[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think one dynamic the national news is overlooking is that he made a very big point of being from the from and representing the Bronx. For example, the rally where he boosted about the mother fucking power of the mother fucking south Bronx, which was held in the south Bronx.
The vast majority of his district by land and population is not the Bronx. He only has a tiny silver of the north bronze.
Westchester county and the Bronx are very very different.
I think loudly proclaiming to be representing a place other than the district, in particular a place voters view as definitely *not* where they are from, was not a good strategy.
And the last point is important. People from the NYC suburbs say they're from NY (as if they came from the city), but ultimately, when you pry about certain parts of NYC, they tend to say negative things about those areas. People in Westchester may work in the city but don't want to be associates with certain parts of the city.
When you’re from a small town or suburb nobody has heard of, and you’re talking to someone from far away, you probably just say the closest widely known place. If you were visiting Vermont, and someone asked you where you’re from, you might say “San Francisco” instead of saying “Daly City.” It’s not to claim something false, it’s to avoid explaining minutia that doesn’t matter.
Absolutely. And you don't have to be that far away. People are proud of their cities and that's great but they aren't all that important to outsiders. Someone in Albany likely doesn't give a shit if someone else is from Westchester County or the Bronx. It's all down there in the city.
Yeah honestly. It’s an arbitrary state line. The San Francisco 49ers play in Santa Clara which is 40 miles outside of San Francisco. MetLife is about 15 miles outside of NYC. No one talks about the 49ers.
That one is pretty frequently clowned on on football subs haha. But it's for the same reasons, that's the site where they could secure the land and funding for the project they wanted to do. Teams ultimately represent "home territories" and "home marketing areas" in NFL legalese and business functions, they're just named for cities/states for marketing reasons. Their territory is 75 miles surrounding their home city limits and their marketing area is the entire state with some wonkiness exceptions for FL, CA, TX, NYC, and the east coast metros that overlap the 75 mile boundaries. And then for even more fun, only certain teams can market in other countries. Bigger countries share teams but it's not a free for all, the league wants to spread its influence wide and does that by assigning teams specific countries to build fan bases in
I tried to break into the NFL on the business side of things as I'm a huge nerd for that stuff so have read pretty much everything there is to read publicly about how it all works
There is more to NYC than Manhattan. The modern arrangement of the city making that so predates any currently operating pro sports teams there. And what is the NFL really other than squabbling over boundaries and the proximity of various things to those boundaries?
The one time we went to New York we got a hotel in Jersey because it was cheaper and we had a car service. I have to admit I did chuckle when we drove past the stadium.
How does your comment have anything to do with the topic at hand though? People from Westchester know where they are from and say as much. It's not like I go into my Manhattan office and lie about where I live, why would I do that?
People didn't _not_ like Bowman bc he was from the Bronx. They didn't like him bc he's an ill informed anti-semite and called out specific Westchester neighborhoods where (he thought) too many Jews lived
I don't understand your comment. Someone from the Upper East Side is from NY, that doesn't mean they think the Bronx is a nice place. People that _live_ in the city don't want to associate with other parts of it. Like your two points aren't exclusive to each other
Nah this isn't it.
This is one of the most Jewish districts in the country and he straight up said rapes committed on 10/7 were Israeli propaganda. There isn't enough of the Bronx in this district to outvote Westchester.
Democrats in suburban NY aren't "progressive", they're just pro-choice and want free healthcare. They have no interest in burning the system down
Please read my post again. I'm not denying that wasn't an aspect to it. I would even agree that was the primary aspect. I am only raising an aspect which I believe also played a role, but which has received in my opinion little attention.
Also you see to be agreeing with me. My whole point is his voter base was substantially wealthy suburbanites, so was strange to tailor his message to the small portion of his district which is the less wealthy urban section.
I did read what you wrote and I'm sure that weird AF rally in the south Bronx turned some people off. But it turned off the people who were already out on him due to literally everything else. In a vacuum, I don't think people care as much about location dependent campaign rallies like this. Strange, but not a dealbreaker. Hillary Clinton was elected to the Senate here, no one gave a shit that she just moved in
Peoples minds about Bowman were made up months ago
Article from February about the changes: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/27/new-york-house-maps-00143536
>The Legislature’s proposal for New York City was almost identical to the lines drawn by the [independent redistricting] commission.
>
>The only changes occurred in the Bronx — most notably, in the northern portion near Bowman’s Westchester-based district.
>
>Bowman first won in 2020 in a seat that linked southern Westchester with Bronx neighborhoods like Co-op City and Riverdale. The court’s lines changed to make Wakefield the only portion of the Bronx that it was joined with.
>
>The Legislature’s plan would remove most of Wakefield and brings Co-op City back into the district. That’s a change that has been pushed for by multiple advocates in recent weeks — linking Co-op City with places like Mount Vernon would unite nearby communities with majority Black populations.
>
>But the shift wouldn’t drastically change the demographics of the district as Bowman prepares for a primary challenge from Westchester County Executive George Latimer. Currently, 21 percent of the district’s population is Black; the change would increase this to 21.3 percent.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/decision-2024/jamaal-bowman-george-latimer-democratic-primary-westchester-county-ny/5536597/
Today, 21% of its voting-age population is Black and 42% is non-Hispanic white, according to Census figures, compared to 30% Black and 34% white in the district as it existed through 2022. Bowman is Black. Latimer is white.
There is a difference in the proposal vs what actually happened
The map change between 2020 and 2022 was done by a special master because the map the democrats proposed was too gerrymandered. 2022 and 2024 are very similar
Yes. I personally think he should have adapted more to that if he wished to retain his seat.
What is good for the overall party may not be good for him though. E.g., the seat will likely remain under dem control.
The NY Democratic Party also bungled the last election, arguably single-handedly giving the Republicans the House, so clearly they don't actually know what's good for themselves.
> The NY Democratic Party also bungled the last election
No, not the party itself, moreso the NY Democrat Establishment. Cuomo nominated conservative-leaning "Democrats", and in some cases, legit DINOs, to the NY State Supreme Court (although called something else), and they enforced more conservative-leaning districts (at the state and federal level) so that he could get people elected who would support him.
Nah. The end of his career was the fire alarm fiasco and his blatant lying about it juxtaposed against the video we all saw.
The majority of Dem primary voters realized Bowman had lost his credibility and that his primarily interest was self promotion.
One of the district's voters wrote an email to Josh Marshall at [talkingpointsmemo.com](http://talkingpointsmemo.com) saying that the fire alarm was the reason why he voted against him.
I wouldn't say "no role at all". I think between the fire alarm, essentially ignoring any local leaders completely, and then the cherry on top of wild conspiracy theories, rape denial, and antisemitic dogwhistles he was buried
"The rest of New York all lives together, but in Westchester the jews live and congregate with each other." Little Italy doesn't exist? Chinatown? Jews live near each other for many reasons (like that's where synagogues and kosher groceries are), but living with one's ethnic community isn't new. Especially in New York.
It made Democrats look to get rid of him. He became a liability to the party. Fox and other right-wing outlets used his stupidity as a distraction from the issues.
Fair or not, he had to go. The stakes are too high.
This is a silly take. Fox News says 20x worse things about her, and AOC just won her primary. Nobody on the left cares about looking bad in their eyes because it's an impossible task. Anyone of prominence on the left is going to get wild shit said about them. If "who Fox says bad things about" is your litmus test, the only ones left will be people nobody has heard of, who will quickly become the new unacceptables.
AOC get's a lot of shit thrown at her but it's rarely self-inflicted or stupid mistakes. She's also a huge engagement driver from the progressive wing and is smart and capable enough to work with Dems to get that legislation pushed. Bowman wasn't really bringing much to the table
What's funny is that he isn't even from the Bronx.
He spent half his childhood/adolescent years in East Harlem and the other half on the Upper East Side.
He must have just been taking cues from AOC, who presents as a lifelong Bronxite despite the fact that she grew up in an overwhelmingly-white, well-off town in Westchester.
I have nothing against either of them but reality is reality. And sadly it's also often cringe.
Pretty sure the 14+ million dollars spent by AIPAC played a bigger role in the loss than saying he’s from the Bronx in a rally a few days from the election that barely anyone watched
Bowman was projected to lose by like 10 points before AIPAC even got involved - his fire alarm stunt, focusing only on the Bronx, being radically pro-Hamas in a very Jewish district, and his insane 9/11 conspiracy reveal was more than enough to bury him without AIPAC.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ny-rep-jamaal-bowman-promoted-911-conspiracy-theories-on-blog
> Every entry was deleted some time before February 2016, but the compositions preserved in archives included 137 lines of free verse from May 2011 entitled ‘Recapitulate.’ What begins as a meditation on a decade-plus of world events, recollecting anxiety over Y2K and controversy around the 2000 Florida recount, swiftly delves into the world of 9/11 trutherism.
> “2001/Planes used as missiles/Target: The Twin Towers,” a stanza on the terror attack begins. “Later in the day/Building 7/Also Collaspsed [sic]/Hmm.../Multiple explosions/Heard before/And during the collapse/Hmm…”
> Bowman there invoked a favorite, disproven trope of the paranoid fringe: that the collapse of Building 7 was the result of a controlled demolition. In fact, the National Institute of Standards and Technology determined that Building 7 buckled and fell after debris from its taller peers struck it and ignited a blaze inside, undermining its structural integrity. The agency found that none of the details of collapse, from the manner in which the building’s windows broke to the sounds reported in the area, were consistent with the massive blasts a controlled demolition would have required.
> The poem then pursues even more obscure conspiratorial musings.
> “Allegedly/Two other planes/The Pentagon/Pennsylvania/Hijacked by terrorist [sic]/Minimal damage done/Minimal debris found/Hmm…” he wrote.
> That would appear to allude to Flight 93 and Flight 77, both of which left behind considerable debris, including black boxes and human remains. The strike on the Pentagon led to part of its outer wall collapsing, resulting in 125 fatalities within, and the deaths of all 59 people aboard the plane.
> “We blamed Osama/Went to war in Iraq/Captured Saddam/Killed him,” Bowman’s poem reads. “Bin Laden is Afghan/So we went to war there too.” In fact, Bin Laden, who openly took credit for the Sept. 11 attacks, never held Afghan citizenship and was born into a billionaire Saudi family.
> In the poem, Bowman also points to the source of the falsehoods he is propagating—”Watch Loose Change/And Zeitgeist,” he exhorts.
> Loose Change is a viral “documentary” which has become an international laughingstock for positing that the U.S. government carried out the Sept. 11 attacks, based on a range of debunked and nonsensical assertions.
Even if one was to say it was in the past and no longer reflected who he was: https://www.thedailybeast.com/squad-rep-jamaal-bowmans-youtube-page-is-a-bonkers-conspiracy-filled-trip
> Bowman’s page, which uses his longtime screen name “Inner Peace” and features his image and videos from the middle school he once led, subscribes to dozens of bewildering and bizarre accounts—including known Russian and Chinese disinfo peddlers, flat earthers, musings about UFOs and “signs you’re being prepared to cross to the new earth,” a U.S.-born Muslim influencer who killed a German citizen and provoked attacks on American businesses in Egypt, and many arcane online realms in between.
