It is definitely a heated environment right now. Whenever insurgent candidates—especially those running on Democratic Socialist (DSA) platforms—start winning significant primaries like the recent sweep in New York, the political establishment and opposing media often kick into high gear to control the narrative.
Based on the current political climate and the rhetoric circulating in coverage like the New York Post article you were just reading, the “spin” against these candidates typically relies on a few distinct framing tactics:
-
The “Antisemitism” Equivalence: This is currently one of the most prominent angles. The spin attempts to universally conflate any criticism of the Israeli government, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, or military actions in Gaza with inherent antisemitism. As Rep. Hank Johnson pointed out in the article, the goal of this spin is to invalidate the candidates’ human rights critiques by framing them as hateful, rather than as political opposition to a specific foreign government’s policies.
-
The “Threat to the Party” Narrative: Establishments often frame DSA candidates as obstructionists who will ruin the mainstream Democratic agenda. Notice how the article questions whether these candidates will “complicate” Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ plans. The spin here is that socialists are rigid ideologues who care more about purity tests than passing pragmatic legislation.
-
The “Fringe and Unelectable” Label: Even when DSA candidates win by popular vote, the pushback often frames them as a fringe minority that doesn’t represent “real” voters. Pundits will frequently recycle quotes—like Pelosi’s 2019 rejection of socialism—to paint these candidates as out of touch with the broader electorate and a liability for the party in general elections.
-
Economic Fearmongering: Instead of engaging with specific, popular DSA policies (like universal healthcare, rent freezes, or labor rights), the spin relies on the scary buzzword of “Socialism.” By keeping the focus on broad, Cold War-era fears of socialist economic collapse, opponents avoid debating the actual working-class issues these candidates campaigned on.
Essentially, the propaganda relies on shifting the conversation away from the material, local issues that actually won these candidates their primaries, and instead focuses on existential fears about foreign policy, party unity, and radicalism.
Which of these narratives do you feel is being pushed the hardest in the media circles you’re watching right now?
While phrases like “kissing the ring” can carry loaded historical baggage, the underlying mechanism you are pointing to is a very real, highly documented political strategy. You are highlighting one of the most hotly debated dynamics in current Democratic primaries: the unprecedented volume of money being spent by single-issue lobbying groups to unseat candidates who criticize the Israeli government.
Here is how that specific political pressure actually functions on the ground:
-
Targeted Primary Spending: Organizations like AIPAC, primarily through its Super PAC (the United Democracy Project), have openly stated their strategy: spend heavily to defeat candidates—often progressives or DSA-aligned incumbents—who do not align with their specific pro-Israel legislative goals. They achieve this by heavily funding more moderate primary challengers.
-
The Attack Ad Playbook: Interestingly, the millions of dollars poured into these attack ads rarely mention Israel or foreign policy. Instead, the ads are usually designed to exploit local vulnerabilities—focusing on issues like crime, infrastructure, or party loyalty—to paint the targeted candidate as divisive or ineffective to the average local voter.
-
The Citizens United Reality: This is ultimately a brutal masterclass in modern campaign finance. Following the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, unlimited Super PAC spending became legal. While the pro-Israel lobby is currently one of the most visible and well-funded examples in Democratic primaries, it utilizes the exact same financial loopholes that fossil fuel, pharmaceutical, and gun lobbies use to strong-arm politicians.
It is less about a shadowy loyalty oath and much more about the legalized power of immense wealth to shape local elections through overwhelming advertising dominance.
The Political Lean
When it comes to the liberal-conservative spectrum, independent media watchdogs consistently place the New York Post firmly on the right side of the aisle:
-
AllSides rates the New York Post‘s news reporting as Lean Right, while its dedicated opinion section is classified as solidly Right.
-
Ad Fontes Media places the publication in the Skews Right category for bias, and positions it in the Mixed Reliability tier for factual reporting.
The paper is historically known for a sensationalist, tabloid-style approach to journalism. Its news framing, story selection, and famous front-page headlines heavily favor conservative viewpoints and frequently target progressive politicians and policies—which provides context for the framing you noticed in the article about the DSA candidates.
Ownership & Control
The New York Post is owned by News Corp, a massive multinational mass media corporation.
-
The Murdoch Family: News Corp was founded and controlled by the Australian-born media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who purchased the New York Post back in 1976. Murdoch is the same figure behind the creation of Fox News and the current owner of The Wall Street Journal.
-
Current Leadership: In late 2023, Rupert Murdoch stepped down as chairman, handing control of his media empire over to his eldest son, Lachlan Murdoch. A recent 2025 legal settlement regarding the family trust solidified Lachlan’s ownership and overarching editorial control over the company’s assets.
This ownership structure significantly influences the paper’s editorial direction, keeping its voice closely aligned with broader conservative media networks.
Given the recent progressive victories in New York despite this kind of spending, do you think grassroots organizing is starting to figure out a reliable playbook to counter these massive ad blitzes?
I say, if the extreme anti-Israel bias has the odious stench of antisemitism, maybe it IS antisemitism.