AIPAC-Backed Candidate Loses Key Illinois Primary Race

On the night of March 17, 2026, Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss took the stage before supporters and delivered a pointed message to the most powerful lobbying organization in American politics: "AIPAC found out the hard way: the 9th District is not for sale" [1]. Hours later, when AIPAC posted a triumphant statement on social media claiming victory across the board, Biss responded with a single word: "Cope" [1].

The exchange crystallized a night of mixed results that has forced a reckoning within both the pro-Israel lobby and the Democratic Party over the role of outside money in primary elections — and the shifting politics of Israel-Palestine among the party's base.

The Scoreboard: $22 Million, Two Wins, Two Losses

Five organizations linked to AIPAC spent more than $22 million across four open Democratic House primaries in Illinois [2]. Super PACs from all sources pumped roughly $31 million into these races, with AIPAC-linked groups accounting for the lion's share [3]. When combined with spending on the state's open Senate seat, outside groups poured more than $50 million into Illinois races overall [3].

The results split evenly — but the losses came in the races AIPAC invested the most.

The 9th Congressional District — the marquee race to replace retiring Rep. Jan Schakowsky — saw AIPAC funnel approximately $7 million to support state Senator Laura Fine through front groups including the Chicago Progressive Partnership [2]. Fine finished a distant third. Biss won with 35,642 votes (29.4%), followed by Palestinian American activist and journalist Kat Abughazaleh with 31,705 votes (26.1%), in a crowded 16-candidate field [4][5].

The 7th Congressional District — where retiring Rep. Danny Davis left an open seat — was the one race where AIPAC spent through its known super PAC, United Democracy Project (UDP), which ran nearly $5 million in ads supporting Chicago Treasurer Melissa Conyears-Ervin [6]. State Representative La Shawn Ford won with 23.9% of the vote to Conyears-Ervin's 20.4% in another crowded primary of 13 candidates [7][8].

The wins: Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller prevailed in the 2nd Congressional District, backed by nearly $4.5 million from AIPAC-affiliated group Affordable Chicago Now [3]. Former U.S. Representative Melissa Bean won the 8th Congressional District primary with $3.3 million in support from another AIPAC-linked PAC, Elect Chicago Women [3][9].

Source: WBEZ / Newsweek / Axios

Data as of Mar 18, 2026CSV

The Dark Money Question

A defining feature of AIPAC's Illinois spending was its use of front organizations with names designed to obscure the source of funds. None of the AIPAC-affiliated groups mentioned Israel in their campaign messaging [3]. The Chicago Progressive Partnership, Elect Chicago Women, and Affordable Chicago Now all functioned as conduits for AIPAC-linked spending while presenting themselves as locally focused organizations [10].

This strategy — spending through PACs with "anodyne names," as WBEZ described it — has become AIPAC's standard playbook [3]. In the 9th District, the Chicago Progressive Partnership spent roughly $1.2 million specifically to counter Abughazaleh in the final weeks of the race [11]. In the 7th District, UDP ran ads attacking Ford without mentioning Israel, instead focusing on local issues [6].

The approach drew sharp criticism. "After a torrent of dark money, AIPAC and corporate interests flopped in Illinois elections," wrote In These Times, describing the spending as a "full-spectrum disaster for democracy" regardless of individual race outcomes [10][12].

How Biss and Ford Won Against the Money

Daniel Biss's victory in the 9th District was particularly striking because he explicitly ran against AIPAC's influence. A Jewish progressive who has been critical of Israeli government policies, Biss positioned himself as a candidate who could not be bought. His campaign received approximately $350,000 from J Street, the liberal pro-Israel lobby that has positioned itself as an alternative to AIPAC [1]. Jeremy Ben Ami, J Street's president, said Biss's win demonstrated "you do not have to fear AIPAC's spending or intimidation" [1].

Biss benefited from strong name recognition as Evanston's sitting mayor and a former state senator who ran for governor in 2018. The 9th District — spanning North Side Chicago neighborhoods like Uptown, Edgewater, and Rogers Park, plus north suburban communities including Evanston and Skokie — is among the most politically engaged and progressive districts in Illinois [4][5]. One senior House progressive told Axios that "AIPAC wanted Daniel Biss to lose. They spent heavily against him," adding that "it seems their spending harmed their candidate because it's so toxic in this politically active district" [9].

In the 7th District, La Shawn Ford's victory drew on deep roots in Chicago's West Side. A state representative since 2007, Ford had built relationships across the district's predominantly Black communities over nearly two decades [7][8]. The race to replace Danny Davis attracted national attention precisely because AIPAC's UDP chose to spend directly and openly — making it a clear test case for whether the organization's money could determine outcomes in majority-Black districts.

AIPAC's Shifting Win-Loss Record

The Illinois results must be understood in the context of AIPAC's broader 2026 trajectory — and its remarkable 2024 track record.

In the 2024 cycle, AIPAC's electoral operation was devastating in its effectiveness. The organization and its affiliates spent at least $45.2 million on winning candidates, the most by any organization in that cycle [13]. All 129 AIPAC-backed Democrats who faced primary challenges won [13]. The group's signature accomplishments were the unseating of Representatives Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush, on whom AIPAC spent approximately $20 million combined [13].

The 2026 cycle has been different. AIPAC's first significant test came in a February special primary in New Jersey's 11th Congressional District, where UDP spent more than $2 million attacking former Rep. Tom Malinowski — who had supported conditioning U.S. aid to Israel [14]. The strategy backfired spectacularly: the ads fractured the establishment vote in a crowded field, and progressive activist Analilia Mejia won [14][15]. A UDP spokesperson dismissed it as "an anticipated possibility" [14].

