66
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
66 points (81.1% liked)
politics
18601 readers
5086 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is really unfortunate. Bowman had a choice between doing what he thought was right and oppose Israel's invasion of Gaza or keep his head down and probably get reelected.
I feel this is a great example of the Overton window in action, and AOC easily winning her primary shows how broadly the window can vary even in adjacent districts.
Bowman was the better candidate. No doubt. But he isn't without fault. Many in the district had legitimate complaints about his focus. Not even pertaining to Israel. It's a shame so many people when feeling let down by representation can gravitate to worse candidates. Simply because they're someone else. And not a better candidate.
In the end I have to respect the choice to not support the genocide. I get that it has repercussions but I don't think I would choose a different path. Have to go with respect on this one.
I respect sticking to his principles, but sometimes in politics you have to do something you find distasteful for the greater good.
We have no idea what would have happened had Bowman kept his head down about Israel, but we do know that speaking out against the invasion of Gaza and calling for a ceasefire didn't really move the needle on actually achieving a ceasefire. It did make him unpopular with his constituents and made him vulnerable to a primary challenger.
Now Bowman is probably going to lose his seat in congress and there's one less progressive voice and vote in congress.
I don't know what the full outcome of this will be, but sometimes doing the right thing causes more harm than good in the very morally gray area of politics.
AIPAC didn't spend this big to get AOC out though.
Why do you think that is?
My opinion and all the evidence I've seen is that It's because AOC wasn't vulnerable.
Polls from March show Bowman was already in trouble as far back as March. Bowman's campaign (the Upswing research poll) showed Latimer and Bowman were essentially tied. That's bad for an incumbant. The AIPAC poll from the Melman group around the same time showed an overwhelming preference for Latimer over Bowman. That's when the AIPAC started pouring money in to the campaign to exploit that weakness.
The AIPAC research showed Bowman was vulnerable, similar to why the AIPAC is spending big to replace Cori Bush but they are essentially leaving Ilhan Omar (so far).
The AIPAC analysts are highly skilled at collecting and analyzing data. This allows them to know how and where to spend their money to get the maximum return on their investment. They aren't going to waste money trying to defeat a candidate like AOC who is still largely popular with their constituents.
We can pretend democracy is functional and do the justifying in hindsight.
Fact is AIPAC and Republicans bought Jamaal Bowman away with 15 million dollars and beat him by 10%. Bit of an elephant in the room. Bowman was one of the first to really stand up against israel.
Comparing to Cori Bush is difficult. Your article claims AIPAC spent 320K against Cori which is far less than 15 million.
Why didn't the AIPAC spend $15 million to buy AOCs seat as well if that's all there is to it?
I think something you may not be taking into account is that Bowman's district was redrawn since he first got elected, drastically changing his constituency:
This change made him particularly susceptible to a primary challenge, regardless of PAC spending.
This article shows the AIPAC has contributed almost $900 thousand to Wesley Bell's campaign as of April 30th. This isn't total spending in the race, just direct campaign contributions. Still less than they contributed to the Latimer's campaign for sure, but not insignificant. We're still almost 6 weeks until the Missouri primary election which is when the spending usually ramps up. To do an apples to apples comparison at this point in time would take more time than I care to invest but I'd love to see the results if you want to do it. Regardless of the exact figures, it's clear the AIPAC is targeting only specific progressive Democratic candidates, and it seems to me the reason they're doing so is because the candidates are already politically vulnerable.
Also Latimer beat Bowman by nearly 17% per NBC news.
AOC is not a fierce opponent of israel. She recently invited a Zionist lobbyist on her live-stream to tell everyone that criticism of israel is anti-semitism.
Jamaal Bowman however has accused israel of committing Genocide and was one of the first to call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. Things we cannot say about AOC nor Bernie Sanders.
This Genocide has forced everyone to take off the mask and show what side they are truly on.
I know it's hard to provide a source for a negative, but do you have any showing she is friendly to Israel and the AIPAC?
These suggest she is harshly critical of Israel, the AIPAC, and the invasion of Gaza: CNN, March 2024
NY Times, September 2021 This article shows a history of being critical of supporting Israel
Times of Israel, November 2023 This is a biased source, but it contains the tweets where AOC directly condemned the AIPAC
NY Times, November 2023 MSNBC, June 2024
The last article seems to be about the "Zionist lobbyist on her live-stream", where AOC said:
Do you have the quote where she said "criticism is Israel is antisemitism"?
Conveniently your timeline doesn't start early in the Genocide as she was a great supporter of the Genocide of Palestinians until her voter base was completely to the left of her. Just like Bernie "controlled opposition" Sanders
She platformed people saying it without pushing back. https://youtu.be/L2kIEVNrflY
One of my links shows AOC has opposed the genocide of Palestinians since 2021. How far back do we need to go?
It's pretty apparent you have no evidence to support any of your claims and are trying to move your own goal posts.
At this point you're just spreading misinformation and poorly trying to push some kind of weird narrative.
Have a good day.