional DistrictThe deep-blue stretch of Chicago’s North Shore and northern suburbs. held a Democratic primary to replace Jan Schakowsky, who had held the seat for nearly thirty years. In a district this blue, the primary is the whole contest: whoever won in March was guaranteed to head to Congress after the general election in November.
Fifteen candidates crowded the race, and more than anything else the race split over Israel’s genocidal response to October 7, 2023, in Gaza. Ultimately, it was one of the pro-Israel candidates who came out on top. Despite the near-final count recording a much bigger pro-Palestine vote, it was the liberal Zionist candidate, Daniel Biss, who won by a paltry 4,097 votes—3.1% of the total vote.
What follows is an examination of how a so-called progressive, pro-Israel candidate won when his pro-Palestine progressive counterparts drew about 12,000 more votes than he did. What emerges from this examination is that the split itself was the pro-Israel lobby’s whole plan.
I will demonstrate conclusively that an AIPAC-funded group promoted a pro-Palestine candidate not to elect her—when the ads ran, Amiwala was polling around 4 percent, far too far back to win—but to pull votes away from Abughazaleh, the one pro-Palestine candidate who could win. The receipts are below: the same group that paid to “support” Amiwala was paying to attack Abughazaleh at the same time, two candidates who stand in almost exactly the same place on Israel. AIPAC bet on that overlap, and after the vote it claimed credit for the outcome. (Amiwala, for her part, never asked for the boost—she publicly disavowed it and demanded the ads stop.) The goal here is not to accuse Amiwala and Simmons of putting personal ambition ahead of a bigger liberatory cause for the people of Palestine. Rather, it is to learn from this strategic defeat, because it was a clever one.
More importantly: if the premise is true—boost Amiwala, and votes move away from Abughazaleh—then the reverse must be true as well, even if only partially. Had Amiwala stepped aside and endorsed, those same votes would have moved back. And the reverse is all Abughazaleh needed: every pro-Palestine candidate getting behind the one of them with a realistic chance of winning. If we the people reward that kind of discipline with our votes and our financial support, we will finally get the government we have always deserved.
Run the arithmetic
She never needed all of their votes.
Pick which of the trailing candidates consolidate behind Abughazaleh and then drag the slider, and watch the tipping flag: she passes Biss long before the other bars ever run empty.
Interactive: choose whether Amiwala, Simmons, or both consolidate behind Abughazaleh. As the slider rises, the chosen candidates' bars drain and those votes stack onto Abughazaleh in amber while Biss stays frozen at 38,804. The tipping point moves with the choice: 26% if both consolidate, 44% for Simmons alone, 62% for Amiwala alone. A second button runs the consolidation all the way to 100%, where Abughazaleh wins by 12,014.
Pick who endorses Abughazaleh — then drag to consolidate
Dotted outline = votes leaving the chosen candidate(s); solid amber = those same votes landing on Abughazaleh. Biss never moves — these aren’t his voters. Watch the tipping flag: she passes him well before their bars empty — she never needed all their votes. Near-final counts (NYT / Wikipedia), not yet ISBE-certified. The arithmetic of consolidation, not a prediction that those voters would actually have moved.
What split the vote
Three candidates, one cause.
Comparison of four IL-09 candidates: Abughazaleh, Simmons and Amiwala all call Gaza a genocide and want U.S. weapons to Israel halted, and none took pro-Israel-lobby money; Biss declines the word genocide, keeps Iron Dome funded, and was the only one of the four backed by a pro-Israel lobby (J Street). Tap any name for quotes and sources.
How the pro-Palestine vote split three ways
The three candidates who split the vote stood on the pro-Palestine side of the argument, while Biss stood comfortably on the pro-Israel side. Each of them — Abughazaleh, Simmons, and Amiwala — said plainly that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Each of them opposed all arms sales to Israel, making no distinction between so-called offensive and defensive weapons. Most importantly, not one of them took a single dollar from the pro-Israel lobby. Daniel Biss, on the other hand, refused to say the word genocide, called only for a ban on offensive weapons — Iron Dome funding stays — and was funded by J Street, the self-described “political home for pro-Israel…Americans,” to the tune of about $200,000. Tap any name for the exact quote and source.
Biss declines the word, not the catastrophe — he says “starvation,” an “unacceptable stain,” and backs an offensive-arms ban; he just won’t say “genocide” and keeps Iron Dome funded.
Two different pro-Israel lobbies, opposite sides: J Street (liberal, “pro-Israel, pro-peace”) backed Biss; AIPAC spent against him — that’s the next panel. The three positions aren’t identical; the thread is halting the weapons.
Among these four. The full field had 15 candidates, including AIPAC-backed Laura Fine (3rd). Near-final counts; quotes sourced on tap.
Pull quote from Ta-Nehisi Coates, University of Michigan, February 2025, as reported by Juan Cole: if you can't draw the line at genocide, you probably can't draw the line at democracy — the site applies this principle to Biss, who declined to call Gaza a genocide and was the only one of the four backed by a pro-Israel lobby.
