I say good on Baraka and Fulop. I'm relieved they spoke up because no one else has been fact-checking Sherrill or Gottheimer and they are both absolutely full of it. They keep lying and manipulating things and doing the classic political double talk, while the Democratic Party actively suppresses our primaries here (I mean has anyone else been getting news about the fact that there are MULTIPLE things on the ballot we'll be voting on in June? Because as someone who's been heavily involved in looking into this election as well as the problems with the election coverage, I have not found a single thing mentioning any other seats that will be on the ballot)
The Party is trying to suppress knowledge of our primary because they know the other four candidates are not taking dark money (AIPAC might even lend a hand to boost those two since they heavily endorse both Sherrill and Gottheimer) and that our primaries have such abysmal turnout numbers while simultaneously making it very difficult to find information on candidates, which is a beautiful combination that means that a lot of voters simply go by name recognition and THAT gives a massive advantage to the two names from Congress that people have the opportunity to know about and to have heard about before this election.
Trans folks, migrants, our environment all face an existential crisis with Gottheimer or Sherrill in the Governor's seat.
I think it's crucial to point out that people who can be bought, people who are so heavily backed by corporate money, especially those who refuse to actually commit to really simple positions on incredibly vital topics, are INCREDIBLY dangerous and cannot be trusted, even if they appear to have a fine record thus far, particularly if they do have suspicious votes or decisions recently and when the main adversary they will need to face is a ruthless tyrant who we've seen so many bow down to (these two included, obeying in advance, with Sherrill's excuse supposedly being that she was coming from a position of fear, anticipating what might come if she didn't support it - though this concern for the trans community clearly being false anyway given her subsequent behaviors in this race, even advocating for a don't say trans type approach and clearly demonstrating a lack of self education on the subject to even get comfortable talking about it properly)
They also seemed to have missed the fact that there are crypto groups heavily invested in Gottheimer and they've both been against recent regulatory legislation. Or, as or possibly more important, the fact that Sherrill has taken tens of thousands of dollars from Health industry groups (since the cost of medical expenses is a massive topic of this campaign season, I'm surprised it hasn't come up)
Here, on the ground, in Bloomfield, the machine is an not an abstraction nor it is a label. Mikie Sherrill can try to deflect and bey coy, but the Essex County Convention showed anyone who would look who is the machine candidate.
She KNOWS she's the machine. That's why she was chosen. The party said so back in 2021 that they were going to select centrist candidates
At the start of this/in winter they thought Gottheimer was going to be their champion and were surprised about Sherrill (though that shock infuriates me because it shows that if they were that far off about the two of them, they really should not be trying to assume they know what voters want)
Baraka took a sideswipe at Fulop yesterday, too, along with the whole party. I don’t t know if Black/brown voters would come out for any of the white candidates, but I also don’t know if white voters would come out for Baraka or Spiller, either, in November. I hope NJ isn’t that tribal.
I will say that Fulop kind of shows his lack of full awareness in two pretty significant oversights when it comes to his whiteness/the context of his actions:
1) considering he markets his decision to enlist after 9/11 (and his Jewish heritage), it could probably be perceived that he might have become Islamophobic as a result of his time there. I say this because we know white supremacy and Christian nationalism runs rampant throughout our military as it is, but also that many of soldiers who were deployed following 9/11 wound up becoming Islamophobic as a direct result of what they were involved in. We also know we have this massive problem right now where international students or former students are being abducted and targeted because they spoke up for Palestinians against the genocide and, unfortunately, such opinions have wrongfully been labeled Antisemitism. The first incidents of this happening occurred right here in NJ. Fulop talking about his service but not actually making sure to clarify where he stands on Muslims, the targeting of these pro-Palestine protestors, or ideally the conflict at all while being heavy handed with that 9/11 service shows his clear oversight, the classic white man oversight of how people could take this or what they could be concerned about.