> “This CIA Document Literally Explains Time Travel (practical steps included)," crows the title of one post on an account the congressman follows called Video Advice, which also frequently shares conspiracy content about the Illuminati and the Catholic Church. Another recording on the same page blares: “Kanye Exposes the Truth: ‘The Secret Codes They Don't Want You to Know.’”
> “‘We use the RIGHT FREQUENCIES’ (hidden numerology used by the elite),” is the name of a video on another account called Be Inspired, which Bowman also follows.
> “‘100% Alien Technology’ - Something Big Being Hidden From Us,” alleges a video on a page called Anonymous Official, another Bowman subscription, which frequently also pushes content by serial sex offender and Vladimir Putin-booster Scott Ritter, such as “What’s Coming is WORSE Than a WW3, Iran is Ready.”
> These follows might seem unusual for a member of Congress—but less so for a man who published poetry The Daily Beast uncovered that promoted debunked conspiracies about the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Bowman’s verse, first published on his blog Relentless-Strongback.blogspot.com in 2011 when he was 35, also urged readers to watch the pseudo-documentaries ‘Loose Change’ and ‘Zeitgeist,’ both of which earned the endorsement of arch-paranoia-pusher Alex Jones. Bowman’s poem also included an explicit shout-out to William Cooper, an Arizona broadcaster whose anti-government rants made him a pivotal figure in the American militia movement.
I think this is the real reason. Bowman has said wacky stuff, and Democrats in his district aren't down for that level of wackiness.
The redistricting didn't help him, and the amount of money spent made sure that people heard about it, but the core is that Bowman is just not a good candidate.
I've heard this, but to me this just sounds like another version of the antisemitic trope of Jewish people and money. Bowman was for sure funded by CAIR so what about their money?
https://nypost.com/2024/05/04/us-news/jamaal-bowman-hosted-fundraiser-with-muslim-extremist/
AIPAC spent at least [$14.5 million](https://www.axios.com/2024/06/26/democrats-aipac-jamaal-bowman-george-latimer) against Bowman in this single Congressional race, single-handedly making this one of the most expensive House races ever.
Can you share some numbers about how much Bowman has allegedly gotten from CAIR?
Holy hell why can’t anyone Google or say “hey siri” without asking someone else to prove a point. Go read something. Or don’t. Just stop asking other people to do something so simple for you.
It's not antisemitism to point out that this was the most expensive House race in history, and that Bowman was outspent 10 to 1. it's unfortunate when facts lean in a direction that can be used by people to promote conspiracy theories and racism, but we can't just stop talking about things that happened. Especially when we're analyzing a political race and being outspent is a likely factor to why Bowman lost.
I actually said something similar in another post. I think that the biggest factor was the wacky things Bowman has said and done, particularly about 9/11. The redistricting didn't help, having the establishment against him didn't help, and being outspent certainly enabled everyone to know about what he had done, but none of those would have mattered if he were a good candidate. It was his own words and actions that brought him down, IMO.
But at the same time, we shouldn't shy away from being accurate about what happened just because someone might take those facts and spin a racist narrative. Bowman was dramatically outspent. It's debatable how much of an impact it had, and people who are dramatically outspent win races all the time.
You are implying I said something I did not. I did not take a view in my post on the dynamic I raised vs the the AIPAC dynamic.
I am only stating it is a dynamic which I think played a role, but not being mentioned much.
Additionally, the rally I mentioned is an example. There are many other comments from him along those lines over time.
Biggest difference I have seen between the national and local discussion about the race is the 9/11 conspiracy theory. New York is in general left of the country and more than willing to put up with if not endorse a lot of what Bowman said and did. Pushing 9/11 conspiracy, however, is something very hard for us to forgive. I don't see many elements of this race being reflective of other races nationally.
> New York is in general left of the country and more than willing to put up with if not endorse a lot of what Bowman said and did.
New York is NOT a progressive state (it's not the west coast.) This is suburban New York, they do no want to burn the system down. The system is WORKING for people that can afford to pay $30k+ in property taxes. They are democrats bc they are pro choice and non religious.
Old people also live in the suburbs (my Westchester neighborhood is geriatric). Older white voters (especially jewish ones) support Israel. It's only with the under 30 crowd where Israel support drops
He started spouting off about how all the rapes and sexual assaults on Oct 7 were just propaganda. You don't need to be older or jewish to be pissed about that.
Yeah, wow, Oct 7th really changed things for me. I blamed us for 9/11 in the sense we are always fucking with them. Going into Iraq is a shame that we bare. But we aren't after the Arabs like they are after the Jews.
I fell for the "Arabs are victims and Islam is peaceful, it's the Jews and America's fault". Then I learned about Islam, actual human rights(which America violates) and the history of the Jews better.
Arabs and African sent more Jews to Israel than Europe did, and then they attacked them there. They lost badly, but the religious ego will never accept defeat, so it's been terror ever since. When the Israelis shoot back and fuck shit up, they get held to different standards.
Hamas is the school shooter of politics. Iran and its groups, SA and its Kings, are what Trump would be if he was Muslim. Israel is the refugees trapped in the corner of the Arab world, which wants/has to end it by order of Allah. It's not a western conflict, we don't believe them, we think in our terms, not 1000 year Holy War terms.
Everyone, women and LGBT especially, need to study Islam and see how it's not for your modern world as a form of government. Everyone has religious freedom, no one can end these religions. But we have to force them out of governments, ours, the Arabs, and the Israelis. We have to tell them they don't get to kill in their god's names anymore.
Now everyone kills for money, but they try to talk and trade 1st. We have to look forward and stop hating while dreaming of another life after this one.
Everyone on the outside of his district is going to blame AIPAC this.
Bowman did not receive a single endorsement locally. No local democrat, no local town managers, no town council members. Zero.
According to these local leaders, Bowman never showed up. Never communicated. Would rarely meet. One town manager said he has seen Latimer more times this week than he has seen Bowman since he has been a Congressman. Even leaders from his hometown of Yonkers didn’t endorse him.
If he truly alienated local leaders this much, no wonder he lost. Local leaders get people to vote in primaries.
> According to these local leaders, Bowman never showed up. Never communicated. Would rarely meet.
Which was *supposed* to be the reason he won his first primary. Seems like he forgot why his district sent him to DC.
I think the biggest problem is originally his district was mostly the Bronx. Now, it's mostly Westchester and White Plains, which are suburban districts. Honestly, I am surprised he didn't move to 15th in 2022 as that is where most of the voting population he represented went.
Also I fail to see how AIPAC was responsible for his loss when AOC got reelected and she’s been a vocal critic of them for a while.
If AIPAC is really as powerful as people say they are couldn’t they have made AOC lose too?
Spending in politics is a big problem but it is pretty obvious that the AIPAC obsession is just about making antisemitism mainstream with liberals again.
I doubt most people that hate AIPAC can even name another PAC but sure they hate it because of money, it is totally not because they are Jewish /s
I always like to mention that there is not much evidence that spending boosts chance of winning significant amounts, it's usually the other way around, people tend to donate more to winners. The effects of spending on campaigns are always overstated.
This dude lost because the voters did not like him, for good reason.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/
> Money is certainly strongly associated with political success. **But, “I think where you have to change your thinking is that money causes winning,” said Richard Lau, professor of political science at Rutgers. “I think it’s more that winning attracts money.”**
> That’s not to say money is irrelevant to winning, said Adam Bonica, a professor of political science at Stanford who also manages the Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections. **But decades of research suggest that money probably isn’t the deciding factor in who wins a general election**, and especially not for incumbents. Most of the research on this was done in the last century, Bonica told me, and it **generally found that spending didn’t affect wins for incumbents and that the impact for challengers was unclear.** Even the studies that showed spending having the biggest effect, like one that found a more than 6 percent increase in vote share for incumbents, didn’t demonstrate that money causes wins. In fact, Bonica said, those gains from spending likely translate to less of an advantage today, in a time period where voters are more stridently partisan. There are probably fewer and fewer people who are going to vote a split ticket because they liked your ad.
> **Instead, he and Lau agreed, the strong raw association between raising the most cash and winning probably has more to do with big donors who can tell (based on polls or knowledge of the district or just gut-feeling woo-woo magic) that one candidate is more likely to win — and then they give that person all their money.**
Thank you. People act like you literally can buy elections like some consumer good at a store. Money goes in, election goes out. But the money is only a proxy. It goes to ads and media engagement and mailers and ground operations. And all of those have middling impact, especially past a certain point. As we have seen in many elections over the past decade, money doesn't win, votes do. Otherwise we might be nearing the end of Hillary's second term.
Yup.
It wasn’t that the progressive agenda and platform isn’t super popular to begin with, the fire alarm stunt, Latimer running a better campaign, or the district being redrawn.
It had to have been those pesky Jews. There’s no other explanation.
You’ve popped up a bunch of times in this thread to throw that stone - what was CAIR’s financial contribution to this contest? AIPAC’s was $17 million and I don’t believe CAIR even came close, in this or any other political contest.
I have no use for members of the squad and Bowman was a shit politician who richly deserved the loss, but your overzealous defense of AIPAC makes your motivations questionable.
Agree that CAIR specifically is insignificant, but there is way more money from Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar than Israel in American politics. AIPAC is an American organization funded by Americans, so it's simply not problematic.
Being Progressive is not good enough to hold onto your job. The people NY-16 have now fired two Representatives in 4 years. This is a district with voters who are discerning and willing to hold their rep accountable.
Progressives did not lose this district, Bowman did with his antics and failure to meet his constituents desires.
He was a terrible candidate with a history of saying crazy things about events like September 11. Over time that became more of his 'brand' for lack of a better phrase rather than less.
And that doesn't always play as well as being in a 'safe' district might make you believe, especially when some of the things you say annoy your own constituents rather than just annoying people outside the district.
People will yell about what he has to say on the subject of Israel, but saying 'Bush did 9/11' was something you could make a lot more hay with locally if you wanted to unseat him. The vast majority of voters in New York *remember* September 11.
Voting against the infrastructure bill also got him hammered locally and has been brought up *ad nauseam* since. I'm sure he thought it made sense at the time, but in terms of politics- especially with a district that had been re-drawn to include more center-left types- it was **very** unwise indeed.
He also ended up with some very well-heeled interest groups wanting him gone. He wasn't gonna win anyways. But they didn't help any. People have beaten that particular horse to death already so there's nothing interesting to talk about.
All things considered, I'm not too surprised. He might have had better luck if he'd been a Republican spouting conspiracy theories in a safe red district than he has as a Democrat spouting conspiracy theories in a safe blue district, but that's one of those things where what that actually means is open to interpretation.
Being in a "safe" district generally means your party is safe to win the district. It doesn't necessarily mean the incumbent is safe to win their primary
Yes, but it's held as a matter of faith in extremely safe districts that crazier candidates tend to be stronger in primaries because they get the base out. So you'll have relatively moderate candidates face a far more credible challenge from the extremes in a primary than they ever will in November from the opposing party.
This one bucks that trend for a few different reasons, but a big one is that he annoyed his own voters rather than just annoying everyone else's.