If you can’t draw the line at genocide, you probably can’t draw the line at democracy.
Ta-Nehisi Coates · University of Michigan, Feb. 19, 2025 Speaking about the Democratic Party — as reported by Juan Cole ↗
Coates wasn’t talking about Daniel Biss in this quote. But the test fits. Biss is a liberal who wouldn’t call a bombing campaign that killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians a genocide. And the proof of the test is this: out of the four candidates, the one who refuses to say the word genocide is the only one funded by a pro-Israel lobby.
In a post–October 7 world, the distinction between liberal Zionist and right-wing Zionist is not worth recognizing. Now more than ever, we need moral clarity.
The moment
Watch him decline the word.
Coates says to draw the line at genocide, and here is Abughazaleh asking Biss to do exactly that, on camera.
Abughazaleh asks Biss directly whether he’ll call Gaza a genocide. He won’t. (Video: Facebook) — Watch on Facebook ↗
Follow the money
The dividing line wasn’t who AIPAC attacked—it was who the pro-Israel lobby PAID
Oftentimes, when focusing on attack ads, what gets lost is the fact that two different pro-Israel lobbies spent money in this race, and they were on opposite sides of it. J Street, the liberal Zionist group, put its money behind Daniel Biss. AIPAC, the hardline Zionist group, poured $4.38 million behind its own pick, Laura Fine. What neither AIPAC nor J Street did was spend a single dollar to support the three previously mentioned candidates.
Why? Because they are genuinely pro-Palestine. How do I know? Because they aren’t afraid to say that Israel is guilty of genocide—they pass the Coates test. And I take that test to mean that where a candidate stands on Israel says a lot about where they are likely to stand on a whole slew of issues: Medicare for All, Abolish ICE, Tax the Billionaires, and more.
Who the pro-Israel lobby paid for
Funded by a pro-Israel lobby
Funded by a pro-Israel lobby: nothing
The lobby’s money went to Biss and to Fine, and to the other three it gave nothing at all. Yes, AIPAC later turned around and spent $1.43 million against Biss — but that was simply two pro-Israel lobbies fighting over which of their own they preferred. It doesn’t change what Biss is, by his own description: a Zionist the pro-Israel lobby helped put on the path to Congress.
What AIPAC’s shells spent to beat them
You might wonder why I count money spent “supporting” Amiwala as money spent against Abughazaleh. Follow the logic, because it only runs one way. When the boost ads ran, the RoundTable survey had Amiwala at 4 percent—Abughazaleh was the only pro-Palestine candidate anywhere near Biss—and no amount of last-minute ad money elects a candidate that far back. Support that cannot possibly elect is not support. And the same shell was paying to attack Abughazaleh at the very same time. Look back at the comparison: on Israel, Amiwala and Abughazaleh stand in almost exactly the same place. A pro-Israel group does not attack one candidate and sincerely promote another who holds the identical position—unless the “support” was never meant to elect anyone, only to move votes off the candidate who could win. The New York Times said it outright: AIPAC was squeezing Abughazaleh “from both directions.” Amiwala saw exactly what it was, said she “could not be more disgusted,” and demanded they pull the ad.
The receipt — same shell, both directions
And here’s the proof, in the lobby’s own paperwork. These are two filings from a single committee, the Chicago Progressive Partnership, both run through the same two vendors. One filing paid to sink Abughazaleh. The other paid to float Amiwala.
FEC filing · tap to read in page
View full filing ↗
FEC filing · tap to read in page
View full filing ↗
Same committee. Same two vendors — MiQ Digital and Tom King Communications — on both. The New York Times reached the consultant Tom King, who confirmed he “was involved in the advertisement propping up Ms. Amiwala.” On the page, each card opens the actual government document.
Why you couldn’t see it in time
Spending & funding: FEC independent-expenditure & bundling filings (full cycle, pulled 2026-06-29). Receipts: FEC filings, Chicago Progressive Partnership (C00935809). Disavowal & “both directions” framing: New York Times (Balk, Mar 15, 2026). Polling: Evanston RoundTable, Feb 24, 2026. Vote counts: NYT/Wikipedia near-final, not yet ISBE-certified. Mamdani quote: Jewish Insider. The $1M Elect Chicago Women → Chicago Progressive Partnership hop is single-sourced and left off this chart.
Oftentimes they also support the status quo through dark money, by filtering money that would’ve previously been directed from AIPAC, now through other shell organizations whose identities of their contributors are only made clear after the election.
Zohran Mamdani · NYC City Hall, June 22, 2026 On AIPAC’s dark-money shell PACs — via Jewish Insider ↗
That is exactly the mechanic above: the disclosure that would name AIPAC arrives only after the polls have closed. Which means the one counter that works inside the window where it matters is to consolidate the vote while the money is still hidden.
Pass it on
Share the receipts.
Join the conversation
Talk back where you already are.
There’s no comment section here—the conversation lives on the wiki’s accounts. Pick your platform, find this article’s post, and say your piece there.
Follow the work
Get the next one in your inbox.