2) I lived in Jersey City in the time he's been mayor. What happened was JC became the overflow lot of the Lower East side of Manhattan, the rich bougies people who ran out of space or couldn't afford the city anymore. What did that mean? Well in the years I lived there, it definitely didn't mean anything good for the impoverished neighborhood I lived in. What happened was developers went into part of the city which I guess drove people out of there (there definitely wasn't any affordable housing and the housing that was there became too expensive for the people who already lived there), but what also happened was it seemed to force unhoused people that were previously living in the area, more spread out in the city so they had a bit of privacy and security and corralled them all towards areas like mine (where slumlords were already taking advantage of people and able to capitalize on there being less housing in the city with the developments going up). Well that then meant that these folks who were previously able to have a bit of dignity with some privacy and security, unbothered by each other, were now crowded on top of each other. Less safe people and people who had serious problems pushed into the area so those people who were there before felt much more uneasy. It didn't feel safe to walk down that road at certain times as a resident anymore, either, though...and there was a school right next to my building, which concerned me even more because some of those disturbed folks ultimately chose to stay there throughout the day (didn't start out that way).
Now maybe they addressed this problem soon after (in an appropriate way) and Fulop managed to pick up on this issue; maybe it was an isolated incident or unrelated to his work. Maybe this was a mistake he quickly learned from and came up with a better approach ever since...maybe. The problem is that it's pretty much what you expect from a white dude trying to address the housing crisis in an impoverished city that has historically been made up of people of color, a gentrifier classic, really.
Moving into a place like Jersey City in your adulthood and trying to wear it like a badge of proof of being one of the people, one who has been a part of the struggle, living it first hand is just the typical white ally trope.
I'm not saying he's a phony or that he wouldn't do great things for the state, I'm not even saying I would be upset if he won the primary in June. I'm just saying that Fulop, at the end of the day, IS still a cisgender white man and there are some oversights there that his CURRENT campaign are making and which. yes. understandably will make Black/Brown voters see him as just more of the same
white voters would definitely come out for Baraka or Spiller because it's not necessarily about that for them (or because so many people experience some form of discrimination, it's easier to trust that, as Black men, they'd actually know to meet the urgency of the moment and would fight for what matters as opposed to those who are able to separate themselves from any marginalized group they may be aligning themselves with for campaign purposes/when they wish and can thus forget what it means to be a vulnerable individual in that moment and how crucial certain actions are - I say all this as a white woman who grew up in a wealthy neighborhood so, though not wealthy myself, this proximity afforded me many advantages in itself as did my race, obviously). Baraka and Spiller are fantastic, absolutely qualified candidates who will inspire voters who, at this moment, are feeling pretty hopeless, white people included.
Conversely, historically the majority of leadership of this state being white and, as you said, the growing disparity among race despite us being one of the most diverse states will absolutely make it so people (of any race) are going to see a white face on the ballot and figure it's just going to be more of the same because white people, particularly cisgender men, have not proven they are capable of being true allies at the end of the day because they simply are incapable of understanding how things need to be prioritized and are only really willing to go so far to do the work.
I would vote for Baraka or Spiller if they were the candidate, but I have serious concerns about both of them. Spiller has the whole whistleblower thing (https://newjerseymonitor.com/2025/04/25/montclair-health-benefits-matter-raises-questions-about-democrat-running-for-governor/ - this reads as at least a little biased to me but it was one of the easiest to find/more recent summaries). I don’t know how big of a deal the “scandal” itself is but harassing a whistleblower is an extremely bad look (and I would assume there was substance to the claims, because she was given a $1.25 million settlement).