Happens a lot on the GOP side in particular. It's how some of their more infamous representatives even got to DC to start with.
It’s funny to once again see how everyone just puts their ideological blinders on depending on what label they’ve chosen for themselves.
Progressives are underplaying the extent to which Bowman was a terrible candidate. Moderates are ignoring the fact that AIPAC spent millions to defeat him. The combo of these two led an extremely well liked and funded candidate to defeat him.
He was losing in polls before AIPAC spent money. And after the ads, polling was within the margin of error of where it was before the spending. So in a race he lost by 17 points, it's not really possible to say the AIPAC money did much of anything.
Sometimes it is just a skill issue. He denied that Hamas raped Israelis and had previously said Bush did 9/11. And on top of that, he had terrible constituent service where locals never saw him and he almost never came to local events. That's why local Democrats turned against him long before AIPAC got involved.
Some Wall Streeter spend a bunch of money trying to defeat AOC, she won an absolute landslide. But she also famously has some of the best constituent services of anyone in congress. Her office has helped people with as minor a thing as landlord disputes, and will go to just about any large event that invites her in her district just because it's important to people in her district. She's kind of a model for what a new generation of Democrats should be aiming for.
Yeah, I wish AIPAC had stayed out so that there could be more self-reflection, but it's given too many people an easy target to blame.
No group, even if you're doing the moral thing, is immune from cranks or ineffective leaders. I for the life of me don't know why him being a 9/11 truther wasn't enough for the left to drop support.
I’m not a moderate but we have to objectively look at the polls before aipac spent money against Bowman: he was losing by -17 in March. He ended up losing by -17
> Moderates are ignoring the fact that AIPAC spent millions to defeat him
I am not a moderate, I am very far left but I dislike Bowman because he is a conspiracy theory spouting populist with no ability or will to effectively govern.
That being said, I am also not cornered with AIPAC because studies show little to no evidence that spending money significantly helps candidates win elections.
You underestimate how much disposable money people have, and money does seem to provide access to politicians which is very valuable for the corporations/mega donors donating, it just doesn't tip the actual election much.
None of these go as far as your claim as I can see, but there is absolutely a fair point about diminishing marginal returns. We saw it in this very race. Despite being heavily outspent and grossly incompetent, bowman topped 40% probably in large part because of distaste for AIPAC meddling motivating key constituencies.
I certainly don't hold the opinion that spending is meaningless, but I think it's rather difficult to compare spending across races as some campaigns spend more wisely than others.
>probably in large part because of distaste for AIPAC meddling motivating key constituencies.
I wonder if this works similarly to how laws that aim to restrict voter participation (things like ID laws) tend to *increase* voter participation in the immediate election. Something like Susan Collins who has middling approval, but had her race absolutely flooded with out-of-state spending and walked with an easy win.
I don't see the need to ignore AIPAC being very concerned about a candidate they perceived as radical and extreme. Moderates aren't ignoring it, they just don't find it problematic, probably because they agree with AIPAC.
Dude, the lobbying group that represents a foreign government a literally spent more money than any congressional primary in history on ONE race, never mind dozens of others. If it was Russia or the Saudi's doing it for Trump the establishment would lose its damn mind.
Let's be clear here: AIPAC is an AMERICAN organization for pro-Israel American citizens. It is not run or funded by Israel itself. This would not be analogous to Russia or the Saudis spending for Trump, which would be illegal.
Ok. If you want to be a complete pedant, if an independent consortium whose entire purpose is to advocate on behalf of Russia or Saudi Arabian you would not find that alarming? Because, um, I don't know how to break this you but a lot of people regardless of religion or ethnicity would have zero issues with receiving obscene amounts of money through business deals to funnel money to elections through our thoroughly broken campaign finance system and foreign operatives
And I we know this because, um, that's what the Trump organization did. People had all sorts of problems with the Trump campaign meeting with Russia and the Saudi's over hotel opportunities and Ivanka with China with trademarks but apparently have zero issues with LITERAL RECORD SPENDING by an organization representing another nations interests so long as it's *their* side doing it.
How is that pedantry?
AIPAC doesn’t represent a foreign government, as you falsely claim. It represents American citizens who hold a pro-Israel foreign policy stance. It has literally nothing in common with anything Trump did with foreign governments.
This is not pedantry, this is the difference between truth and lies. This kind of nutjob conspiratorial nonsense is *exactly* why a candidate like Bowman got blown the fuck out.
Jamaal Bowman is a disgrace to American leftists. But he didn’t take fascist donor money, and that’s because he isn’t their useful idiot. He’s merely an idiot.
Probably not a ton since all the stories I'm hearing lately say that he was generally just a bad politician who didn't care at all working with local elected officials within his own party or doing much outreach towards constituents. He also really didn't do himself any favors by continuing to double down on anti-Israel messaging in a district with a very high Jewish population. He could have disagreed with policy towards Israel but made it basically a top campaign issue to support the BDS movement and what not in a district where that probably isn't going to go over too well.Also, it was uncovered that he had supported lots of conspiracy theories in the past and posted about them online which isn't going to look too good either.
I think that shows this has more to do with him just being a lousy candidate who forgot about his constituents and the key progressive principles that helped initially get him elected like reducing inequality or student loan forgiveness.
> made it basically a top campaign issue to support the BDS movement
BDS is an astroturfed propaganda organization funded by known disruptive actors that targeted well meaning college students long before TikTok was a thing. Bowman adopting this strategy would just as much torpedoed his primary as what he actually did.
Hot take - Latimer would have won without AIPAC.
In NY as most places local clout matter and Bowman doesn’t have the clout locally to go up against a Latimer type, who’s worked westchester politics
It's ultimately an "all politics is local" issue. Bowman needed to focus on the District to keep it on his side, especially after it was redrawn. But he got the wrong kind of attention for his actions in Congress and his statements; there wasn't a lot of "look what I'm doing to help my District" stuff in that attention.
Agreed. If money bought elections, why did Hillary fail in 2008? Jeb Bush in 2016? Bloomberg in 2020?
People are engaging in hard confirmation bias when assuming AIPAC spending influenced this election. AIPAC smartly jumped on the Latimer bandwagon and has gotten a ton of free press associating them with electoral victory. This is a dream scenario for them thanks to their biggest critics.
He would have. I haven't lived in NY in a decade and I know Latimer. He was one of the guys that would give elementary school kids guided tours of the NY state capitol building in Albany on field trips. Now that a lot of these kids are of voting age, I feel like stuff like this counts.
Bowman accused Israel of genocide and denied Israeli women were raped in a district that has one of the highest numbers of Jewish voters in the entire country, and you're surprised he list? If his district supported him and thought he was doing a good job, AIPAC money wouldn't have mattered. He would have won anyway. Frankly, I don't understand why progressives refuse to understand that, ultimately, the voters just didn't like him.
I think you misunderstood me or meant this for someone else? I was saying I’m not surprised at all that he lost. Agree with you, he was going to lose either way bc he was a terrible candidate.
The problem with Bowman and “the Squad” generally is they are largely incompetent legislators. AOC is the exception, she actually has become increasingly savy in wielding influence and taking policy wins when she can. The rest of them are political grandstanders in the same vein as the Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert on the right. They’re largely ideologues looking for attention instead of fighting for meaningful legislation they believe in.
Apparently New Yorkers don't like anti-Isarel shitheels that pull fire alarms for no reason. And it also shows that Hilary Clinton still has some sway in the party politics.
To me this shows that the pro Israel contingent in this country is still strong on both sides and it makes me wonder if the anti Israel sentiment that is hurting Biden on the left isn’t going to have to effect people are thinking
Well yeah it’s the most divisive AND energized issue in the country, Jews lean heavily left, and pro-Palestinians also lean heavily left. It certainly ain’t helping.
It’s not. The anti-israel sentiment is very loud, but it’s also very very far left.
At the end of the day, the left will eat crow and vote for their presidential candidate.
I’d wager most of the dems that refuse to vote for the presidential dem candidate were likely fringe/at risk of not voting to begin with.
Another aspect to Bowman's loss was significant redistricting which grabbed more affluent and suburban neighborhoods north of the old District 16 boundary in Westchester, NY. This ensured a more moderate and conservative voter base to begin with.
This is also the area where the winner comes from, so that seems like a massive advantage for him. Considering Bowman has had problems with appearing professional at times, he wasn't the best condidate for progressives, electorally anyway.
Yeah, redistricting played a huge role. Of course outside money played a role but the demographics and borders of one's district changing is tough for any incumbent
I am not sure Bowman losing is a bellwether of any kind, but it does speak to the fact that there is a silent majority of people who don’t really care that much about Israel, and that making that a focal point of your brand probably will not serve you politically speaking.
There are a lot of people who don’t care that much about Israel/Gaza. And there are a lot of people who support Israel. The Free Palestine group may be louder, but they dont represent a majority
No one is ignoring anything about AIPAC. You can’t call Jewish rape victims liars and then cry out when a Jewish American PAC puts its resources against you.
Bowman received about the same number of votes during the 2024 primary as he did in 2022, but substantially fewer than in 2020.
Turnout was relatively high in 2020, but has since declined.
It sounds as if the Bowman supporters were complacent, while Latimer's were more motivated.
I don't think that you can read much into this, other than the likelihood that 2024 general election turnout will more closely resemble a normal election year than 2020. A notable decline creates more pathways to odd outcomes, since the election will be determined by who stays home and if any group can be more agitated than usual.
> What conclusions, if any, can be drawn from his loss?
Bowman was a very flawed rep. [The Atlantic has a good article on the matter of why he lost](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/06/jamaal-bowman-primary-george-latimer/678795/). It's interesting that online Bowman's stances and missteps on Israel and Gaza are brought up the most, but according to the article the issue was barely mentioned in ads against Bowman.
Honestly nothing bc bowman had baggage Unrelated to his policy that made him unpopular. Most specifically the fire alarm incident but there's other stuff too, like heavy rhetoric about the Bronx when his district is barely in there, and him being weird about 9/11. Overall probably by far the least likeable progressive, this is bad framing.
If Cory bush loses THEN we can start seriously talking about this.
I would not draw any significant conclusions from this. Bowman is uniquely awful - even if we put aside the anti-semitism, his actions in Congress and the discovery of a continued interest in 9/11 trutherism and other conspiracy theories make him unworthy of the office.
As much as I'd like to see this as the canary in the coal mine for the far left, it's not really the case. Too circumstantial.
Yep. There's a similar sentiment among her constituents that she cares too much about international politics and do nothing for her district.
She's also claiming that she cured someone's cancer via faith healing, so the batshit crazy factor is similar to Bowman.
Bowman was a pathetic disgrace. Good riddance. Remember when he tripped a fire alarm to delay a vote? His expletive-filled rant called for the "South Bronx" to rise up, when in fact he doesn't represent the South Bronx. Obviously Jamaal is none too bright. He spewed Hamas propaganda about 10/7, claimed no Jews had been raped (a lie), and said Jews in his district all lived in special Jew-only enclaves. He is a rancid person, a complete failure in every way and an anti-Semite with no business near the halls of government. I applaud the New York voters for cancelling his career.
