Every day the world gets a little weirder and a lot more awesome. Cool Stuff Daily takes a look at everything from mining in space to the latest in the fight against cancer to how AI is basically changing everything. It's all the cool stuff you didn't know you needed to know. Join us for Cool Stuff Daily as we take a quick look at science, tech, and the wait what stories that make you sound way smarter at dinner. Subscribe to Cool Stuff Daily now because the future is happening fast and it's way too fun to miss. Hey, I'm Josh Spiegel, host of the podcast Lunatic in the newsroom. If you enjoy journalism that drifts into mild panic, wild overthinking, and a guaranteed nervous breakdown, Lunatic in the newsroom is for you. It's news like you've never heard before. The only newsroom with a panic button, you'll laugh, you'll cry, and gasp in horror as the show spirals completely out of control. It's not just news, it's emotionally unstable. Lunatic in the newsroom. Listen today. Hey guys, it's Lauren Egan here at the Bulwark. Earlier this month, Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss won a crowded Democratic primary in Illinois' 9th congressional district, and he did this despite the fact that APAC spent millions of dollars in this race, some of that targeted at him. Since his win, progressives have said that Biss could be the anti-APAC template for the party going forward. Mayor Biss is here with us today. He's going to walk us through this template and how he won this primary. Thank you so much for joining us. I really appreciate it. Thanks, Lauren. I'm really looking forward to it. For those that didn't follow this primary race closely, can you give us a quick recap? Walk us through APAC's involvement over this race. Yeah, so I'll try to condense this. It was a wild experience, 15 candidate primary. And basically, since a late summer early fall, it became clear that APAC had a candidate in this race. I was clear that I was not prepared to sign on to no strings attached blank check of military aid to Israel. That's their litmus test. And so they went all in for another candidate. That started with raising money, sending fundraising emails, eventually traveling around the country with that candidate to raise funds directly into her campaign fund. But then as we got closer to the election, they set up a shell super PAC, a brand new super PAC with a benign name. It was called Elect Chicago Women. And that super PAC started spending millions both to prop up their preferred candidate and then eventually to attack me. All told, it seems like they spent something in excess of $7 million in the campaign. So basically, it dwarfed the amount of money that everybody else was able to spend. But we made a decision pretty early on that we were going to make this the issue. We were going to lay the groundwork to explain what APAC was doing, who they were, so to say, hey, this is money from APAC and Trump donors, because there's a lot of Trump donor money mixed up and all that. Second, why they were doing it, they were doing this because they want to install a person who would sign off on a blank check of no strings attached military aid to the Netanyahu government, no matter what they do in Gaza or the West Bank. And then number three, critically to say, hey, listen, they're trying to hide this from you. They're lying to you about it. And the reason is they know that you're not going to like it if you find out. And so here are the steps they're taking to shelter and mask and hide the money and essentially mislead the voters. And all three of those stories together really helped make it the issue. And then amazingly, by the time Election Day came, their preferred candidate was a distant third. And my predominant opponent on Election Day, the person who came in close second, was someone who is actually much more anti-Israel than I am. I want to get into your campaign strategy, but first, I'm just curious what this felt like on a personal level for you. I know your mother is Israeli and you're the grandson of Holocaust survivors. So there's something that just a bit icky about APAC spending money against you in this way. Like, what was going through your mind and how did that feel? I appreciate the question. It felt awful. And part of it just felt awful because their attacks were really personal. And really, the implication was very much that I'm not supportive of the Jewish people. I don't care about anti-Semitism. I don't care about the security of the Jewish people, all of which is wrong and pretty insulting. But there's actually something deeper that like really hurt. You know, to me, the core of Judaism is like an intellectual open-mindedness of pluralism and appreciation of nuance and arguing back and forth and seeing others' points of view. And their approach was so hard-blind, so my way or the highway, so there cannot be nuance. So you may not recognize the humanity of the Palestinian people. You may not be interested in justice for the Palestinian people. It just somehow felt very un-Jewish to me. And to see that approach, that really hard-line, black-and-white approach be characterized wrongly as the voice of the Jewish people, wrongly, in my opinion, as best for the safety of the Jewish people, I don't know, it was very alienating and just gross, honestly. Did you ever bring that up with folks at APAC? I mean, I assume that they approached your campaign at some point early on. What were those early conversations like? Was there any room to have this kind of conversation? I mean, I assume no, given where things ended, but what was that like? We talked a lot early on. I actually became an issue in the campaign because I began the campaign with the goal of getting them to stay out. And I talked to them for that reason. And then much later in the campaign, I was criticized for how dare you even talk to them and so forth. On a moral level, I don't have any qualms about talking to them. I think my job as a hopeful future member of Congress is to talk to a lot of people I disagree with. I do think