On Baraka’s part, he’s already had the 2004 video with Louis Farrakhan resurface. Although that video itself doesn’t contain anything damning to my mind (based on the summaries I’ve read, tbf, I haven’t watched it in full), longstanding ties to and support of Farrakhan and/or the Nation of Islam give me pause and I’m sure would give a lot of voters pause. They both have a well-documented history of intense antisemitism and homophobia (I would assume there’s transphobia too but maybe I’m wrong 🤷). I don’t love using the ADL as a source, but this post from 2019 has a truly exhaustive list of quotes that are pretty awful and I cannot imagine any context that would make them better: https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/farrakhan-his-own-words
The most recent statement from Baraka I can find on this (https://www.wlsam.com/2025/04/01/n-j-gov-candidate-baraka-defends-nation-of-islam/) doesn’t cut it IMO. He doesn’t address any of the MANY legitimate issues with Farrakhan or NOI - he merely says that the accusations (presumably of antisemitism, since the longstanding association/support is well documented) are false. I think it would be extremely fair for this to give a lot of people pause when it comes to voting for Baraka and I also think the GOP would have an absolute field day with it.
I understand your concerns, but I'm a bit iffy on them, though I'm only learning of these things for the first time now. I'm not quite sure about the whistleblower scandal either, it feels a bit thin and honestly seems like they might be trying to kick up dust about nothing because the way the writer went about that just did not feel evidence based to me (should have at least thrown in comparisons of what salaries we should expect, for example, to see from mayors, things like that to demonstrate a baseline but he gives no context, just talks about someone who is guilty and then seems to work very hard to make it sound like it connects to Spiller directly - the line in there even said, "among other crimes," which could mean there's more to the Byron story than the author is saying). It kind of felt like he was just throwing out a bunch of random information to make it sound like it was something, hoping something lands because he wasn't quite sure but FEELS like there's something there as opposed to there definitively being a scandal based on what he's shown. I mean there's just a lot about this that seems off to me. I'm not saying he didn't do something wrong, I'm just saying I'm not quite sure about this story so I wouldn't want to make any judgements just yet.
The initial link I shared was just the easiest one to find. I am not particularly concerned about Spiller's salary, and I don't even know that the initial scandal was that big of a deal (again, I have zero context for that and for the wider impact of it, although the more I read the worse it looks). But pleading the fifth 400 times over the course of one deposition, doing your best to keep everything about the case out of the public eye, and the town having to pay out $1.25 million due to a (presumably credible, otherwise I wouldn't think they would have settled) retaliation case is all very bad. And if this is what I could find with 10-15 minutes of googling, I would imagine that someone doing serious political opposition research could easily put together a pretty damning case against him.
As far as Baraka goes, the guy quoted in that article and the group he's a part of is actually a part of an AIPAC coalition, the quotes were taken from a NY Post article, and the bottom of that article actually says Newsmax, and especially since we know the two big names in the race on the Democratic ticket are endorsed by AIPAC, I'm not too sure how much credence we should give any of that. What's more, on the actual influencing voters side, the fact that AIPAC DOES appear to have some connection to the smear campaign and the fact that claiming Antisemitism is what the federal government is using to attack people's free speech and right to protest, it might not actually be too difficult to pivot in terms of voter optics. Even that article though says he does actually explain what his support of the Nation of Islam was about: “The Nation of Islam holds deep respect in many parts of the Black community because of the work they’ve done to reduce violence and support self-determination in neighborhoods that have been ignored and abandoned for generations.” Baraka has a history of doing a lot of good for the LGBTQ+ community and is very outspoken about it so, if anything, this proves he has no allegiance to any pushing such rhetoric. To be clear, I do not take Antisemitism lightly and I do not believe it should be politicized or weaponized. I think, however, that might be exactly what OTHERS may be trying to do to Baraka in this case. Baraka did seem to answer questions about it, though in that article from what I saw, but admittedly I haven't had a chance to do a deep dive on this yet and am not quite sure what questions you're saying he didn't answer.