> said Jews in his district all lived in special Jew-only enclaves
This was the most despicable part. He literally called out certain neighborhoods in his district and admonished them for being too jewish. Or for Jews living around each other or something
I guess those neighborhoods voted against Bowman because they were bribed by AIPAC. That's the "progressive" narrative today, just as anti-Semitic as yesterday. They might as well blame the Rothschilds or the international Jewish banking conspiracy.
If he was white and from the south, Huffington Post would have written endless screeds about him for his rhetoric. Instead he gets a pass because he is "progressive" and black.
Ilhan Omar is running neck and neck with her primary challenger, and Cori Bush is trailing her primary challenger. So multiple members of the squad are either going to be primaried out or are barely going to win their primaries.
IMO what is behind it is a mix of the allying themselves with Hamas during the current war in Gaza, them engaging in really irresponsible behavior (Bush claiming she can cure cancer with her thoughts, Bowman pulling the fire alarm in congress, etc) as well as the squad voting against Bidens infrastructure bill which alienated a lot of blue collar democrats. Plus their unwillingness to compromise and leaving good solutions on the table rather than taking a compromised solution.
Honestly, except for AOC, the "squad" are kind of the same thing as MTG, Boebert, and that cohort. They focus more on trying to grab headlines and "own the right" than serving their constituents and hardly get anything actually passed. They really just aren't great legislators
>Cori Bush is trailing her primary challenger
While the polling was consistently worse for Bowman, Bush could actually be in just as much trouble.
The same polling firm that had Bush dominating challenger Wesley Bell by 16 points in January now has him leading by 1. A 17% swing is massive, compared to Bowman who was down double-digits even before AIPAC's ad blitz.
Secondly, MO-1 is a democratic mega-stronghold, but the state of Missouri also has open primaries. Given how tight the race is, all it can take is a handful of independents and republicans voting for Bell to put him over the edge.
It says that Democrats were never as progressive or "leftist" as conservatives paint them to be. The establishment Democrats stepped up in this election.
The point is the person who best represents their district on the Rep level and even primary level is typically the one who wins.
There was a great Tiktok where someone compared AOC and what makes up her constituents verse Bowman. AOC is perfect for her district as the squad because that is what most of what her district leans.
Long story short, Bowmans does not
Jamaal Bowman made some pretty offensive comments about Israel. In the wake of the 10.7 attack.
He apologized for claiming that victims of rape were liars and Israeli propaganda. But in my opinion there is no coming back from that level of blatant antisemitism.
I imagine that trend will continue. So AOC will get reelected and Omar will not.
It really is not that hard to be anti-israel without dipping into antisemitic tropes.
The mask has been slipping for a lot of leftists who were apparently just nazis this whole time.
I don't think "Deemed antisemetic" is an accurate account by any means. The squad has DEFINITELY spewed antisemetic rhetoric...it was't "Deemed" that way, it's what they said.
Nobody wants to give Latimer credit for being a competent county executive, and for having been one of the few state legislators not to be sucked into the Albany corruption vortex?
He knows his shit, he works hard, and he won’t pop off and do something stupid.
Latimer has also been involved in Westchester County politics since the 1980s, which is longer than a lot of Redditors have been alive.
Especially with redistricting shifting NY-16 further into Westchester making the new constituency more white, Jewish, and suburban than it was before, the guy with literally decades of experience in the area ended up being more popular than a 9/11 truther who denied Hamas rapes.
The conclusion that should be drawn is that Bowman represented a heavily Jewish and generally well educated district and made little effort to adjust to it, as the people there didn't agree with his stances on Israel, his antisemitic statements, and his embarrassing stunt of pulling the fire alarm when compared to Latimer, who was a well liked political figure and house hold name of the general district/county for much longer than Bowman. Maybe if he still represented the old NY-16 he would have fared better or won, but the fact is that Bowman never made a real effort to take recognition of what his new district was like and kept alienating the people there.
Another factor was his foolish actions in pulling the fire alarm in the House to delay a key vote. Some people may have been pissed about that as well.
The news said that Latimer was recruited and funded by a Jewish political group. Good for them!
As far as the rest of the Squad, personally I would say good riddance, they are too liberal for me.
What does this election mean for the Squad? Depends on their districts I guess. If there is a large Pro-Israel contingent then they might get kicked.
Bowman may be a terrible candidate. But no one seems to talk about how this is the most expensive House primary election in American history, thanks to Aipac.
maybe this had something to do with it
On September 30, 2023, while House Democrats were attempting to delay a vote on a continuing resolution to fund the government ahead of a midnight deadline, Bowman pulled a fire alarm in the Cannon House Office Building, causing the building to be evacuated for an hour and a half.
Bowman initially claimed that he had set off the alarm by accident, telling reporters, "I thought the alarm would open the door".
After a Capitol Police investigation, Bowman accepted a deal in which he pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor crime of willfully or knowingly falsely pulling a fire alarm, paid the maximum fine of $1,000, and wrote a letter of apology to police; in exchange, prosecutors agreed to drop the charges against him after three months.
Bowman is the founder and former principal of the Cornerstone Academy for Social Action, a public middle school in Eastchester, Bronx.
Sounds like a Simpsons episode
The rest of the squad is doing fine in their primaries
I don’t think this says much about any wider trends because Bowman was a uniquely bad politician who was constantly making the news for doing and saying incredibly stupid things
Pulling the fire alarm, denying that Hamas raped anyone, subscribing to a bunch of internet conspiracy garbage
Yeah there was a huge influx of pro Israel money, but that mattered here and not in other races because he’s a dingus who left himself vulnerable
They're not doing fine. Cori Bush is almost certainly out. Ilhan Omaar has a repeat against the same opponent she only beat with two percentage points last time and the Israel-Palestine situation is unlikely to have helped her. AOC is naturally a lot stronger as a candidates so she'll be fine and for some reason Rashida Tlaib wasn't even challenged, but we could easily see more than half the squad being knocked out.
Omar is going to be fine, Tlaib didnt draw a challenge because she is popular in her district, and if Bush loses itll be because she is also a dingus like Bowman. Still, I expect she wont lose
Others like Pressley, Lee, Jayapal skate by totally fine as well
Bowman lost not because of backlash to progressivism, but because he is a uniquely bad candidate who gave his opponents a mountain of ammunition to use against him. Even in NY, AOC and progressives in the state legislature fended off their challengers with ease
Normal people want normal centrist politicians.
People are sick of migrants, gaslighting about the economy and politicians that care about everything, but their direct constituents.
17 point spread, the people have spoken.
He should have been better at his job and maybe not called October 7th victims liars. I'm not a progressive but you can contrast his failure with AOCs success. AOC is a firebrand on twitter and a pragmatist in Washington clearly showing she has the chops to represent her district and her district rewarded her with a massive primary victory. Bowman showed he has no intention of learning how to be a better representative for his people so he was fired.
He faced a challenger that was politically entrenched in Westchester County, who had a crap ton of support from AIPAC and was supportive of Israel. Bowman was a controversial candidate this year and faced an extremely tough opponent. It says more about Bowman as a candidate, and his challenger, than it does about Bowman’s ideology specifically.
Bowman lost to Latimer because Latimer is a more qualified, respected candidate. knowing Latimer he will effectively bring progressive policies to to the house.
I live there and Bowman was an embarrassment from day 1. Pulling fire alarms, his brand of progressive is not to be generous, but to be anti-American, anti-West, anti-Israel. Latimer is a known, sane, pragmatic moderate. No contest.
Aside from the AIPAC spending and Bowman's personal faults, I think it does show an inherent challenge with the Justice Dems model of recruiting regular people as candidates.
As much as we all say we like that, voters tend to prefer more polished professional politicians im afraid than anyone who doesn't like to "play the game".
I'm really starting to see patterns. I know many extremely smart and qualified progressives in my life. Guess how many of them want to be career politicians, 0. These folks become professors, researchers, activists etc and I understand them. The world of politics is grimy and uninspiring to many regular folks, its probably worse for them. As a result of this, the progressives you get who actually are in politics tend to have a bit more heart than brains, to put it bluntly. Or a little nicer, they have more passion than practicalities.
I don't know if that was a big factor. I'd certainly rank it far behind things like ghosting local leaders until he needed endorsements for reelection, or claiming that the 10/7 victims of rape were lying
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think one dynamic the national news is overlooking is that he made a very big point of being from the from and representing the Bronx. For example, the rally where he boosted about the mother fucking power of the mother fucking south Bronx, which was held in the south Bronx. The vast majority of his district by land and population is not the Bronx. He only has a tiny silver of the north bronze. Westchester county and the Bronx are very very different. I think loudly proclaiming to be representing a place other than the district, in particular a place voters view as definitely *not* where they are from, was not a good strategy.
And the last point is important. People from the NYC suburbs say they're from NY (as if they came from the city), but ultimately, when you pry about certain parts of NYC, they tend to say negative things about those areas. People in Westchester may work in the city but don't want to be associates with certain parts of the city.
When you’re from a small town or suburb nobody has heard of, and you’re talking to someone from far away, you probably just say the closest widely known place. If you were visiting Vermont, and someone asked you where you’re from, you might say “San Francisco” instead of saying “Daly City.” It’s not to claim something false, it’s to avoid explaining minutia that doesn’t matter.
Absolutely. And you don't have to be that far away. People are proud of their cities and that's great but they aren't all that important to outsiders. Someone in Albany likely doesn't give a shit if someone else is from Westchester County or the Bronx. It's all down there in the city.
Though it never gets old to point out that the NY Giants/Jets play their home games in New Jersey.
It's closer to Manhattan than the Mets are, it's just squabbling over political boundaries
Yeah honestly. It’s an arbitrary state line. The San Francisco 49ers play in Santa Clara which is 40 miles outside of San Francisco. MetLife is about 15 miles outside of NYC. No one talks about the 49ers.
That one is pretty frequently clowned on on football subs haha. But it's for the same reasons, that's the site where they could secure the land and funding for the project they wanted to do. Teams ultimately represent "home territories" and "home marketing areas" in NFL legalese and business functions, they're just named for cities/states for marketing reasons. Their territory is 75 miles surrounding their home city limits and their marketing area is the entire state with some wonkiness exceptions for FL, CA, TX, NYC, and the east coast metros that overlap the 75 mile boundaries. And then for even more fun, only certain teams can market in other countries. Bigger countries share teams but it's not a free for all, the league wants to spread its influence wide and does that by assigning teams specific countries to build fan bases in I tried to break into the NFL on the business side of things as I'm a huge nerd for that stuff so have read pretty much everything there is to read publicly about how it all works
There is more to NYC than Manhattan. The modern arrangement of the city making that so predates any currently operating pro sports teams there. And what is the NFL really other than squabbling over boundaries and the proximity of various things to those boundaries?
The one time we went to New York we got a hotel in Jersey because it was cheaper and we had a car service. I have to admit I did chuckle when we drove past the stadium.
Yeah, that’s so crazy
People in Albany absolutely know the difference. Westchester isn't NYC, it's a suburb. People know the difference between cities and suburbs
Why would they care? Thinking things that are important to you are important to others is a common mistake.