that strategically it was a dumb idea because they did not operate in good faith and that they just tried to weaponize the conversations against me. But I would just say that I took the position that, hey, guys, we're not going to agree on a lot of things, but at least I'll be somebody you can talk to. And they took the exact opposite position. This learn is really important. Their position was no Daniel, you're the most dangerous person possible. Because your Jewish identity, your connection to Israel, your background as a descendant of Holocaust survivors means we can't dismiss you. We can't when you disagree with us, we can't just say, oh, that's some knee jerk, anti-Israel or anti-Semitic person who can be dismissed. Instead, your arguments are going to have to be taken seriously. And the truth of the matter is I don't think that their position is defensible on the merits. The no strings attached, whatever BB wants, BB gets position is really hard to argue for. And so what they want to be able to do is to just ignore or dismiss or silence people who disagree with them. And they're not going to be able to do that with me. And I think that's part of why they spent so much money to crush me because they see someone like me as a more significant threat than someone who may disagree with them on more issues, but is more easily kind of marginalized. Scaling a business takes the right expertise at the right time. Upwork helps growing teams quickly bring in specialized freelancers so you can move faster and take the business to the next level. Upwork helps grow your business by giving you fast access to specialized talent across 125 categories. So you can fill skill gaps and launch projects faster and scale support up or down without committing to full time headcount. Upwork is a one stop platform to find higher and pay expert freelancers across web and software development, data and analytics, marketing business operations and much, much more. You can browse profiles, review past work and get help scoping the role so you can hire with confidence and get started quickly. With Business Plus, you can access the top 1% of talent on Upwork. And with AI powered shortlisting, you'll get matched to the right freelancer in under 6 hours. No endless searching required. It's free to sign up and posting a job is super easy. Visit Upwork.com right now to post your job for free. That's Upwork.com to connect with top talent ready to help your business grow. That's U-P-W-O-R-K.com. Upwork.com. That's fascinating because I've talked to some campaign strategists and Democratic operatives over the past couple of weeks who've basically said that they really worry about this dynamic and that if APAC doesn't allow for good faith debate, good faith disagreements, that it's just going to push people, voters, candidates into these more extreme positions and then all of a sudden we're going to end up with this more like a strain of anti-Semitism in the Democratic party that maybe wasn't there a couple of years ago. I'm curious what you think of that and if you feel like there is this risk of if you discredit honest good faith disagreements about the Israeli government, about Netanyahu, that you're just kind of inviting in some of this sort of more ugliness that could happen. I couldn't agree more. I often notice that there's a much broader discourse within Israel, including much more robust left-wing criticism of the horrors committed by this Israeli government than has really been allowed in this country and that's a huge problem. And by the way, anti-Semitism is a really serious problem, one that I take deeply seriously and very personally. And at the same time, there is plenty of disingenuous weaponization of fake anti-Semitism to silence political voices and achieve political objectives. And that is not only wrong, it's counterproductive. If you label someone who's not anti-Semitic but has a legitimate political disagreement with you as an anti-Semite, you're pushing them away and over time creating anti-Semites. And I would say that I really ran into this during the campaign where, yeah, you bet I criticized APEC. I called them out again and again and again and again and criticized them and was told frequently, oh, you're just trying to silence Jews or you're using coded anti-Semitic language. And not only is that untrue, but it's also, I was proud to be supported by J Street, another predominantly Jewish organization that has a different vision of what it means to be pro-Israel. And so the idea that I was trying to silence pro-Israel voices or marginalize Jewish voices in the political discourse is absurd. What I was doing is building a coalition of people who see the world the way I do, which by the way is the way most Jewish Americans see the world. So I want to get into the actual campaign strategy a little bit. So APEC starts spending money in this race. And then I read in the New York Times that you and your team decide to pull the district on their feelings towards APEC. And I think it's worth pointing out that your district is more than 10% Jewish and has had a Jewish representation for more than 60 years. So why did you guys decide to do this poll? And then what did you find out in this poll? So I don't want to be pedantic, but just for the sake of getting this exactly right, the order was the other way around. We pulled and made strategic decisions, knowing that APEC would likely spend later, but way before they spent a dime. So is this like summer? No, it's like fall, like late fall. Like maybe the very beginning of November, I think that's when we pulled and the election was in March. And we felt like it was likely that APEC was going to come for us and that we had to make an argument that was directly taking on where the money was coming from and why. And so well in advance, we tested APEC in our poll. I was not expecting them to be popular, but I was not so sure how well known they would be. And I was surprised to learn their name ID was very high. And they were toxically unpopular among those who knew