I think it's entirely fair to have concerns about AIPAC, but IMO that does not justify dismissing this. The Nation of Islam *does* have a lot of undeniably bigoted rhetoric (including that Jews created the transatlantic slave trade, along with the Second KKK, and that Jews are conspiring with the government to turn Black men gay to lower the Black population - https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/nation-islam/ ) and Farrakhan has gone on record saying a LOT of absolutely heinous things, ex:
“Pedophilia and sexual perversion institutionalized in Hollywood and the entertainment industries can be traced to Talmudic principles and Jewish influence. Not Jewish influence, Satanic influence under the name of Jew.” – Louis Farrakhan, Saviours’ Day speech, Chicago, Feb. 17, 2019, source SPLC: https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/louis-farrakhan/
“The Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out: turning men into women, and women into men.” — Saviours’ Day speech, 2/25/18 (via the ADL link already referenced above, as are most of the others)
“To my Jewish friends, I shouldn’t use the word ‘friends’ so lightly, you have been a great and master deceiver, but God is going to pull the covers all off of you.” — Saviours’ Day speech (part 2), 2/26/17
“He [Elijah Muhammad] came to save us from the sins of white people that have been imposed on us since we have been under their rule. We didn’t have homosexuality in Africa, that’s not our tradition.” — 23rd Anniversary of the Million Man March/Holy Day of Atonement, 10/14/18
What I was saying is that I do not think he has adequately addressed the concerns around antisemitism, which is an opinion I still hold after reading more of his statement to Jewish Insider (https://archive.ph/jCxFT). Saying that NOI has done good things and that you won't apologize for fighting for equality is, IMO, inadequate and sidestepping the issue, when he was asked why he clearly has an ongoing relationship with and admiration for someone who has said things as awful as what Farrakhan has said (and not just once, but on the record, consistently, over the course of decades).
It also feels very weird to say, "These latest accusations and insinuations aren’t just false — they’re a reflection of the fear my candidacy is provoking in the political establishment." in response to these concerns being raised. I would assume the intention is to say that the "latest accusations" being referenced are accusations of antisemitism. He can say that that's false, but the fact that he has clear and strong connections to NOI and Farrakhan isn't false and the response feels like another sidestep to me.
Again, I am not saying all of this because I personally dislike Baraka. I am not voting for him in the primary, but I would vote for him if he was the Dem candidate come November. I am saying all this because I think these are:
1. Very fair concerns to have and dismissing them as AIPAC propaganda is a mistake on multiple fronts
2. Issues that would be ludicrously easy to run a smear campaign around, not least because there are some genuinely legitimate concerns mixed in with the "omg Farrakhan said you should punch a cracker and Baraka was clapping" BS
I just now remembered reading something about his wife and double checked that, and it is also not a good look:
I say good on Baraka and Fulop. I'm relieved they spoke up because no one else has been fact-checking Sherrill or Gottheimer and they are both absolutely full of it. They keep lying and manipulating things and doing the classic political double talk, while the Democratic Party actively suppresses our primaries here (I mean has anyone else been getting news about the fact that there are MULTIPLE things on the ballot we'll be voting on in June? Because as someone who's been heavily involved in looking into this election as well as the problems with the election coverage, I have not found a single thing mentioning any other seats that will be on the ballot)
The Party is trying to suppress knowledge of our primary because they know the other four candidates are not taking dark money (AIPAC might even lend a hand to boost those two since they heavily endorse both Sherrill and Gottheimer) and that our primaries have such abysmal turnout numbers while simultaneously making it very difficult to find information on candidates, which is a beautiful combination that means that a lot of voters simply go by name recognition and THAT gives a massive advantage to the two names from Congress that people have the opportunity to know about and to have heard about before this election.
Trans folks, migrants, our environment all face an existential crisis with Gottheimer or Sherrill in the Governor's seat.
