Sometimes, when candidates or groups spend money campaigning for an election, the strategy works and the desired outcome is achieved. Other times, however -- especially when money is spent to "game" an outcome in sneaky ways -- the effort can backfire spectacularly. The latter just occurred in New Jersey, in a special election to fill a U.S. House seat.

Recently, the Democratic Party as a whole has been rethinking their insistence on "purity tests" for their candidates. Condemning fellow Democrats for not toeing this ideological line or that one can wind up in a "perfect being the enemy of the good" situation, as what otherwise would be good candidates with a decent shot at winning a race are turned away because they do not fully agree with some bit of Democratic orthodoxy or another. This can wind up hurting the party, as Republicans use such squabbles for their own benefit by highlighting the sometimes-extreme stances Democratic candidates have been forced to take. But while the Democratic Party as a whole is rethinking such strategies, certain interest groups are still demanding utter fealty on their own pet issues. What just happened in New Jersey is a prime example of this.

A House seat opened up because Mikie Sherrill won the New Jersey governor's race. So a special election for her House district was announced, in a district that had been redrawn after the 2020 Census to be bluer than it used to be. Eleven Democrats jumped in the race, but only four of these were considered truly viable candidates.

The best-known candidate was Tom Malinowski, who had previously served in a House district in New Jersey. Malinowski won the endorsement of New Jersey's Senator Andy Kim, and was considered the frontrunner in the race. The state Democratic political machine, however, backed a different candidate, Brendan Gill. The race also featured a former lieutenant governor, Tahesha Way, who "received millions of dollars of outside support and was the preferred candidate of pro-Israel groups." One of those pro-Israel groups spent over $2 million (which is a lot, for a special House election) in advertisements that attacked Malinowski. They did so in the hopes of boosting Way's chances of winning.

Here's what actually happened instead:

Progressive activist Analilia Mejia won the Democratic primary in a special election to represent the New Jersey suburbs in Congress, a significant win for the left in the ongoing battles over the party's ideological direction and a massive own goal by pro-Israel groups who attacked the front-runner in the race.

Her victory became official when former Rep. Tom Malinowski, who had been trailing Mejia by less than a thousand votes since election night last Thursday, conceded on Tuesday morning.

Mejia campaigned with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and had the backing of a host of other left-wing groups and figures. A former political director for Sanders' presidential campaign and leader of the progressive Center for Popular Democracy, Mejia began the race with significantly less name identification than her opponents, but benefited from both high-profile endorsements and from Democrats' increased opposition to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"Traditional politics and the same ol' blue is not going to be effective in confronting MAGA Trumpism and a corrupt administration," she said in an interview before the election. "I wanted a different voice for myself, and I know that my friends and neighbors in the district did too."

Malinowski is a fairly pro-Israel politician, it is worth pointing out. Mejia, however, has called the war in Gaza a "genocide." But AIPAC and their super PAC (United Democracy Project) wound up with her as the winner because Malinowski's support for Israel wasn't sufficiently unconditional:

"Tom Malinowski is talking about conditioning aid to Israel," said Patrick Dorton, a spokesman for the super PAC, United Democracy Project. "That's not a pro-Israel position."

. . .

"If their definition of pro-Israel now excludes mainstream Democrats like me, the number of pro-Israel people in America will become so small it will be nonexistent," Mr. Malinowski said.

. . .

Since the Hamas-led attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and the start of the war in Gaza, Mr. Malinowski has been critical of Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. He has maintained that the United States should continue to support Israel's security and "would not deny anything Israel needs to defend itself." He has, however, refused to rule out placing conditions on that aid.

"I wouldn't promise a blank check in advance for anything a prime minister would ask for," said Mr. Malinowski, who until 2013 worked for Human Rights Watch, a watchdog organization that has been increasingly critical of Israel. "That's not how American foreign aid works -- for anyone -- whether it's Israel, Ukraine or Taiwan."

But here's where the part about attempting to "game" an election comes in. AIPAC and its affiliated super PACs have a habit of running ads against certain Democrats because they don't agree on support for Israel, but these attack ads never even mention Israel at all. That's sneaky, you have to admit, because it is not openly making their own political case at all, it is merely mudslinging in an attempt to find any issue to take down an opponent. They've done this before (to the tune of over $24 million) in attacking members of "the Squad" in Congress (who are not exactly known for being Israel's biggest supporters). The ads they finance never talk about Israel at all -- which is more than a little dishonest, when you are essentially a one-issue interest group.

Instead, here's what the ad highlighted:

The attack ad began running just a few weeks before a rare February primary teeming with Democratic candidates hoping to replace New Jersey's new governor, Mikie Sherrill, in Congress.

It was notable for both its sponsor, a super PAC affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and its target, Tom Malinowski, a longtime supporter of Israel.