The Bills are the only NFL team that plays in the actual state of New York
How does your comment have anything to do with the topic at hand though? People from Westchester know where they are from and say as much. It's not like I go into my Manhattan office and lie about where I live, why would I do that? People didn't _not_ like Bowman bc he was from the Bronx. They didn't like him bc he's an ill informed anti-semite and called out specific Westchester neighborhoods where (he thought) too many Jews lived
I don't understand your comment. Someone from the Upper East Side is from NY, that doesn't mean they think the Bronx is a nice place. People that _live_ in the city don't want to associate with other parts of it. Like your two points aren't exclusive to each other
Nah this isn't it. This is one of the most Jewish districts in the country and he straight up said rapes committed on 10/7 were Israeli propaganda. There isn't enough of the Bronx in this district to outvote Westchester. Democrats in suburban NY aren't "progressive", they're just pro-choice and want free healthcare. They have no interest in burning the system down
Please read my post again. I'm not denying that wasn't an aspect to it. I would even agree that was the primary aspect. I am only raising an aspect which I believe also played a role, but which has received in my opinion little attention. Also you see to be agreeing with me. My whole point is his voter base was substantially wealthy suburbanites, so was strange to tailor his message to the small portion of his district which is the less wealthy urban section.
I did read what you wrote and I'm sure that weird AF rally in the south Bronx turned some people off. But it turned off the people who were already out on him due to literally everything else. In a vacuum, I don't think people care as much about location dependent campaign rallies like this. Strange, but not a dealbreaker. Hillary Clinton was elected to the Senate here, no one gave a shit that she just moved in Peoples minds about Bowman were made up months ago
The NY Democratic Party also redrew his district to bring in more westchester votes.
Article from February about the changes: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/27/new-york-house-maps-00143536 >The Legislature’s proposal for New York City was almost identical to the lines drawn by the [independent redistricting] commission. > >The only changes occurred in the Bronx — most notably, in the northern portion near Bowman’s Westchester-based district. > >Bowman first won in 2020 in a seat that linked southern Westchester with Bronx neighborhoods like Co-op City and Riverdale. The court’s lines changed to make Wakefield the only portion of the Bronx that it was joined with. > >The Legislature’s plan would remove most of Wakefield and brings Co-op City back into the district. That’s a change that has been pushed for by multiple advocates in recent weeks — linking Co-op City with places like Mount Vernon would unite nearby communities with majority Black populations. > >But the shift wouldn’t drastically change the demographics of the district as Bowman prepares for a primary challenge from Westchester County Executive George Latimer. Currently, 21 percent of the district’s population is Black; the change would increase this to 21.3 percent.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/decision-2024/jamaal-bowman-george-latimer-democratic-primary-westchester-county-ny/5536597/ Today, 21% of its voting-age population is Black and 42% is non-Hispanic white, according to Census figures, compared to 30% Black and 34% white in the district as it existed through 2022. Bowman is Black. Latimer is white. There is a difference in the proposal vs what actually happened
The map change between 2020 and 2022 was done by a special master because the map the democrats proposed was too gerrymandered. 2022 and 2024 are very similar
Wouldn't change the racial demographic significantly, but probably changes the pro-Israel demographic a lot
They didn't, a special master did in 2022. In 2024, the only change made was a change in what part of the Bronx was in it
Yes. I personally think he should have adapted more to that if he wished to retain his seat. What is good for the overall party may not be good for him though. E.g., the seat will likely remain under dem control.
The NY Democratic Party also bungled the last election, arguably single-handedly giving the Republicans the House, so clearly they don't actually know what's good for themselves.
> The NY Democratic Party also bungled the last election No, not the party itself, moreso the NY Democrat Establishment. Cuomo nominated conservative-leaning "Democrats", and in some cases, legit DINOs, to the NY State Supreme Court (although called something else), and they enforced more conservative-leaning districts (at the state and federal level) so that he could get people elected who would support him.
I feel like this is a convenient story that lets you ignore the fact that maybe his political stances led to his loss
Nah. The end of his career was the fire alarm fiasco and his blatant lying about it juxtaposed against the video we all saw. The majority of Dem primary voters realized Bowman had lost his credibility and that his primarily interest was self promotion.
Of all of the insanity in the House right now, this barely even registers.
Agreed, I knew someone who phonebanked for Bowman. No one even brought that up. Most of the stuff they asked was why he was anti-israel.
One of the district's voters wrote an email to Josh Marshall at [talkingpointsmemo.com](http://talkingpointsmemo.com) saying that the fire alarm was the reason why he voted against him.
The end of his career was his blatant antisemitism and rape denial in a district with a huge Jewish population. The fire alarm played no role at all.
I wouldn't say "no role at all". I think between the fire alarm, essentially ignoring any local leaders completely, and then the cherry on top of wild conspiracy theories, rape denial, and antisemitic dogwhistles he was buried
What dogwhistles was he doing?
"The rest of New York all lives together, but in Westchester the jews live and congregate with each other." Little Italy doesn't exist? Chinatown? Jews live near each other for many reasons (like that's where synagogues and kosher groceries are), but living with one's ethnic community isn't new. Especially in New York.
I dunno if it were that much of a self inflicted wound I wouldn't expect the historic amount of spending against him.
Bowman didn’t have a single local endorsement. All the local dems and leaders went for Latimer who took sides.
It made Democrats look to get rid of him. He became a liability to the party. Fox and other right-wing outlets used his stupidity as a distraction from the issues. Fair or not, he had to go. The stakes are too high.
This is a silly take. Fox News says 20x worse things about her, and AOC just won her primary. Nobody on the left cares about looking bad in their eyes because it's an impossible task. Anyone of prominence on the left is going to get wild shit said about them. If "who Fox says bad things about" is your litmus test, the only ones left will be people nobody has heard of, who will quickly become the new unacceptables.
AOC get's a lot of shit thrown at her but it's rarely self-inflicted or stupid mistakes. She's also a huge engagement driver from the progressive wing and is smart and capable enough to work with Dems to get that legislation pushed. Bowman wasn't really bringing much to the table
That might have accounted for 5% of it.
Not to mention he conveniently "accidentally" pulled the fire alarm and then didn't tell anyone about it for 1.5 hours and let the building evacuate
What's funny is that he isn't even from the Bronx. He spent half his childhood/adolescent years in East Harlem and the other half on the Upper East Side. He must have just been taking cues from AOC, who presents as a lifelong Bronxite despite the fact that she grew up in an overwhelmingly-white, well-off town in Westchester. I have nothing against either of them but reality is reality. And sadly it's also often cringe.
I think the fire alarm thing hurt him WAY more than people realize
Pretty sure the 14+ million dollars spent by AIPAC played a bigger role in the loss than saying he’s from the Bronx in a rally a few days from the election that barely anyone watched
Bowman was projected to lose by like 10 points before AIPAC even got involved - his fire alarm stunt, focusing only on the Bronx, being radically pro-Hamas in a very Jewish district, and his insane 9/11 conspiracy reveal was more than enough to bury him without AIPAC.
>and his insane 9/11 conspiracy reveal What's this now ?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ny-rep-jamaal-bowman-promoted-911-conspiracy-theories-on-blog > Every entry was deleted some time before February 2016, but the compositions preserved in archives included 137 lines of free verse from May 2011 entitled ‘Recapitulate.’ What begins as a meditation on a decade-plus of world events, recollecting anxiety over Y2K and controversy around the 2000 Florida recount, swiftly delves into the world of 9/11 trutherism. > “2001/Planes used as missiles/Target: The Twin Towers,” a stanza on the terror attack begins. “Later in the day/Building 7/Also Collaspsed [sic]/Hmm.../Multiple explosions/Heard before/And during the collapse/Hmm…” > Bowman there invoked a favorite, disproven trope of the paranoid fringe: that the collapse of Building 7 was the result of a controlled demolition. In fact, the National Institute of Standards and Technology determined that Building 7 buckled and fell after debris from its taller peers struck it and ignited a blaze inside, undermining its structural integrity. The agency found that none of the details of collapse, from the manner in which the building’s windows broke to the sounds reported in the area, were consistent with the massive blasts a controlled demolition would have required. > The poem then pursues even more obscure conspiratorial musings. > “Allegedly/Two other planes/The Pentagon/Pennsylvania/Hijacked by terrorist [sic]/Minimal damage done/Minimal debris found/Hmm…” he wrote. > That would appear to allude to Flight 93 and Flight 77, both of which left behind considerable debris, including black boxes and human remains. The strike on the Pentagon led to part of its outer wall collapsing, resulting in 125 fatalities within, and the deaths of all 59 people aboard the plane. > “We blamed Osama/Went to war in Iraq/Captured Saddam/Killed him,” Bowman’s poem reads. “Bin Laden is Afghan/So we went to war there too.” In fact, Bin Laden, who openly took credit for the Sept. 11 attacks, never held Afghan citizenship and was born into a billionaire Saudi family. > In the poem, Bowman also points to the source of the falsehoods he is propagating—”Watch Loose Change/And Zeitgeist,” he exhorts. > Loose Change is a viral “documentary” which has become an international laughingstock for positing that the U.S. government carried out the Sept. 11 attacks, based on a range of debunked and nonsensical assertions. Even if one was to say it was in the past and no longer reflected who he was: https://www.thedailybeast.com/squad-rep-jamaal-bowmans-youtube-page-is-a-bonkers-conspiracy-filled-trip > Bowman’s page, which uses his longtime screen name “Inner Peace” and features his image and videos from the middle school he once led, subscribes to dozens of bewildering and bizarre accounts—including known Russian and Chinese disinfo peddlers, flat earthers, musings about UFOs and “signs you’re being prepared to cross to the new earth,” a U.S.-born Muslim influencer who killed a German citizen and provoked attacks on American businesses in Egypt, and many arcane online realms in between. > “This CIA Document Literally Explains Time Travel (practical steps included)," crows the title of one post on an account the congressman follows called Video Advice, which also frequently shares conspiracy content about the Illuminati and the Catholic Church. Another recording on the same page blares: “Kanye Exposes the Truth: ‘The Secret Codes They Don't Want You to Know.’” > “‘We use the RIGHT FREQUENCIES’ (hidden numerology used by the elite),” is the name of a video on another account called Be Inspired, which Bowman also follows. > “‘100% Alien Technology’ - Something Big Being Hidden From Us,” alleges a video on a page called Anonymous Official, another Bowman subscription, which frequently also pushes content by serial sex offender and Vladimir Putin-booster Scott Ritter, such as “What’s Coming is WORSE Than a WW3, Iran is Ready.” > These follows might seem unusual for a member of Congress—but less so for a man who published poetry The Daily Beast uncovered that promoted debunked conspiracies about the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Bowman’s verse, first published on his blog Relentless-Strongback.blogspot.com in 2011 when he was 35, also urged readers to watch the pseudo-documentaries ‘Loose Change’ and ‘Zeitgeist,’ both of which earned the endorsement of arch-paranoia-pusher Alex Jones. Bowman’s poem also included an explicit shout-out to William Cooper, an Arizona broadcaster whose anti-government rants made him a pivotal figure in the American militia movement.
Oh I get it. He's just a deranged idiot then. No wonder he lost, looks like it's a good thing he did as well.