I think it's crucial to point out that people who can be bought, people who are so heavily backed by corporate money, especially those who refuse to actually commit to really simple positions on incredibly vital topics, are INCREDIBLY dangerous and cannot be trusted, even if they appear to have a fine record thus far, particularly if they do have suspicious votes or decisions recently and when the main adversary they will need to face is a ruthless tyrant who we've seen so many bow down to (these two included, obeying in advance, with Sherrill's excuse supposedly being that she was coming from a position of fear, anticipating what might come if she didn't support it - though this concern for the trans community clearly being false anyway given her subsequent behaviors in this race, even advocating for a don't say trans type approach and clearly demonstrating a lack of self education on the subject to even get comfortable talking about it properly)
They also seemed to have missed the fact that there are crypto groups heavily invested in Gottheimer and they've both been against recent regulatory legislation. Or, as or possibly more important, the fact that Sherrill has taken tens of thousands of dollars from Health industry groups (since the cost of medical expenses is a massive topic of this campaign season, I'm surprised it hasn't come up)
Here, on the ground, in Bloomfield, the machine is an not an abstraction nor it is a label. Mikie Sherrill can try to deflect and bey coy, but the Essex County Convention showed anyone who would look who is the machine candidate.
The machine is chugging along, even without the “line.” Still lots of money and influence.
exactly
She KNOWS she's the machine. That's why she was chosen. The party said so back in 2021 that they were going to select centrist candidates
At the start of this/in winter they thought Gottheimer was going to be their champion and were surprised about Sherrill (though that shock infuriates me because it shows that if they were that far off about the two of them, they really should not be trying to assume they know what voters want)
Perhaps you might consider a follow-up looking at Fulop's Super PAC money. Let's scrutinize all candidates equally.
We’re doing that will all the candidates.
Would black/brown voters come out for Fulop?
Baraka took a sideswipe at Fulop yesterday, too, along with the whole party. I don’t t know if Black/brown voters would come out for any of the white candidates, but I also don’t know if white voters would come out for Baraka or Spiller, either, in November. I hope NJ isn’t that tribal.
I will say that Fulop kind of shows his lack of full awareness in two pretty significant oversights when it comes to his whiteness/the context of his actions:
1) considering he markets his decision to enlist after 9/11 (and his Jewish heritage), it could probably be perceived that he might have become Islamophobic as a result of his time there. I say this because we know white supremacy and Christian nationalism runs rampant throughout our military as it is, but also that many of soldiers who were deployed following 9/11 wound up becoming Islamophobic as a direct result of what they were involved in. We also know we have this massive problem right now where international students or former students are being abducted and targeted because they spoke up for Palestinians against the genocide and, unfortunately, such opinions have wrongfully been labeled Antisemitism. The first incidents of this happening occurred right here in NJ. Fulop talking about his service but not actually making sure to clarify where he stands on Muslims, the targeting of these pro-Palestine protestors, or ideally the conflict at all while being heavy handed with that 9/11 service shows his clear oversight, the classic white man oversight of how people could take this or what they could be concerned about.
2) I lived in Jersey City in the time he's been mayor. What happened was JC became the overflow lot of the Lower East side of Manhattan, the rich bougies people who ran out of space or couldn't afford the city anymore. What did that mean? Well in the years I lived there, it definitely didn't mean anything good for the impoverished neighborhood I lived in. What happened was developers went into part of the city which I guess drove people out of there (there definitely wasn't any affordable housing and the housing that was there became too expensive for the people who already lived there), but what also happened was it seemed to force unhoused people that were previously living in the area, more spread out in the city so they had a bit of privacy and security and corralled them all towards areas like mine (where slumlords were already taking advantage of people and able to capitalize on there being less housing in the city with the developments going up). Well that then meant that these folks who were previously able to have a bit of dignity with some privacy and security, unbothered by each other, were now crowded on top of each other. Less safe people and people who had serious problems pushed into the area so those people who were there before felt much more uneasy. It didn't feel safe to walk down that road at certain times as a resident anymore, either, though...and there was a school right next to my building, which concerned me even more because some of those disturbed folks ultimately chose to stay there throughout the day (didn't start out that way).
