Rep. Jamaal Bowman lost his primary race tonight to challenger George Latimer. The final tally was a 58%-42% landslide in Latimer's favor.
Conventional wisdom says this was mostly due to massive spending by AIPAC, the American-Israel lobbying group. And that surely had a big impact. But it's worth noting a couple of things. First, Bowman was behind even before AIPAC started spending. Second, the AIPAC ads never mentioned Israel. And third, it's possible—just possible—that Bowman lost mostly because he's a crackpot. Let's put it this way: the gurus behind the AIPAC advertising didn't have to work very hard to create their scorched-earth campaign. It was a target rich environment.
So I wouldn't take too much away from this. Yes, it's a loss for progressives, but with a candidate as bad as Bowman they never really had a chance. I doubt this is much of a bellwether for anything.
On the other hand, with any luck this is a bellwether:
This might be the worst primary night for Trump-endorsed GOP candidates all year. Burns loses narrowly in SC, Dave Williams getting crushed in CO05 - all before UTSen comes in, and polls had showed Trump-backed Trent Staggs down big.
— David Weigel (@daveweigel) June 26, 2024
Thanks for the update. Especially brightens my night to know that trump's anointed ones are having a bad time.
On Bowman, Josh Marshall has me pretty well persuaded that he was never a good fit for the district but rather a fluke winner earlier, and lacking the kind of deep political talent AOC has, Bowman hasn't been able to either adapt himself to the district, or the district to himself. In some ways that's a shame because Dems need some strong figures on their left, no matter what republicans will say about them. But figures like that have to speak for their districts. I also hope people don't draw the wrong conclusion and over-empower AIPAC because of this.
58-42 is a decisive victory, but not a landslide. You want to see a landslide, go check out AOC's 82% of the vote in the next district over.
wow. good for her. and for her district.
The results here in Colorado were sweet. Dave Williams is a grade A Trump crackpot (used party resources for an aggressive anti-gay campaign during pride month. .. “God hates flags” with flags the code word for “fags”.)
Williams got himself elected state party chairman by the crockpot wing and proceeded to use party resources to promote his campaign for congress, and that of 18 other Trumpist candidates for various posts, rather than keep the party neutral in the primaries. Last I heard, 14 of the 18 Trumpist-Williams candidates lost, Williams by more than 30 points. With Dems winning everything in Colorado in recent years except in the crackpot areas (Lauren Boebert won her primary “hand-ily”), it could be that the state gop is trying to move back to the middle. At least the voters, if not the party.. …
…. Same with the state Dems, possibly. Several of the most liberal incumbents in various posts lost their primaries to “moderates“.
'Lauren Boebert won her primary “hand-ily”'
I see what you did there. ????
Boebert won with only a plurality. If the not-Boebert vote hadn't been split five ways, she might have lost.
So, Bowman LOST his primary in a Dist that is pretty heavily populated by Jews and he came out against old Benny?
"And third, it's possible—just possible—that Bowman lost mostly because he's a crackpot."
That has to be the understatement of the year. Jewish people make up 20% to 30% of the voters depending on which site you go to
Two points
1. I don't know that Bowman was a 'bad candidate.' Rather, I think he was a strange match for the district.
2. The results of the election last night, highlight how Gaza divided the Democrats.
NY underwent some last-minute redistricting last year that meant some candidates, like Bowman, ended up running for re-election in districts with demographics that were quite different from the ones they had in 20 or 22. That said, how monumentally stupid do you have to be to see the composition of Dem voters in the new NY-16 and think a bunch of far-left, anti-Israel stuff is what they were looking for. Talk about not reading the room. Bowman also lost a bunch of union endorsemensts for opposing the IRA in 2021. Again, read the room, dude.
How dare you seek to disrupt the narrative that it is all AIPAC's, i.e. "the Jews," fault a progressive lost by asserting facts.
Since the district is just south of mine, I was inundated with ads for Latimer and Bowman, including of course, the AIPAC attack ads. None of the ads featured Bowman's position on Israel, but mostly his no votes against Biden's addenda, especially the debt and infrastructure deals. Latimer is a moderate progressive, and generally well liked as our County Executive.
Not sure what the primaries showed last night. Bowman's district is affluent, with a large Jewish population, and heavily leans blue. Israel/Gaza would not have hurt him if he maintained a "J Street" position on it.
I'm not sure why the fact that the AIPAC ads were not about Israel is supposed to show a lack of importance. The danger of money in politics is precisely that the spending can dishonestly hide the reason for the spending so that an issue that is unpopular wins by allowing voters to be inundated with ads about some side issue that doesn't really matter to the people running the ads.
The evidence suggests that AIPAC decided that Bowman's position on Israel wasn't that unpopular and so to punish him for that position they had to manufacture another line of attack.
I doubt we can know if it was the money that mattered or Bowman's behavior. But the big take away from this will be not to get on AIPAC's bad side because if you do you will be buried in attack ads. Ironically it was noting this that got Ilhan Omar branded an anti-Semite. One hopes that is not anti-Semitic since it would mean anti-Semitism is right.
Money in politics is certainly a big problem, but it is highly unlikely that its going away in the foreseeable future, especially after Citizens United. Bowman lost in the NY 16th because he was vulnerable with the Democratic voters, and AIPAC certainly highlighted those issues, painting him as a radical and an unreliable supporter of Biden.
Note that if Bowman survived the primary, it is possible that AIPAC would have gone after him in the general, attacking his positions that caused him to loose the support of J Street. Living in the NY 17th, I could not vote but had to endure the TV ad assault. Just can't wait until November
This isn't the first primary campaign that AIPAC has weighed in on, just the most money they have spent. They never mention Israel when they intervene, it is always about the candidates position on other issues. They are aware that voters may think it unseemly to vote for a candidate because it would be better for some other country not necessarily their own.
It is likely that if Bowman had won AIPAC would have spent heavily against him. But that just highlights the dishonesty of their ad campaign which pretended their objection was that Bowman was not loyal enough to Biden. In the real world Biden's biggest problem with disloyalty comes from AIPAC supported centrists like Gottheimer.
The fact that money in politics is not going away is not a reason to avoid calling out its corrosive effects. And the problem is not diminished when it is done in support of a foreign country rather than in support of big business. The people who call it out both when it is for Israel and for a big business are being consistent. The people who object when it is for big business but find ways to minimize it when it is for Israel are the hypocrites.
And if Latimer's opponent in the general election proves to be even more pro-Isreal than he is, AIPAC will turn around and spend another $15M to try and defeat him.
If you believe a convicted politician, such as Trump, should be punished, then it behooves one to also slap the hands of someone who pled down to a misdemeanor.
I assume this to be the reason why Bowman lost. One can't sincerely claim Trump to be disqualified from office (in the sense that a criminal shouldn't be allowed to hold power), otherwise.