Including Illinois, AIPAC's 2026 record in contested Democratic primaries now stands at roughly 2-3 in races where it invested significant resources — a stark departure from its near-perfect 2024 run.

The Polling Earthquake

Underlying AIPAC's electoral difficulties is a seismic shift in how Democratic voters view Israel — a shift that has accelerated dramatically since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack and Israel's subsequent military campaign in Gaza.

According to NBC News polling conducted February 27–March 3, 2026, nearly 60% of Democrats now view Israel negatively, and two-thirds sympathize more with Palestinians than Israelis [16]. This represents an almost complete inversion from 2013, when Democrats favored Israelis over Palestinians by a 34%-18% margin; the current split is 67%-17% in favor of Palestinians [16][17].

Source: NBC News / Gallup Polling

Data as of Mar 18, 2026CSV

The generational divide is particularly pronounced. Among voters aged 18-34, nearly two-thirds now view Israel negatively — up from 37% in 2023 — and six in ten favor Palestinians over Israelis [16]. Gallup data shows this age group reversed from a 59%-21% pro-Israel margin in 2018 to 53%-23% favoring Palestinians by February 2026 [17].

The shift extends beyond the young. Among voters aged 35-54, Israeli support fell from 45% to 28% year-over-year [17]. Independents dropped from 63% pro-Israel support in 2013 to just 30% now [17].

These numbers have direct electoral consequences. An August 2025 Economist poll found 43% of all voters favor decreasing military aid to Israel, with only 13% wanting an increase. Among Democrats, the ratio was 58% to 4% [17]. Separately, 34% of Democratic primary voters — and 47% of Gen Z Democrats — said U.S.-Israel policy would factor into their 2026 vote, with an overwhelming preference for reducing support [17].

What AIPAC Says — and What It Means

AIPAC has publicly framed the Illinois results as a net positive. The organization stated on social media: "Life looks pretty good. Voters in North Carolina and Illinois rejected all seven far-left, would-be Squad members who centered campaigns on attacking Israel and demonizing pro-Israel Americans" [2].

This framing is revealing. By defining success as the defeat of the most left-wing candidates — including Abughazaleh, who centered her campaign on Palestinian rights — AIPAC can claim a kind of victory even when its preferred candidates lose. The organization appears to be pivoting from a strategy of picking winners to one of setting the boundaries of acceptable discourse within Democratic primaries [9].

Patrick Dorton, a UDP spokesperson, has maintained that the organization "expects to be involved in dozens of races both in primaries and general elections this cycle" [18]. With a reported $96 million war chest heading into 2026 — bolstered by a $30 million AIPAC donation at the end of 2025 — the organization has the resources to absorb individual losses [18].

But some political observers see the Illinois results as a strategic dead end. As one analyst told The American Prospect: "The strategy has to be reevaluated. If you're attacking candidates and trying to get them out and they actually could be your allies come January 2027, it's a really shortsighted strategy" [19].

Is This an Outlier or a Trend?

Several factors unique to the Illinois races complicate any attempt to draw sweeping conclusions.

First, the crowded fields — 16 candidates in the 9th District, 13 in the 7th — meant that winning candidates needed only pluralities in the high 20s or low 30s. In such races, spending against one candidate can simply redistribute votes rather than consolidate them behind a preferred alternative. AIPAC's $7 million against Biss and Abughazaleh in the 9th District may have merely suppressed Fine's opponents unevenly without lifting Fine above either of them [4][5].

Second, both Biss and Ford were strong candidates independent of the Israel-Palestine issue. Biss had run for governor, served in the state senate, and was a sitting mayor in the district's largest suburb. Ford had represented part of the district in the state legislature for 19 years [7]. These are not the kinds of candidates — relatively unknown, reliant on a single issue — that AIPAC has historically been most effective at defeating.

Third, the 9th District has one of the largest Jewish populations of any congressional district in the Midwest. Biss's identity as a Jewish progressive critical of Israeli government policy may have neutralized attacks that would land differently in other contexts [1].

But the structural factors cutting against AIPAC — cratering Democratic support for Israel, growing voter awareness and backlash against outside spending, and the emergence of counter-spending from organizations like J Street — are not unique to Illinois. They are national trends that will be present in every contested Democratic primary through 2028.

What Comes Next

The Illinois results arrive at a pivotal moment for AIPAC's electoral strategy. The organization faces a fundamental tension: its near-perfect 2024 record was built in a political environment where most Democratic voters were still processing the aftermath of October 7 and where the "Squad" members it targeted had other political vulnerabilities. By 2026, the politics have shifted beneath AIPAC's feet.

A new super PAC launched specifically to counter AIPAC spending in Democratic primaries [18], and candidates are increasingly treating AIPAC opposition as a badge of honor rather than a liability. Biss's victory speech — and his one-word social media clapback — suggest that running against AIPAC may itself become a viable campaign strategy in progressive districts.

For Democratic candidates navigating the 2026 midterms, the Illinois results send a nuanced signal: AIPAC's money is still formidable (Bean and Miller won), but it is no longer determinative in highly engaged, progressive-leaning districts where candidates have independent bases of support. The question is whether AIPAC adapts — perhaps by returning to the quieter, relationship-based influence strategy it used for decades before its 2022 foray into super PAC spending [18] — or doubles down on the spending approach that produced diminishing returns in New Jersey and Illinois.

As CNN reported days before the Illinois primary, "many Democrats are seeking distance from AIPAC" [20]. The Illinois results suggest those Democrats may have less to fear from that distance than they once thought.