Occasional updates as the wiki grows — new documents, new analysis, new cases. Written by a person, not a feed.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. Double opt-in — you’ll confirm by email.
Sources
- Vote counts (near-final, not yet ISBE-certified): Wikipedia — 2026 U.S. House elections in Illinois, District 9 results (NYT live-results sourced).
- AIPAC outside spending (FEC-anchored, full cycle): FEC — Elect Chicago Women (C00936724) ($4.38M for Fine, $1.43M against Biss) and FEC — Chicago Progressive Partnership (C00935809) ($1.18M against Abughazaleh, $104,555 boosting Amiwala). Independent-expenditure filings, pulled 2026-06-29.
- The funding trail (UDP → shells): NBC News — AIPAC’s UDP funded the big-spending Illinois groups, and Evanston RoundTable — FEC filings confirm the AIPAC outside spending.
- The shell-PAC / disclosure-timing mechanic: The American Prospect — “The pro-Israel Super PAC Cinematic Universe” (disclosure lands after the vote).
- The spoiler & “both directions” framing + Amiwala’s disavowal: Jonathan Balk, “Why a House Candidate in Illinois Is Attacking an Ad Praising Her” (The New York Times, Mar. 15, 2026), and The Intercept — Illinois results: the spoiler line.
- AIPAC claims credit: WTTW — AIPAC claims credit for the Abughazaleh and Amiwala defeats.
- J Street’s money for Biss (a different pro-Israel lobby from AIPAC): FEC — J Street Action Fund (C00815753) ($149,773 super-PAC IE) plus ~$51K bundled; see also The Intercept.
- Polling: Evanston RoundTable poll, Feb. 24, 2026 (Abughazaleh within range of Biss; Simmons 6%, Amiwala 4%).
- The Coates principle (about the Democratic Party, not any IL-09 candidate): Ta-Nehisi Coates, Univ. of Michigan, Feb. 19, 2025, as reported by Juan Cole.
- The dark-money mechanic, named: Zohran Mamdani, NYC City Hall, June 22, 2026, via Jewish Insider.
Full results table (all 15 candidates)
| # | Candidate | Votes | Share | Standing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Daniel Biss (winner) | 38,804 | 29.4% | Pro-Israel, establishment-backed front-runner |
| 2 | Kat Abughazaleh | 34,707 | 26.3% | Progressive |
| 3 | Laura Fine | 26,384 | 20.0% | AIPAC’s preferred candidate |
| 4 | Mike Simmons | 9,419 | 7.1% | Progressive |
| 5 | Phil Andrew | 7,997 | 6.1% | |
| 6 | Bushra Amiwala | 6,692 | 5.1% | Progressive; AIPAC-boosted as a spoiler, which she disavowed |
| 7 | Hoan Huynh | 2,343 | 1.8% | |
| 8 | Patricia Brown | 1,675 | 1.3% | |
| 9 | Jeff Cohen | 1,078 | 0.8% | |
| 10 | Justin Ford | 793 | 0.6% | |
| 11 | Bethany Johnson | 635 | 0.5% | |
| 12 | Sam Polan | 528 | 0.4% | |
| 13 | Howard Rosenblum | 312 | 0.2% | |
| 14 | Nick Pyati | 241 | 0.2% | |
| 15 | Mark Fredrickson | 232 | 0.2% | |
| Total | 131,840 | 100.0% |
Commentary · The bottom line
Once you strip out the noise, the divide turns out to be a simple one: the pro-Israel lobby paid for Biss and Fine, and it paid nothing for Abughazaleh, Simmons, or Amiwala except what it spent to beat them. The fact that AIPAC spent against Biss doesn’t muddy that picture, because J Street, the lobby’s liberal wing, was the one bankrolling him. They were two pro-Israel lobbies standing on the same side of the line.
And then there’s that $105,000. By now you know what it was: money spent lifting a 4-percent candidate could only ever split the vote of the one who could win, and the same shell paid for both—the ad sinking Abughazaleh and the ad floating Amiwala. To her credit, Amiwala saw the trap for what it was and disavowed the ads—she was used, not complicit.
No one can prove the split is what changed the result, because votes don’t transfer like poker chips from one candidate to another. But that uncertainty isn’t a reason to shrug—it’s the reason to organize. The pro-Israel lobby’s whole strategy only works on a divided field: they fund their own candidate, fracture the opposition, and let the disclosure land too late to matter.
The answer to that isn’t a better-funded spoiler of our own. It’s a movement disciplined enough to put the mission ahead of any one candidate’s ambition—to coalesce before the vote rather than after the receipts come out.
Win that way, and the $105,000 trick simply stops working.
Now is the time for a real progressive takeover—and it will not happen if we keep letting liberal Zionists campaign under the banner of progressivism unchallenged. Now is the time to learn from the history of the Republican Party: a disciplined faction can take a party over. But where their takeover ran on extremism, the movement already underway on our side is advocating positions that are not even that radical. Medicare for All is not radical. Housing First is not radical. Babies not bombs is not radical. Ironically, it’s more America First than MAGA ever was.