them. And then starting then, not starting when APEC started spending against us, but starting way earlier, we just began laying the groundwork, putting out releases, laying markers, explaining to reporters, just saying, listen, this is coming. And as things got more and more intense, we started to basically take every opportunity we could to just point out what was going on. A poll comes out, we put out a statement saying, hey, APEC's mirror campaign is failing. A new campaign finance report comes out, we do immediate detailed analysis and research and put out data about where the money is coming from. There's new developments in foreign policy or tragically a war was started in Iran. We explained the connection between those decisions and the position that APEC has been taking. And so we just, we were totally relentless because we felt like we're going to be outspent by so much. We've got to make sure that voters understand what this is about. Otherwise, we're just going to get drowned out. Was that hard to do because this money stuff is so secretive? And that's obviously by design, it can be hard to follow some of the ads that they put out in these races aren't even about Israel to begin with, they're about ice or some other hot button issue. It can be confusing, I think, for voters to follow. So was there something that you found to be particularly effective or was it just kind of that relentless messaging that sunk in? First of all, I'll say that, yeah, you said something else really important I had mentioned. They never say a word about Israel or Palestine or foreign policy at all. They raise all this money for people who want to make sure the member of Congress is going to support no strings attached military aid, but then they use it to talk about anything but that. And then they do it through these shell organizations, so it's really hard to even trace it. And I would say that there were a few different things that worked. One was, again, just being unbelievably relentless, just talking about it again and again and again and again and using every opportunity that arose, even if it required some bank shots to continue talking about it. Another was that we, you know, there's no nice way to say this, but the fact that it was so cloak and dagger, the fact that it was so ambiguous, meant that my opponent who was benefiting from this support had to keep on explaining it. And I actually think she probably made a mistake to continue trying to hide it instead of just coming clean because the fact that was so mysterious became an interesting story. We also made a decision to spend money talking about it. We had it ran a TV ad that was about APAC and Trump donors and why they were supporting a candidate. And in a very, very limited resource environment, it's a tough call to use limited advertising space on that message that sounds sort of procedural or in the weeds or whatever, but we just felt that we had to explain what was happening because from the electorate standpoint, a candidate who had been pretty quiet for most of the campaign, all of a sudden is outspending everybody else three or four to one, and so it was more visible three or four to one. And we had to say, hey, I know your puzzle about why you're seeing all this. Here's where it's coming from. Here's why. Don't pay attention. As we get ahead, look ahead to 2028 and even just to this November, what lessons do you want the Democratic Party to learn from your primary? And how do you think that the National Party should be thinking about its relationship with APAC? Well, I think APAC is a really dangerous influence inside the Democratic Party. And I would say, like for example, I said earlier, I don't think that I did anything wrong by meeting with them, but it was a dumb idea. And I would recommend that candidates not meet with them because I don't think they could be trusted to operate in good faith. That's number one. Number two, I think the role that these super PACs, and I think AI is the same and crypto is the same, the fact that they are trying to play this outsized role in Democratic primaries by swapping the districts with money and then talking about anything but their issue, that is unbelievably dangerous. And I think we ought to renounce all of that activity across different issue areas. But I also think the only way for that to work within the citizens of the United environment is just to tell the truth and to do it relentlessly and to do it fearlessly and to do it over a long period of time. One thing about operating without as much money is you don't get to just swamp the district with money at the moment that you most want to. You've got to lay the groundwork. You've got to repeat your argument. You've got to continue explaining again and again and again. And I think what I would tell candidates is you are right now, if you're early in your campaign, you're hearing from advisors who are telling you that the only way you can get elected is if you get a PAC either on your side or at least get them to stay neutral. And they're asking you to twist yourself up into completely incoherent pretzels to say enough of what they want to hear to get the target off of your back. And I would say just don't play that game. Understand what might be coming if you don't play that game. Don't be naive. But then be yourself. Explain to your constituents what you stand for. And I'm guessing if it's not where a PAC is, it's probably where your constituents are on this issue right now. And then prepare your constituents for the fact that because you are standing tall for your values and their values, out of state money is likely to come and attack you and make sure your constituents are ready to interpret that correctly when it happens. Well, Mayor Biss, congrats on the win. And I really appreciate you coming on the Bull Work and explaining this to all of us. Obviously, a PAC, the conversation around it and its influence is not going anywhere anytime soon. So I appreciate you being here and stay in touch. Thanks so much. Really appreciate it.