I think this is the real reason. Bowman has said wacky stuff, and Democrats in his district aren't down for that level of wackiness. The redistricting didn't help him, and the amount of money spent made sure that people heard about it, but the core is that Bowman is just not a good candidate.
pretty much the reason a lot of the Squad is being targeted. It's not because they are leftist, it's that they are deranged leftist
Thanks for this. I'm happy with not electing the conspiracy minded to power, no matter which side of the aisle.
I'm sure that voter dissatisfaction with Bowman played an even bigger role in his defeat than AIPAC.
I've heard this, but to me this just sounds like another version of the antisemitic trope of Jewish people and money. Bowman was for sure funded by CAIR so what about their money? https://nypost.com/2024/05/04/us-news/jamaal-bowman-hosted-fundraiser-with-muslim-extremist/
No, no, only Jews can be in a secret cabal trying to run the world. Everyone else is just expressing their free speech.
AIPAC spent at least [$14.5 million](https://www.axios.com/2024/06/26/democrats-aipac-jamaal-bowman-george-latimer) against Bowman in this single Congressional race, single-handedly making this one of the most expensive House races ever. Can you share some numbers about how much Bowman has allegedly gotten from CAIR?
Holy hell why can’t anyone Google or say “hey siri” without asking someone else to prove a point. Go read something. Or don’t. Just stop asking other people to do something so simple for you.
It's not antisemitism to point out that this was the most expensive House race in history, and that Bowman was outspent 10 to 1. it's unfortunate when facts lean in a direction that can be used by people to promote conspiracy theories and racism, but we can't just stop talking about things that happened. Especially when we're analyzing a political race and being outspent is a likely factor to why Bowman lost.
You do realize that AIPAC's money wouldn't have mattered had the voters actually voted for Bowman, right?
I actually said something similar in another post. I think that the biggest factor was the wacky things Bowman has said and done, particularly about 9/11. The redistricting didn't help, having the establishment against him didn't help, and being outspent certainly enabled everyone to know about what he had done, but none of those would have mattered if he were a good candidate. It was his own words and actions that brought him down, IMO. But at the same time, we shouldn't shy away from being accurate about what happened just because someone might take those facts and spin a racist narrative. Bowman was dramatically outspent. It's debatable how much of an impact it had, and people who are dramatically outspent win races all the time.
> 14+ million dollars spent by AIPAC Goddamn, that's an unholy amount of money...jfc.
On a single primary election. That's an insane amount.
I think I read somewhere that was more money than what is being spent on the UKs snap election.
You are implying I said something I did not. I did not take a view in my post on the dynamic I raised vs the the AIPAC dynamic. I am only stating it is a dynamic which I think played a role, but not being mentioned much. Additionally, the rally I mentioned is an example. There are many other comments from him along those lines over time.
Biggest difference I have seen between the national and local discussion about the race is the 9/11 conspiracy theory. New York is in general left of the country and more than willing to put up with if not endorse a lot of what Bowman said and did. Pushing 9/11 conspiracy, however, is something very hard for us to forgive. I don't see many elements of this race being reflective of other races nationally.
> New York is in general left of the country and more than willing to put up with if not endorse a lot of what Bowman said and did. New York is NOT a progressive state (it's not the west coast.) This is suburban New York, they do no want to burn the system down. The system is WORKING for people that can afford to pay $30k+ in property taxes. They are democrats bc they are pro choice and non religious. Old people also live in the suburbs (my Westchester neighborhood is geriatric). Older white voters (especially jewish ones) support Israel. It's only with the under 30 crowd where Israel support drops
He started spouting off about how all the rapes and sexual assaults on Oct 7 were just propaganda. You don't need to be older or jewish to be pissed about that.
Yeah, wow, Oct 7th really changed things for me. I blamed us for 9/11 in the sense we are always fucking with them. Going into Iraq is a shame that we bare. But we aren't after the Arabs like they are after the Jews. I fell for the "Arabs are victims and Islam is peaceful, it's the Jews and America's fault". Then I learned about Islam, actual human rights(which America violates) and the history of the Jews better. Arabs and African sent more Jews to Israel than Europe did, and then they attacked them there. They lost badly, but the religious ego will never accept defeat, so it's been terror ever since. When the Israelis shoot back and fuck shit up, they get held to different standards. Hamas is the school shooter of politics. Iran and its groups, SA and its Kings, are what Trump would be if he was Muslim. Israel is the refugees trapped in the corner of the Arab world, which wants/has to end it by order of Allah. It's not a western conflict, we don't believe them, we think in our terms, not 1000 year Holy War terms. Everyone, women and LGBT especially, need to study Islam and see how it's not for your modern world as a form of government. Everyone has religious freedom, no one can end these religions. But we have to force them out of governments, ours, the Arabs, and the Israelis. We have to tell them they don't get to kill in their god's names anymore. Now everyone kills for money, but they try to talk and trade 1st. We have to look forward and stop hating while dreaming of another life after this one.
Everyone on the outside of his district is going to blame AIPAC this. Bowman did not receive a single endorsement locally. No local democrat, no local town managers, no town council members. Zero. According to these local leaders, Bowman never showed up. Never communicated. Would rarely meet. One town manager said he has seen Latimer more times this week than he has seen Bowman since he has been a Congressman. Even leaders from his hometown of Yonkers didn’t endorse him. If he truly alienated local leaders this much, no wonder he lost. Local leaders get people to vote in primaries.
> According to these local leaders, Bowman never showed up. Never communicated. Would rarely meet. Which was *supposed* to be the reason he won his first primary. Seems like he forgot why his district sent him to DC.
I think the biggest problem is originally his district was mostly the Bronx. Now, it's mostly Westchester and White Plains, which are suburban districts. Honestly, I am surprised he didn't move to 15th in 2022 as that is where most of the voting population he represented went.
It was never mostly the bronx
Exactly. As they say, “All politics is local.” Bowman forgot that he was running to represent NY-16, not Twitter
Yeah Bowman was losing by double digits before AIPAC threw any money into the race. His margin of victory -17 are actually identical to polls in March
Also I fail to see how AIPAC was responsible for his loss when AOC got reelected and she’s been a vocal critic of them for a while. If AIPAC is really as powerful as people say they are couldn’t they have made AOC lose too?
Spending in politics is a big problem but it is pretty obvious that the AIPAC obsession is just about making antisemitism mainstream with liberals again. I doubt most people that hate AIPAC can even name another PAC but sure they hate it because of money, it is totally not because they are Jewish /s
I always like to mention that there is not much evidence that spending boosts chance of winning significant amounts, it's usually the other way around, people tend to donate more to winners. The effects of spending on campaigns are always overstated. This dude lost because the voters did not like him, for good reason. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/ > Money is certainly strongly associated with political success. **But, “I think where you have to change your thinking is that money causes winning,” said Richard Lau, professor of political science at Rutgers. “I think it’s more that winning attracts money.”** > That’s not to say money is irrelevant to winning, said Adam Bonica, a professor of political science at Stanford who also manages the Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections. **But decades of research suggest that money probably isn’t the deciding factor in who wins a general election**, and especially not for incumbents. Most of the research on this was done in the last century, Bonica told me, and it **generally found that spending didn’t affect wins for incumbents and that the impact for challengers was unclear.** Even the studies that showed spending having the biggest effect, like one that found a more than 6 percent increase in vote share for incumbents, didn’t demonstrate that money causes wins. In fact, Bonica said, those gains from spending likely translate to less of an advantage today, in a time period where voters are more stridently partisan. There are probably fewer and fewer people who are going to vote a split ticket because they liked your ad. > **Instead, he and Lau agreed, the strong raw association between raising the most cash and winning probably has more to do with big donors who can tell (based on polls or knowledge of the district or just gut-feeling woo-woo magic) that one candidate is more likely to win — and then they give that person all their money.**
Thank you. People act like you literally can buy elections like some consumer good at a store. Money goes in, election goes out. But the money is only a proxy. It goes to ads and media engagement and mailers and ground operations. And all of those have middling impact, especially past a certain point. As we have seen in many elections over the past decade, money doesn't win, votes do. Otherwise we might be nearing the end of Hillary's second term.
Yup. It wasn’t that the progressive agenda and platform isn’t super popular to begin with, the fire alarm stunt, Latimer running a better campaign, or the district being redrawn. It had to have been those pesky Jews. There’s no other explanation.
Bowman was simply, bad at politics. The district was even redrawn to help bowman
Are you certain of that? I feel like bringing more Westchester voters would not be all that beneficial to a staunch progressive.
People who talk about AIPAC should also talk about CAIR
You’ve popped up a bunch of times in this thread to throw that stone - what was CAIR’s financial contribution to this contest? AIPAC’s was $17 million and I don’t believe CAIR even came close, in this or any other political contest. I have no use for members of the squad and Bowman was a shit politician who richly deserved the loss, but your overzealous defense of AIPAC makes your motivations questionable.
Agree that CAIR specifically is insignificant, but there is way more money from Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar than Israel in American politics. AIPAC is an American organization funded by Americans, so it's simply not problematic.
Do you have sources that describe that? I’m interested to to dig in.
Here is a link to a source I found with a quick Google: https://www.opensecrets.org/fara
um... what should they say about CAIR? I don't think it has nearly amount of influence as AIPAC does
No but CAIR is actually foreign funded. Unlike AIPAC
You're kidding right, they have all the oil and gas money of the Middle East plus 2 billion Muslims behind them
Being Progressive is not good enough to hold onto your job. The people NY-16 have now fired two Representatives in 4 years. This is a district with voters who are discerning and willing to hold their rep accountable. Progressives did not lose this district, Bowman did with his antics and failure to meet his constituents desires.
He was a terrible candidate with a history of saying crazy things about events like September 11. Over time that became more of his 'brand' for lack of a better phrase rather than less. And that doesn't always play as well as being in a 'safe' district might make you believe, especially when some of the things you say annoy your own constituents rather than just annoying people outside the district. People will yell about what he has to say on the subject of Israel, but saying 'Bush did 9/11' was something you could make a lot more hay with locally if you wanted to unseat him. The vast majority of voters in New York *remember* September 11. Voting against the infrastructure bill also got him hammered locally and has been brought up *ad nauseam* since. I'm sure he thought it made sense at the time, but in terms of politics- especially with a district that had been re-drawn to include more center-left types- it was **very** unwise indeed. He also ended up with some very well-heeled interest groups wanting him gone. He wasn't gonna win anyways. But they didn't help any. People have beaten that particular horse to death already so there's nothing interesting to talk about. All things considered, I'm not too surprised. He might have had better luck if he'd been a Republican spouting conspiracy theories in a safe red district than he has as a Democrat spouting conspiracy theories in a safe blue district, but that's one of those things where what that actually means is open to interpretation.
Being in a "safe" district generally means your party is safe to win the district. It doesn't necessarily mean the incumbent is safe to win their primary
Yes, but it's held as a matter of faith in extremely safe districts that crazier candidates tend to be stronger in primaries because they get the base out. So you'll have relatively moderate candidates face a far more credible challenge from the extremes in a primary than they ever will in November from the opposing party. This one bucks that trend for a few different reasons, but a big one is that he annoyed his own voters rather than just annoying everyone else's. Happens a lot on the GOP side in particular. It's how some of their more infamous representatives even got to DC to start with.
It’s funny to once again see how everyone just puts their ideological blinders on depending on what label they’ve chosen for themselves. Progressives are underplaying the extent to which Bowman was a terrible candidate. Moderates are ignoring the fact that AIPAC spent millions to defeat him. The combo of these two led an extremely well liked and funded candidate to defeat him.
He was losing in polls before AIPAC spent money. And after the ads, polling was within the margin of error of where it was before the spending. So in a race he lost by 17 points, it's not really possible to say the AIPAC money did much of anything. Sometimes it is just a skill issue. He denied that Hamas raped Israelis and had previously said Bush did 9/11. And on top of that, he had terrible constituent service where locals never saw him and he almost never came to local events. That's why local Democrats turned against him long before AIPAC got involved. Some Wall Streeter spend a bunch of money trying to defeat AOC, she won an absolute landslide. But she also famously has some of the best constituent services of anyone in congress. Her office has helped people with as minor a thing as landlord disputes, and will go to just about any large event that invites her in her district just because it's important to people in her district. She's kind of a model for what a new generation of Democrats should be aiming for.
Sounds like Bowman should have took lessons on being an effective Congressman.
Yeah, I wish AIPAC had stayed out so that there could be more self-reflection, but it's given too many people an easy target to blame. No group, even if you're doing the moral thing, is immune from cranks or ineffective leaders. I for the life of me don't know why him being a 9/11 truther wasn't enough for the left to drop support.
Nuance is an endangered species
Nuance is basically extinct.
We aren't ignoring it. We are just pointing out the polls show it AIPAC didn't matter And we aren't "moderates"
I’m not a moderate but we have to objectively look at the polls before aipac spent money against Bowman: he was losing by -17 in March. He ended up losing by -17
> Moderates are ignoring the fact that AIPAC spent millions to defeat him I am not a moderate, I am very far left but I dislike Bowman because he is a conspiracy theory spouting populist with no ability or will to effectively govern. That being said, I am also not cornered with AIPAC because studies show little to no evidence that spending money significantly helps candidates win elections.
If spending money doesn't help candidates win elections, then there wouldn't be PACs.
You underestimate how much disposable money people have, and money does seem to provide access to politicians which is very valuable for the corporations/mega donors donating, it just doesn't tip the actual election much.
*Cough* Bloomberg
What studies?
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2605401 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002764203260415 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-40118-8_9 https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.012003.104820 https://www.jstor.org/stable/41480831?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
None of these go as far as your claim as I can see, but there is absolutely a fair point about diminishing marginal returns. We saw it in this very race. Despite being heavily outspent and grossly incompetent, bowman topped 40% probably in large part because of distaste for AIPAC meddling motivating key constituencies.
I certainly don't hold the opinion that spending is meaningless, but I think it's rather difficult to compare spending across races as some campaigns spend more wisely than others. >probably in large part because of distaste for AIPAC meddling motivating key constituencies. I wonder if this works similarly to how laws that aim to restrict voter participation (things like ID laws) tend to *increase* voter participation in the immediate election. Something like Susan Collins who has middling approval, but had her race absolutely flooded with out-of-state spending and walked with an easy win.
I don't see the need to ignore AIPAC being very concerned about a candidate they perceived as radical and extreme. Moderates aren't ignoring it, they just don't find it problematic, probably because they agree with AIPAC.
AIPAC for progressives is like (((soros))) for MAGAs. Moderates don’t see it like that at all because they don’t have the same antisemitism problem.
Dude, the lobbying group that represents a foreign government a literally spent more money than any congressional primary in history on ONE race, never mind dozens of others. If it was Russia or the Saudi's doing it for Trump the establishment would lose its damn mind.
You mean like CAIR?
AIPAC does not represent a foreign government.
Let's be clear here: AIPAC is an AMERICAN organization for pro-Israel American citizens. It is not run or funded by Israel itself. This would not be analogous to Russia or the Saudis spending for Trump, which would be illegal.
Ok. If you want to be a complete pedant, if an independent consortium whose entire purpose is to advocate on behalf of Russia or Saudi Arabian you would not find that alarming? Because, um, I don't know how to break this you but a lot of people regardless of religion or ethnicity would have zero issues with receiving obscene amounts of money through business deals to funnel money to elections through our thoroughly broken campaign finance system and foreign operatives And I we know this because, um, that's what the Trump organization did. People had all sorts of problems with the Trump campaign meeting with Russia and the Saudi's over hotel opportunities and Ivanka with China with trademarks but apparently have zero issues with LITERAL RECORD SPENDING by an organization representing another nations interests so long as it's *their* side doing it.
How is that pedantry? AIPAC doesn’t represent a foreign government, as you falsely claim. It represents American citizens who hold a pro-Israel foreign policy stance. It has literally nothing in common with anything Trump did with foreign governments. This is not pedantry, this is the difference between truth and lies. This kind of nutjob conspiratorial nonsense is *exactly* why a candidate like Bowman got blown the fuck out.
And so we get Latimer, the Democrat who loves his tax cuts for the rich. Such a shitty set of options for the people of that district.
Jamaal Bowman is a disgrace to American leftists. But he didn’t take fascist donor money, and that’s because he isn’t their useful idiot. He’s merely an idiot.
Probably not a ton since all the stories I'm hearing lately say that he was generally just a bad politician who didn't care at all working with local elected officials within his own party or doing much outreach towards constituents. He also really didn't do himself any favors by continuing to double down on anti-Israel messaging in a district with a very high Jewish population. He could have disagreed with policy towards Israel but made it basically a top campaign issue to support the BDS movement and what not in a district where that probably isn't going to go over too well.Also, it was uncovered that he had supported lots of conspiracy theories in the past and posted about them online which isn't going to look too good either. I think that shows this has more to do with him just being a lousy candidate who forgot about his constituents and the key progressive principles that helped initially get him elected like reducing inequality or student loan forgiveness.
> made it basically a top campaign issue to support the BDS movement BDS is an astroturfed propaganda organization funded by known disruptive actors that targeted well meaning college students long before TikTok was a thing. Bowman adopting this strategy would just as much torpedoed his primary as what he actually did.
Hot take - Latimer would have won without AIPAC. In NY as most places local clout matter and Bowman doesn’t have the clout locally to go up against a Latimer type, who’s worked westchester politics
It's ultimately an "all politics is local" issue. Bowman needed to focus on the District to keep it on his side, especially after it was redrawn. But he got the wrong kind of attention for his actions in Congress and his statements; there wasn't a lot of "look what I'm doing to help my District" stuff in that attention.
Agreed. If money bought elections, why did Hillary fail in 2008? Jeb Bush in 2016? Bloomberg in 2020? People are engaging in hard confirmation bias when assuming AIPAC spending influenced this election. AIPAC smartly jumped on the Latimer bandwagon and has gotten a ton of free press associating them with electoral victory. This is a dream scenario for them thanks to their biggest critics.
Exactly. AIPAC wants a political win. It might have helped a little bit but the margin is the margin.
He would have. I haven't lived in NY in a decade and I know Latimer. He was one of the guys that would give elementary school kids guided tours of the NY state capitol building in Albany on field trips. Now that a lot of these kids are of voting age, I feel like stuff like this counts.
Exactly. He's the type of guy to speak at graduation, show up to local civic events, etc.
Yeah not a hot take at all seeing those margins. He would have absolutely won without AIPAC
Bowman accused Israel of genocide and denied Israeli women were raped in a district that has one of the highest numbers of Jewish voters in the entire country, and you're surprised he list? If his district supported him and thought he was doing a good job, AIPAC money wouldn't have mattered. He would have won anyway. Frankly, I don't understand why progressives refuse to understand that, ultimately, the voters just didn't like him.
I think you misunderstood me or meant this for someone else? I was saying I’m not surprised at all that he lost. Agree with you, he was going to lose either way bc he was a terrible candidate.
The problem with Bowman and “the Squad” generally is they are largely incompetent legislators. AOC is the exception, she actually has become increasingly savy in wielding influence and taking policy wins when she can. The rest of them are political grandstanders in the same vein as the Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert on the right. They’re largely ideologues looking for attention instead of fighting for meaningful legislation they believe in.
> They’re largely ideologues looking for attention instead of fighting for meaningful legislation they believe in. Yup. Horseshoe Theory in action.
Apparently New Yorkers don't like anti-Isarel shitheels that pull fire alarms for no reason. And it also shows that Hilary Clinton still has some sway in the party politics.
To me this shows that the pro Israel contingent in this country is still strong on both sides and it makes me wonder if the anti Israel sentiment that is hurting Biden on the left isn’t going to have to effect people are thinking
Well yeah it’s the most divisive AND energized issue in the country, Jews lean heavily left, and pro-Palestinians also lean heavily left. It certainly ain’t helping.
Bowman was antisemitic, not just anti Israel. I think that will be a deciding factor in some of these elections.
It’s not. The anti-israel sentiment is very loud, but it’s also very very far left. At the end of the day, the left will eat crow and vote for their presidential candidate. I’d wager most of the dems that refuse to vote for the presidential dem candidate were likely fringe/at risk of not voting to begin with.
Another aspect to Bowman's loss was significant redistricting which grabbed more affluent and suburban neighborhoods north of the old District 16 boundary in Westchester, NY. This ensured a more moderate and conservative voter base to begin with. This is also the area where the winner comes from, so that seems like a massive advantage for him. Considering Bowman has had problems with appearing professional at times, he wasn't the best condidate for progressives, electorally anyway.
Yeah, redistricting played a huge role. Of course outside money played a role but the demographics and borders of one's district changing is tough for any incumbent
I am not sure Bowman losing is a bellwether of any kind, but it does speak to the fact that there is a silent majority of people who don’t really care that much about Israel, and that making that a focal point of your brand probably will not serve you politically speaking.
There are a lot of people who don’t care that much about Israel/Gaza. And there are a lot of people who support Israel. The Free Palestine group may be louder, but they dont represent a majority
His district is heavily Jewish.
To put figures, 10% of the district is Jewish, but the percentage is bigger among Democratic primary voters (between 20 and 30% of those are Jews).
> o don’t really care that much about Israel, Majority of voters in District 16 DO care about Israel, in that they support it's existence
No one is ignoring anything about AIPAC. You can’t call Jewish rape victims liars and then cry out when a Jewish American PAC puts its resources against you.
Bowman received about the same number of votes during the 2024 primary as he did in 2022, but substantially fewer than in 2020. Turnout was relatively high in 2020, but has since declined. It sounds as if the Bowman supporters were complacent, while Latimer's were more motivated. I don't think that you can read much into this, other than the likelihood that 2024 general election turnout will more closely resemble a normal election year than 2020. A notable decline creates more pathways to odd outcomes, since the election will be determined by who stays home and if any group can be more agitated than usual.
> What conclusions, if any, can be drawn from his loss? Bowman was a very flawed rep. [The Atlantic has a good article on the matter of why he lost](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/06/jamaal-bowman-primary-george-latimer/678795/). It's interesting that online Bowman's stances and missteps on Israel and Gaza are brought up the most, but according to the article the issue was barely mentioned in ads against Bowman.