Mr. Malinowski, a former House member running for Ms. Sherrill's seat, was being criticized for his vote in favor of legislation that had authorized funding for federal immigration enforcement and passed with broad bipartisan support. In the ad, a woman's voice warns ominously that the vote funded "Trump's deportation force," suggesting that Mr. Malinowski, who emigrated from Communist Poland as a child and strongly opposes the president's immigration policies, can't be trusted.

Here's how a local newspaper put it:

Among other things, the ads highlighted a "yes" vote on a 2019 Democratic appropriations bill that funded humanitarian assistance and border security in response to migrants at the nation's southern border. All but four House Democrats voted for the bill, and all but three Republicans voted against it. The ads said Malinowski "voted with Trump and the Republicans to fund ICE."

That's borderline dishonest, you've got to admit -- hitting Malinowski for a vote that almost all other House Democrats also supported. Only three Republicans voted for it. That is not exactly voting "with Trump and the Republicans." Daniel B. Shapiro, who was Barack Obama's ambassador to Israel, called the ad "dishonest and wrong," in a video he recorded supporting Malinowski.

Of course, there are plenty of caveats to how these special election results are being interpreted. It was a wide-open race, with 11 Democratic candidates running (four of whom actually had a chance to win). Mejia won with less than 30 percent of the vote, as a result (she got, as of this writing, 29.1 percent to Malinowski's 27.7, Way's 17.4, and Gill's 14.3, while none of the other candidates topped three percent). She will still have to win the general election against the Republican candidate in a few months. And even if she does win (as she is expected to), she will have to run in another primary in June, to hold the seat for a full term in November. Both Malinowski and Gill said they wouldn't run in the primary for the full term, but Way has not committed to this, so there may be a head-to-head rematch (where AIPAC can probably be expected to spend more millions of dollars in deceptive ads).

The ad might not have been the sole reason Mejia won, too. ICE is indeed a big deal, and most of the Democratic base is on board with the "Abolish ICE!" slogan, but Mejia also reportedly ran a very good campaign with thousands of volunteers out there knocking on doors for her. So it might be considered another Mamdani-style victory of boots-on-the-ground young progressives beating a party machine. Analilia Mejia is only 39 years old, so it might also be more evidence of the generational shift that is slowly taking place in the Democratic Party (Malinowski is 60 years old).

Still, with the margin of victory being fewer than 1,000 votes, it's hard to deny that one attack ad could indeed have made the difference in this race. Especially one that demonized a candidate over the hottest political issue of the day (funding ICE), dishonest though it may have been.

Which just goes to show that attempting to "game" elections can sometimes blow up in your face. AIPAC isn't the only one guilty of such political gamesmanship within the Democratic Party's constellation of interest groups and candidates, but they are one of the most egregious. Perhaps voters would be far more open to their arguments if they actually honestly made those arguments to the voters. Perhaps if they ran ads on the subject they care about to the exclusion of all others -- Israel and American support for it -- then people could intelligently make up their minds and vote accordingly. But when you play games by hiding your true intent to such a degree, sometimes you lose. AIPAC played such a game in New Jersey's special election, and they lost in a big way.

[I have to close this article with the text of Tom Malinowski's concession announcement, which he posted on social media, because it is a rather extraordinary statement, and a warning to other Democrats who might face such a situation themselves. Here it is, in full:]

Congressman Tom Malinowski Congratulates Analilia Mejia, Warns of Dark Money's Impact on NJ-11 Race

I congratulate Analilia Mejia on her hard won victory in the NJ-11 special primary. I look forward to supporting her in the April general election. It is essential that we send a Democrat to Washington to fill this seat, not a rubber stamp for Trump.

Analilia deserves unequivocal praise and credit for running a positive campaign and for inspiring so many voters on Election Day. But the outcome of this race cannot be understood without also taking into account the massive flood of dark money that AIPAC spent on dishonest ads during the last three weeks. I wish I could say today that this effort, which was meant to intimidate Democrats across the country, failed in NJ-11. But it did not. I met several voters in the final days of the campaign who had seen the ads and asked me, sincerely: "Are you MAGA? Are you for ICE?"

My convictions -- including my support for Israel as a democratic and Jewish state -- don't change because of who supports or opposes me. But our Democratic Party should have nothing to do with a pro-Trump-billionaire-funded organization that demands absolute fealty to positions that are outside the mainstream of the American pro-Israel community, and then smears those who don't fall into line. If AIPAC backs a candidate -- openly or surreptitiously -- in the June NJ-11 primary, I will oppose that candidate and urge my supporters to do so as well. The threat unlimited dark money poses to our democracy is far more significant than the views of a single member of Congress on Middle East policy.

I am proud of the joyful and substantive campaign my team and I ran, and am immensely grateful to the volunteers and staff who made it possible. Their mission, and mine, will continue.

--Tom Malinowski

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant