No matter what one feels about Jamaal Bowman, and I might have voted against him had I lived in his CD

[dsc]

it should be a major problem for us that outside groups spent the amount they did to take him out. It wasn't just the most expensive Congressional Primary this year, it was the most expensive in US history. First, that is money that did nothing to defeat Trump or any GOP politician. It could have been burnt and done as much good in that regard. Second, it makes it all but impossible for any middle class person to even dream of running for Congress. Yes, AOC and Katie Porter ran and won as middle class people but only AOC remains and she has had a well financed challenger in all of her primaries. Third, it produced a Democrat in one of the most Democratic districts in the entire US who refuses to raise so much as a dollar of taxes meaning he will vote against every single, solitary proposal for spending money that winds up getting proposed by President Biden assuming both win. Latimer clearly didn't want to tax his benefactors meaning the rest of us can go f ourselves if we wish to have things such as more spending on education, child care or anything else. We can't win an arms race in terms of money if we let our primaries become spending contests. We have to find a way to stop this or else we can kiss democracy good by to be replaced by government by money.

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. Exactly. Thanks for this OP. n/t

[B.See]

122. Ditto.

[tritsofme]

2. It was money well spent. Any candidate who denies Hamas rape attacks, engages in 9/11 truther nonsense, votes against

major Biden agenda items, votes against funding the heroes of the J6 Insurrection, our Capitol Police, among countless other ridiculous actions, needs to go.

It was critical that he was defeated, and I am incredibly proud of the wisdom of Democratic voters in that district in acknowledging they made a mistake, and correcting it with a great pro-Biden Democrat in George Latimer!

[thesquanderer]

13. a couple of Bowman comments, and good links...

Another Bowman negative was in his WNYC interview with Brian Lehrer, where he said: "the major contrast between the two of us. One of us, myself, has dedicated his life, my life to children, families, working-class people, education; while my opponent, his governance has been for the people of Rye and the people of Scarsdale and other wealthy areas, unfortunately."

People in Rye and Scarsdale (who are not all rich BTW) vote too. You need to campaign to represent all your constituents and the towns in which they live, not pit some of them against others.

Though to your point about denying Hamas atrocities, he did at least recant and apologize for that one, in that same interview.

As for the OP's point about money coming from outside the district, both candidates seem to have had a good deal of that; and to the extent that OP said that all that money coming in did "nothing to defeat Trump or any GOP politician", well, possibly true, but some of the Latimer money came from sources that also support Republicans, and if money they used to support Latimer would otherwise have gone to support a Republican, there may be a bit of silver lining there.

OP worried that Latimer might not sufficiently support some of what Biden wants passed, but as you allude to, it is actually Bowman who we already know is more than willing to be a Biden obstacle.

Both WNYC interviews were quite revealing, I thought.

Latimer: https://www.wnyc.org/story/meet-the-candidates-george-latimer/

Bowman: https://www.wnyc.org/story/meet-the-candidates-rep-jamaal-bowman/

(audio and transcripts both at those links)

[democratsruletheday]

71. GREAT post tritsofme....

this guy was poisonous for all the reasons you've mentioned and that is WHY so much money was poured into defeating him. It's a no brainer, he had to go and now he's gone. Sure the money is brutal but it is what it is. He imploded and dug his own (political) grave. Good riddance.

[dsc]

132. I don't know enough about that race to know for sure for whom I would have voted

but IMO both candidates had serious issues. Bowman's are well known, but Latimer's complete opposition to taxes was kept hidden till the very end. He would have voted against Biden's Infrastructure bill for example if he were to keep that pledge as it did raise some taxes.

[yardwork]

4. I agree that this was a waste of money and I blame the Supreme Court.

We need campaign funding reform and the only way to get that is through Congress.

That said, I think Bowman made a lot of mistakes, ran a weak campaign, and probably would have lost even without the outside money.

Still, your point remains. We desperately need money to support Democratic candidates in competitive races throughout the country. Pouring money into a primary fight in a safe D district is a waste.

[Xavier Breath]

5. Well said. n/t

[Doc Sportello]

6. K&R

Funny that in an election that most are saying will decide democracy, some on here are gloating about defeating a Demicratic incumbent using money from organizations that give 10s of millions to repubs seeking to help dump destroy democracy. Well, not so funny or unexpected. And if the Democrats lose in the fall their diviseness will be covered up with charges that it's the left's fault. You would think that in this election year unity would be the key but pettiness and venom are still driving some.

[emulatorloo]

7. He voted with MAGA Republicans against Biden's policy. He basically lost 60/40.

I agree the money is out of control.

But if you’re doing a good job for your constituents, no amt of money is going to cause you to lose that badly.

Voters were clearly very unhappy with his representation.

Both tritsofme and yardwork lay out plenty of serious solid reasons why voters decided to make a change.

[yardwork]

9. AOC won resoundingly, proving that progressive candidates can win.

Constituents look for services from their representatives.

[emulatorloo]

10. Yes she did. I understand she has very very good constituent outreach.

[yardwork]

19. That's what it takes.

Overall, AOC seems like a good politician. And I mean that as a compliment. She understands that it's all about constituent outreach and delivering for them on Capitol Hill, which means compromise.

[brush]

81. AOC is in good standing in a deep blue district. Bowman's district is divided...

part of it is in the diverse Bronx while a major slice of it is in less diverse and wealthier Westchester County.

[roscoeroscoe]

124. His job was to represent all of his constituents

Seems he wasn't tracking that!

[lapucelle]

130. Didn't AOC grow up in Westchester? N/T

[brush]

146. Nobody's disputing that. Her district is blue, in NYC.

[lapucelle]

149. Nobody is disputing that NY-16 is blue either. It's a Biden +51.5 district. N/T

[brush]

163. Riht, that's what I said.

[lapucelle]

165. Then why did you assert that NY-17 is "divided"?

And why did you imply that Westchester is a wealthy monolith?