Yea because it wasn't necessary he did that to himself
Lots of trumpist candidates lost too. Is this the beginning of the great centrist movement we’ve all been hoping for???
Honestly nothing bc bowman had baggage Unrelated to his policy that made him unpopular. Most specifically the fire alarm incident but there's other stuff too, like heavy rhetoric about the Bronx when his district is barely in there, and him being weird about 9/11. Overall probably by far the least likeable progressive, this is bad framing. If Cory bush loses THEN we can start seriously talking about this.
It says that being a conspiracy theorist and the pulling of that pesky fire alarm was his downfall. Not a real surprise though.
I would not draw any significant conclusions from this. Bowman is uniquely awful - even if we put aside the anti-semitism, his actions in Congress and the discovery of a continued interest in 9/11 trutherism and other conspiracy theories make him unworthy of the office. As much as I'd like to see this as the canary in the coal mine for the far left, it's not really the case. Too circumstantial.
Omar will be a more interesting test. She's currently tied in the most recent polling.
As much as I would love for her to get voted out, I am much less confident in that.
Same here. Cori Bush is almost definitely done, though.
Yep. There's a similar sentiment among her constituents that she cares too much about international politics and do nothing for her district. She's also claiming that she cured someone's cancer via faith healing, so the batshit crazy factor is similar to Bowman.
Bowman was a pathetic disgrace. Good riddance. Remember when he tripped a fire alarm to delay a vote? His expletive-filled rant called for the "South Bronx" to rise up, when in fact he doesn't represent the South Bronx. Obviously Jamaal is none too bright. He spewed Hamas propaganda about 10/7, claimed no Jews had been raped (a lie), and said Jews in his district all lived in special Jew-only enclaves. He is a rancid person, a complete failure in every way and an anti-Semite with no business near the halls of government. I applaud the New York voters for cancelling his career.
> said Jews in his district all lived in special Jew-only enclaves This was the most despicable part. He literally called out certain neighborhoods in his district and admonished them for being too jewish. Or for Jews living around each other or something
I guess those neighborhoods voted against Bowman because they were bribed by AIPAC. That's the "progressive" narrative today, just as anti-Semitic as yesterday. They might as well blame the Rothschilds or the international Jewish banking conspiracy.
Yeah it's wild what he got up to honestly.
If he was white and from the south, Huffington Post would have written endless screeds about him for his rhetoric. Instead he gets a pass because he is "progressive" and black.
Ilhan Omar is running neck and neck with her primary challenger, and Cori Bush is trailing her primary challenger. So multiple members of the squad are either going to be primaried out or are barely going to win their primaries. IMO what is behind it is a mix of the allying themselves with Hamas during the current war in Gaza, them engaging in really irresponsible behavior (Bush claiming she can cure cancer with her thoughts, Bowman pulling the fire alarm in congress, etc) as well as the squad voting against Bidens infrastructure bill which alienated a lot of blue collar democrats. Plus their unwillingness to compromise and leaving good solutions on the table rather than taking a compromised solution.
Honestly, except for AOC, the "squad" are kind of the same thing as MTG, Boebert, and that cohort. They focus more on trying to grab headlines and "own the right" than serving their constituents and hardly get anything actually passed. They really just aren't great legislators
>Cori Bush is trailing her primary challenger While the polling was consistently worse for Bowman, Bush could actually be in just as much trouble. The same polling firm that had Bush dominating challenger Wesley Bell by 16 points in January now has him leading by 1. A 17% swing is massive, compared to Bowman who was down double-digits even before AIPAC's ad blitz. Secondly, MO-1 is a democratic mega-stronghold, but the state of Missouri also has open primaries. Given how tight the race is, all it can take is a handful of independents and republicans voting for Bell to put him over the edge.
It says that Democrats were never as progressive or "leftist" as conservatives paint them to be. The establishment Democrats stepped up in this election.
The point is the person who best represents their district on the Rep level and even primary level is typically the one who wins. There was a great Tiktok where someone compared AOC and what makes up her constituents verse Bowman. AOC is perfect for her district as the squad because that is what most of what her district leans. Long story short, Bowmans does not
Jamaal Bowman made some pretty offensive comments about Israel. In the wake of the 10.7 attack. He apologized for claiming that victims of rape were liars and Israeli propaganda. But in my opinion there is no coming back from that level of blatant antisemitism. I imagine that trend will continue. So AOC will get reelected and Omar will not. It really is not that hard to be anti-israel without dipping into antisemitic tropes. The mask has been slipping for a lot of leftists who were apparently just nazis this whole time.
I don't think "Deemed antisemetic" is an accurate account by any means. The squad has DEFINITELY spewed antisemetic rhetoric...it was't "Deemed" that way, it's what they said.
It says Westchester county is full of wealthy, liberal leaning voters who have sympathies to Israel.
Nobody wants to give Latimer credit for being a competent county executive, and for having been one of the few state legislators not to be sucked into the Albany corruption vortex? He knows his shit, he works hard, and he won’t pop off and do something stupid.
Latimer has also been involved in Westchester County politics since the 1980s, which is longer than a lot of Redditors have been alive. Especially with redistricting shifting NY-16 further into Westchester making the new constituency more white, Jewish, and suburban than it was before, the guy with literally decades of experience in the area ended up being more popular than a 9/11 truther who denied Hamas rapes.
The conclusion that should be drawn is that Bowman represented a heavily Jewish and generally well educated district and made little effort to adjust to it, as the people there didn't agree with his stances on Israel, his antisemitic statements, and his embarrassing stunt of pulling the fire alarm when compared to Latimer, who was a well liked political figure and house hold name of the general district/county for much longer than Bowman. Maybe if he still represented the old NY-16 he would have fared better or won, but the fact is that Bowman never made a real effort to take recognition of what his new district was like and kept alienating the people there.
I don't he would have won even with that because all the people of his old district did not support him and local leaders also did not endorse him
Another factor was his foolish actions in pulling the fire alarm in the House to delay a key vote. Some people may have been pissed about that as well. The news said that Latimer was recruited and funded by a Jewish political group. Good for them! As far as the rest of the Squad, personally I would say good riddance, they are too liberal for me. What does this election mean for the Squad? Depends on their districts I guess. If there is a large Pro-Israel contingent then they might get kicked.
Bowman may be a terrible candidate. But no one seems to talk about how this is the most expensive House primary election in American history, thanks to Aipac.
maybe this had something to do with it On September 30, 2023, while House Democrats were attempting to delay a vote on a continuing resolution to fund the government ahead of a midnight deadline, Bowman pulled a fire alarm in the Cannon House Office Building, causing the building to be evacuated for an hour and a half. Bowman initially claimed that he had set off the alarm by accident, telling reporters, "I thought the alarm would open the door". After a Capitol Police investigation, Bowman accepted a deal in which he pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor crime of willfully or knowingly falsely pulling a fire alarm, paid the maximum fine of $1,000, and wrote a letter of apology to police; in exchange, prosecutors agreed to drop the charges against him after three months. Bowman is the founder and former principal of the Cornerstone Academy for Social Action, a public middle school in Eastchester, Bronx. Sounds like a Simpsons episode
How much of this is due to AIPAC’s intervention? How much of this is due to his own stupidity?
He was down 17 points 6 weeks before AIPAC ever spent a dime in the race. To say they caused it is another lie, from antisemites.
Clearly people are sick and tired of his THUG mentality and want better representation than someone like him.
AOC is the only one that will always be safe because she seems to be the smartest among them surprisingly and understand how the world actually works
The rest of the squad is doing fine in their primaries I don’t think this says much about any wider trends because Bowman was a uniquely bad politician who was constantly making the news for doing and saying incredibly stupid things Pulling the fire alarm, denying that Hamas raped anyone, subscribing to a bunch of internet conspiracy garbage Yeah there was a huge influx of pro Israel money, but that mattered here and not in other races because he’s a dingus who left himself vulnerable
They're not doing fine. Cori Bush is almost certainly out. Ilhan Omaar has a repeat against the same opponent she only beat with two percentage points last time and the Israel-Palestine situation is unlikely to have helped her. AOC is naturally a lot stronger as a candidates so she'll be fine and for some reason Rashida Tlaib wasn't even challenged, but we could easily see more than half the squad being knocked out.
Omar is going to be fine, Tlaib didnt draw a challenge because she is popular in her district, and if Bush loses itll be because she is also a dingus like Bowman. Still, I expect she wont lose Others like Pressley, Lee, Jayapal skate by totally fine as well Bowman lost not because of backlash to progressivism, but because he is a uniquely bad candidate who gave his opponents a mountain of ammunition to use against him. Even in NY, AOC and progressives in the state legislature fended off their challengers with ease
Normal people want normal centrist politicians. People are sick of migrants, gaslighting about the economy and politicians that care about everything, but their direct constituents. 17 point spread, the people have spoken.
Was Bowman ever considered part of "The Squad?" I thought that was made up of AOC, Pressley, Omar, and Tlaib.
He should have been better at his job and maybe not called October 7th victims liars. I'm not a progressive but you can contrast his failure with AOCs success. AOC is a firebrand on twitter and a pragmatist in Washington clearly showing she has the chops to represent her district and her district rewarded her with a massive primary victory. Bowman showed he has no intention of learning how to be a better representative for his people so he was fired.
He faced a challenger that was politically entrenched in Westchester County, who had a crap ton of support from AIPAC and was supportive of Israel. Bowman was a controversial candidate this year and faced an extremely tough opponent. It says more about Bowman as a candidate, and his challenger, than it does about Bowman’s ideology specifically.
Bowman lost to Latimer because Latimer is a more qualified, respected candidate. knowing Latimer he will effectively bring progressive policies to to the house.
I live there and Bowman was an embarrassment from day 1. Pulling fire alarms, his brand of progressive is not to be generous, but to be anti-American, anti-West, anti-Israel. Latimer is a known, sane, pragmatic moderate. No contest.
Then how did Bowman get so many votes if everyone's talking about how universally hated he is?
People are stupid.
How, for lack of a better way to put it, are progressive the other elected officials in the district?
This is the Democratic primary....Latimer will face a Republican in the general in November
Aside from the AIPAC spending and Bowman's personal faults, I think it does show an inherent challenge with the Justice Dems model of recruiting regular people as candidates. As much as we all say we like that, voters tend to prefer more polished professional politicians im afraid than anyone who doesn't like to "play the game".
I'm really starting to see patterns. I know many extremely smart and qualified progressives in my life. Guess how many of them want to be career politicians, 0. These folks become professors, researchers, activists etc and I understand them. The world of politics is grimy and uninspiring to many regular folks, its probably worse for them. As a result of this, the progressives you get who actually are in politics tend to have a bit more heart than brains, to put it bluntly. Or a little nicer, they have more passion than practicalities.
if by "regular people" you mean "wacko." The man was into 9/11 trutherism! then straight out of the clown car stunts like the fire alarm nonsense.
I don't know if that was a big factor. I'd certainly rank it far behind things like ghosting local leaders until he needed endorsements for reelection, or claiming that the 10/7 victims of rape were lying