Now maybe they addressed this problem soon after (in an appropriate way) and Fulop managed to pick up on this issue; maybe it was an isolated incident or unrelated to his work. Maybe this was a mistake he quickly learned from and came up with a better approach ever since...maybe. The problem is that it's pretty much what you expect from a white dude trying to address the housing crisis in an impoverished city that has historically been made up of people of color, a gentrifier classic, really.
Moving into a place like Jersey City in your adulthood and trying to wear it like a badge of proof of being one of the people, one who has been a part of the struggle, living it first hand is just the typical white ally trope.
I'm not saying he's a phony or that he wouldn't do great things for the state, I'm not even saying I would be upset if he won the primary in June. I'm just saying that Fulop, at the end of the day, IS still a cisgender white man and there are some oversights there that his CURRENT campaign are making and which. yes. understandably will make Black/Brown voters see him as just more of the same
white voters would definitely come out for Baraka or Spiller because it's not necessarily about that for them (or because so many people experience some form of discrimination, it's easier to trust that, as Black men, they'd actually know to meet the urgency of the moment and would fight for what matters as opposed to those who are able to separate themselves from any marginalized group they may be aligning themselves with for campaign purposes/when they wish and can thus forget what it means to be a vulnerable individual in that moment and how crucial certain actions are - I say all this as a white woman who grew up in a wealthy neighborhood so, though not wealthy myself, this proximity afforded me many advantages in itself as did my race, obviously). Baraka and Spiller are fantastic, absolutely qualified candidates who will inspire voters who, at this moment, are feeling pretty hopeless, white people included.
Conversely, historically the majority of leadership of this state being white and, as you said, the growing disparity among race despite us being one of the most diverse states will absolutely make it so people (of any race) are going to see a white face on the ballot and figure it's just going to be more of the same because white people, particularly cisgender men, have not proven they are capable of being true allies at the end of the day because they simply are incapable of understanding how things need to be prioritized and are only really willing to go so far to do the work.
I would vote for Baraka or Spiller if they were the candidate, but I have serious concerns about both of them. Spiller has the whole whistleblower thing (https://newjerseymonitor.com/2025/04/25/montclair-health-benefits-matter-raises-questions-about-democrat-running-for-governor/ - this reads as at least a little biased to me but it was one of the easiest to find/more recent summaries). I don’t know how big of a deal the “scandal” itself is but harassing a whistleblower is an extremely bad look (and I would assume there was substance to the claims, because she was given a $1.25 million settlement).
On Baraka’s part, he’s already had the 2004 video with Louis Farrakhan resurface. Although that video itself doesn’t contain anything damning to my mind (based on the summaries I’ve read, tbf, I haven’t watched it in full), longstanding ties to and support of Farrakhan and/or the Nation of Islam give me pause and I’m sure would give a lot of voters pause. They both have a well-documented history of intense antisemitism and homophobia (I would assume there’s transphobia too but maybe I’m wrong 🤷). I don’t love using the ADL as a source, but this post from 2019 has a truly exhaustive list of quotes that are pretty awful and I cannot imagine any context that would make them better: https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/farrakhan-his-own-words
The most recent statement from Baraka I can find on this (https://www.wlsam.com/2025/04/01/n-j-gov-candidate-baraka-defends-nation-of-islam/) doesn’t cut it IMO. He doesn’t address any of the MANY legitimate issues with Farrakhan or NOI - he merely says that the accusations (presumably of antisemitism, since the longstanding association/support is well documented) are false. I think it would be extremely fair for this to give a lot of people pause when it comes to voting for Baraka and I also think the GOP would have an absolute field day with it.
