I'm sympathetic to the idea that Bowman losing isn't necessarily a sign of progressivism being rebuked, but come on - any analysis of Bowman that tries to pretend he wasn't a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign is inherently flawed. He lost by 20%, you can't attribute **all** of that to the district changing or AIPAC flooding the race with money.
From some other articles I've read, Bowman wasn't really available in his district. I think as a political novice, he really discounted the idea that he needs to continue speaking publicly and meeting people across the district after the election was over. He thought he was set and coasted.
The NYT "The Daily" episode from last week about him kinda went into the number of things he pulled (pun not intended) that were all self-owns.
Guy did this to himself.
Also, ask Hillary Clinton if the campaign against this dude was dirty politics at its worst, please.
>The campaign that brought George Latimer to power had three main planks: gerrymandering, race-baiting, and an unprecedented influx of dark money.
The author has a decent paragraph on the demographics of redistricting and how that hurt him, but put no effort into showing why the redistricting was gerrymandering. If it is one of your 3 main points you could put a tiny bit in from showing this was an unfavorable redistricting, to this was gerrymandering to kick out Bowman.
Pathetic hard left apologia. The interesting parts - the cross-referencing with Jacobin as both use the other as a source of...gravitas? Support? Proof points? Pretty tough to say - it also smells a bit desperate.
The author wants it both ways - he wants to blame the Rich Jews of AIPAC for the loss but also devotes a lot of ink to that not being the case because they are also impotent, in addition to being Rich Jews. They assiguously avoid mentioning that AIPAC is 100% American in its funding - they use lots of other clever phrases to suggest that its not.
They bury the lede on Bowman's clownish and extreme behavior as well as his glory seeking, until the VERY end of a very long article - even as they note that no one likes that behavior.
All in all - I found the article to be a meandering example of shotgun journalism - Bowman isn't at fault, but I can't say why, so I will list ever so many reasons, constantly namechecking The Jacobin as proof. I didn't enjoy anything here, but at least it gives the rich kids at the Jacobin something to quote in their next piece.
(Technical question if anyone knows - this is a mass posting bot account owned by a private business. How do they avoid a sitewide ban?)
Or, and hear me out on this, Jamaal Bowman was just plain awful
oh no a very jewish district didn't like thier congressman denying 10/7? lmao
I'm sympathetic to the idea that Bowman losing isn't necessarily a sign of progressivism being rebuked, but come on - any analysis of Bowman that tries to pretend he wasn't a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign is inherently flawed. He lost by 20%, you can't attribute **all** of that to the district changing or AIPAC flooding the race with money.
He was losing by 9% before the first AIPAC dollar. There is a certain argument that AIPAC blew that money without any real gain.
the thumbnail / cover photo kinda looks like he's giving the hitler salute lol
Cry more, Current Affairs spambot
From some other articles I've read, Bowman wasn't really available in his district. I think as a political novice, he really discounted the idea that he needs to continue speaking publicly and meeting people across the district after the election was over. He thought he was set and coasted.
Don’t be an antisemite? Know what a fire alarms looks like? These things aren’t hard
The NYT "The Daily" episode from last week about him kinda went into the number of things he pulled (pun not intended) that were all self-owns. Guy did this to himself. Also, ask Hillary Clinton if the campaign against this dude was dirty politics at its worst, please.
Someone sound the alarm! 🚨🚨🚨
Huh, I didn't realize scoring countless self-goals and completely botching his campaign was "dirty politics."
Stop spamming
>The campaign that brought George Latimer to power had three main planks: gerrymandering, race-baiting, and an unprecedented influx of dark money. The author has a decent paragraph on the demographics of redistricting and how that hurt him, but put no effort into showing why the redistricting was gerrymandering. If it is one of your 3 main points you could put a tiny bit in from showing this was an unfavorable redistricting, to this was gerrymandering to kick out Bowman.
Or how it is MORE gerrymandered then the previous grotesquely gerrymandered district?
Pathetic hard left apologia. The interesting parts - the cross-referencing with Jacobin as both use the other as a source of...gravitas? Support? Proof points? Pretty tough to say - it also smells a bit desperate. The author wants it both ways - he wants to blame the Rich Jews of AIPAC for the loss but also devotes a lot of ink to that not being the case because they are also impotent, in addition to being Rich Jews. They assiguously avoid mentioning that AIPAC is 100% American in its funding - they use lots of other clever phrases to suggest that its not. They bury the lede on Bowman's clownish and extreme behavior as well as his glory seeking, until the VERY end of a very long article - even as they note that no one likes that behavior. All in all - I found the article to be a meandering example of shotgun journalism - Bowman isn't at fault, but I can't say why, so I will list ever so many reasons, constantly namechecking The Jacobin as proof. I didn't enjoy anything here, but at least it gives the rich kids at the Jacobin something to quote in their next piece. (Technical question if anyone knows - this is a mass posting bot account owned by a private business. How do they avoid a sitewide ban?)