I understand your concerns, but I'm a bit iffy on them, though I'm only learning of these things for the first time now. I'm not quite sure about the whistleblower scandal either, it feels a bit thin and honestly seems like they might be trying to kick up dust about nothing because the way the writer went about that just did not feel evidence based to me (should have at least thrown in comparisons of what salaries we should expect, for example, to see from mayors, things like that to demonstrate a baseline but he gives no context, just talks about someone who is guilty and then seems to work very hard to make it sound like it connects to Spiller directly - the line in there even said, "among other crimes," which could mean there's more to the Byron story than the author is saying). It kind of felt like he was just throwing out a bunch of random information to make it sound like it was something, hoping something lands because he wasn't quite sure but FEELS like there's something there as opposed to there definitively being a scandal based on what he's shown. I mean there's just a lot about this that seems off to me. I'm not saying he didn't do something wrong, I'm just saying I'm not quite sure about this story so I wouldn't want to make any judgements just yet.
The case is very easy to find other sources on, though:
https://montclairlocal.news/2024/10/ag-office-ongoing-investigation-into-montclair-puts-spiller-in-spotlight/
https://montclairlocal.news/2024/05/township-settles-cfo-whistleblower-suit-for-1250000/
https://montclairlocal.news/2024/01/spiller-plead-the-fifth-township-seeks-to-keep-transcript-confidential/ (this one has a lot of specific details that look really bad IMO)
https://montclairlocal.news/2024/04/montclair-resident-blasts-spiller-gets-a-subpoena/ (this also looks really bad)
The initial link I shared was just the easiest one to find. I am not particularly concerned about Spiller's salary, and I don't even know that the initial scandal was that big of a deal (again, I have zero context for that and for the wider impact of it, although the more I read the worse it looks). But pleading the fifth 400 times over the course of one deposition, doing your best to keep everything about the case out of the public eye, and the town having to pay out $1.25 million due to a (presumably credible, otherwise I wouldn't think they would have settled) retaliation case is all very bad. And if this is what I could find with 10-15 minutes of googling, I would imagine that someone doing serious political opposition research could easily put together a pretty damning case against him.
Like, obviously this source really hates the NJEA, so it's not exactly unbiased, but this is practically a hit ad presented on a platter: https://sunlightpolicynj.org/legal-woes-dont-stop-njea-president-sean-spiller-from-spending-teachers-dues-on-his-personal-political-career/
As far as Baraka goes, the guy quoted in that article and the group he's a part of is actually a part of an AIPAC coalition, the quotes were taken from a NY Post article, and the bottom of that article actually says Newsmax, and especially since we know the two big names in the race on the Democratic ticket are endorsed by AIPAC, I'm not too sure how much credence we should give any of that. What's more, on the actual influencing voters side, the fact that AIPAC DOES appear to have some connection to the smear campaign and the fact that claiming Antisemitism is what the federal government is using to attack people's free speech and right to protest, it might not actually be too difficult to pivot in terms of voter optics. Even that article though says he does actually explain what his support of the Nation of Islam was about: “The Nation of Islam holds deep respect in many parts of the Black community because of the work they’ve done to reduce violence and support self-determination in neighborhoods that have been ignored and abandoned for generations.” Baraka has a history of doing a lot of good for the LGBTQ+ community and is very outspoken about it so, if anything, this proves he has no allegiance to any pushing such rhetoric. To be clear, I do not take Antisemitism lightly and I do not believe it should be politicized or weaponized. I think, however, that might be exactly what OTHERS may be trying to do to Baraka in this case. Baraka did seem to answer questions about it, though in that article from what I saw, but admittedly I haven't had a chance to do a deep dive on this yet and am not quite sure what questions you're saying he didn't answer.
I think it's entirely fair to have concerns about AIPAC, but IMO that does not justify dismissing this. The Nation of Islam *does* have a lot of undeniably bigoted rhetoric (including that Jews created the transatlantic slave trade, along with the Second KKK, and that Jews are conspiring with the government to turn Black men gay to lower the Black population - https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/nation-islam/ ) and Farrakhan has gone on record saying a LOT of absolutely heinous things, ex:
“Pedophilia and sexual perversion institutionalized in Hollywood and the entertainment industries can be traced to Talmudic principles and Jewish influence. Not Jewish influence, Satanic influence under the name of Jew.” – Louis Farrakhan, Saviours’ Day speech, Chicago, Feb. 17, 2019, source SPLC: https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/louis-farrakhan/
“The Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out: turning men into women, and women into men.” — Saviours’ Day speech, 2/25/18 (via the ADL link already referenced above, as are most of the others)
“To my Jewish friends, I shouldn’t use the word ‘friends’ so lightly, you have been a great and master deceiver, but God is going to pull the covers all off of you.” — Saviours’ Day speech (part 2), 2/26/17
“He [Elijah Muhammad] came to save us from the sins of white people that have been imposed on us since we have been under their rule. We didn’t have homosexuality in Africa, that’s not our tradition.” — 23rd Anniversary of the Million Man March/Holy Day of Atonement, 10/14/18
“[America has] become the dwelling place of devils…You can go in any city, you see them walk in the street — boys with boys, girls with girls, men with men, women with women — and they say they’re happy. The country has become a cesspool.” - Feb 2023, https://www.adl.org/resources/article/farrakhan-predicts-another-holocaust-espouses-antisemitism-and-bigotry-saviours
...and those quotes are with me limiting the search to only things after 2017. He has literally called Hitler "a great man" more than once (https://www.nytimes.com/1984/07/17/us/farrakhan-again-describes-hitler-as-a-very-great-man.html).
Baraka's association with Farrakhan specifically has gone on to at least 2018 (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/top-democratic-candidate-caught-on-camera-applauding-radical-call-for-violence-against-whites/articleshow/119662633.cms). Saying that the Nation of Islam has done great things for some Black communities reads as disingenuous to me, when you're refusing to acknowledge the fact that it has actively done harm to other people, including Black LGBTQ+ people and Black Jews — both groups who are often left out of these conversations.
What I was saying is that I do not think he has adequately addressed the concerns around antisemitism, which is an opinion I still hold after reading more of his statement to Jewish Insider (https://archive.ph/jCxFT). Saying that NOI has done good things and that you won't apologize for fighting for equality is, IMO, inadequate and sidestepping the issue, when he was asked why he clearly has an ongoing relationship with and admiration for someone who has said things as awful as what Farrakhan has said (and not just once, but on the record, consistently, over the course of decades).
It also feels very weird to say, "These latest accusations and insinuations aren’t just false — they’re a reflection of the fear my candidacy is provoking in the political establishment." in response to these concerns being raised. I would assume the intention is to say that the "latest accusations" being referenced are accusations of antisemitism. He can say that that's false, but the fact that he has clear and strong connections to NOI and Farrakhan isn't false and the response feels like another sidestep to me.
Again, I am not saying all of this because I personally dislike Baraka. I am not voting for him in the primary, but I would vote for him if he was the Dem candidate come November. I am saying all this because I think these are:
1. Very fair concerns to have and dismissing them as AIPAC propaganda is a mistake on multiple fronts
2. Issues that would be ludicrously easy to run a smear campaign around, not least because there are some genuinely legitimate concerns mixed in with the "omg Farrakhan said you should punch a cracker and Baraka was clapping" BS
I just now remembered reading something about his wife and double checked that, and it is also not a good look:
https://www.tapinto.net/towns/newark/sections/government/articles/linda-jumah-sentenced-to-probation-home-confinem
https://www.nj.com/essex/2018/09/already_on_probation_mayors_live-in_girlfriend_ass.html
https://www.nj.com/essex/2019/07/newark-mayors-wife-who-was-caught-dodging-taxes-just-got-more-probation-time.html
The comment I'm the first graf of the article is misleading. A 17% lead in a six way race without ranked choice voting might be enough to win.
That’s iffy. But her 17% could be 12% next week. Everyone’s support is soft. It’s a wide open race. My guess is the winner will get ~30% or more.