[brush]

166. Between the Bronx and Queens. Let's drop it. This is going nowhere.

[lapucelle]

167. That's fine with me. Democrats will hold NY-14, 15, and 16. It's NY-17 that we need to flip.

[brush]

148. So? Her district is in the Bronx, NYC. And it's solidly blue.

[lapucelle]

150. NY-16 is solidly blue as well. It's a Biden +51% district.

Like NY-14 (AOC's district), NY-16 is a district where the Democratic primary is more or less a proxy for the general election.

That's why Justice Democrats targeted these primaries in 2018 and 2020 as part of their grand plan to "take over the Democratic Party".

[betsuni]

131. AOC grew up in "wealthier Westchester County."

[brush]

147. Her district is in the Bronx though. And it's solidly blue.

[lapucelle]

151. NY-16 is solidly blue as well.

AOC's district covers parts of both Queens and the Bronx.

[brush]

158. Yes.

[lapucelle]

152. It's Ritchie Torres's district NY-15 that is entirely in the Bronx.

It's America's poorest congressional district.

Ritchie Torres represents America’s poorest congressional district. He’s on a mission to save public housing.

Ritchie Torres already made history in 2013, when he became the youngest member of the New York City Council at 25. In 2021 he did it again becoming the first openly gay Afro-Latino person elected to Congress. Before getting here, he made waves demanding to be allowed in both the Congressional Black and Hispanic caucuses, writing an op-ed saying, “You have to pick a side, so to speak. You can be either Black or Latino, but never both. In real life, however, I am both.”

He won that battle and has quite a few more he plans to tackle while in Congress. At top of mind is child poverty, including a permanent expansion of the child tax credit. Torres grew up with a single mom in public housing (across the street from a Trump golf course) and is always thinking of that experience while representing the poorest district in Congress.

“And I remember wondering to myself at the time, what does it say about our society that we’re willing to invest more in a golf course than in the homes of Black and brown Americans?” Torres said.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/26/ritchie-torres-new-117th-congress-freshman-members-diversity-2021-484443

[brush]

157. Yes, Rep. Torres distrinct is in NYC, as is AOC's. What's your point?

[lapucelle]

160. My point is that it is inaccurate to say that AOC's district is in the Bronx.

It covers parts of both Queens and the Bronx.

Would you also characterize NY-14 as "divided" because it covers parts of two different counties?

[brush]

162. Before you did research you said that AOC grew up in Westchester and I answered "So", her district is in NYC...

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2024, 11:27 AM - Edit history (1)

which it is, most of it in the eastern part of the Bronx, and the rest is across the Sound in Queens. It's solidly blue and she's in good standing there.

[wyldwolf]

145. because she's a good candidate who has learned work from the inside

[Cuthbert Allgood]

15. Clearly all of those votes were planned and cleared by the whip.

Just like the times AOC did. They were either constituency based of progressive statements. NONE of them cost Biden a vote.

[tritsofme]

18. Well apparently his actual constituents had enough of his pointless stunts.

[Dorian Gray]

20. I think his problem is that they were NOT constituency based, and his constituency didn't like it.

[yardwork]

28. That's not the point, though.

Representatives get reelected on the basis of what they do for the people in their districts. Some of that involves their votes in Congress, but a lot of it is in the mundane, day to day way they run their offices. It requires having well-staffed offices, with a well-trained staff who can handle missing social security checks, help to smooth red tape, call somebody in another office, just generally help constituents out. "Call your representative" is age-old advice and when people do it, they want a friendly voice on the phone who knows how to fix their problem. That's what they remember on Election Day.

Just from observation, I noted that Bowman held campaign events outside his district, apparently by accident. That's a sign of poor staff. Maybe he focused too much on political posturing and not enough on the boring details of being a representative.

[lapucelle]

153. Do you have any evidence for that claim? Clearly, Clyburn had to whip GOP crossover votes

to get the bill to Biden's desk.

Pelosi and Clyburn were certainly aware that there were some Democrats who intended to vote with the majority of Republicans, but where does the assertion that those votes were "cleared" come from?

-------------------------------

SC's Jim Clyburn takes credit for whipping 13 GOP votes for Biden's infrastructure package

NORTH CHARLESTON — House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn took credit for securing the 13 GOP votes necessary to push President Joe Biden's bipartisan infrastructure plan across the finish line last week, but some Republicans are saying Democratic pressure is overblown.

Speaking to reporters at the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments office in North Charleston on Nov. 9, the Democratic congressman from Columbia took some credit over the passage of the bill, which will bring $6 billion in federal dollars to South Carolina.

"I indirectly whipped those votes," Clyburn told The Post and Courier. "I had members in the caucus assigned to certain Republican people that I couldn't talk to and that's how we got those votes."

https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/scs-jim-clyburn-takes-credit-for-whipping-13-gop-votes-for-bidens-infrastructure-package/article_64e731c6-4191-11ec-89d2-af61ab228177.html

=================================

SC to get $6B from the infrastructure bill. How Jim Clyburn got it to Biden’s desk

Congressman Jim Clyburn was confident he would secure enough votes to pass President Joe Biden’s infrastructure bill after a day of arm twisting, which put Democrats on the precipice of their most important legislative victory since the party reclaimed the White House. But there were a handful of holdouts who Clyburn, the chief vote counter for House Democrats, had outstanding concerns about heading into the Friday evening vote.

The South Carolina congressman and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gathered with staff just off the House floor in a small, gilded, gold room that had little more than a printer, chairs and a monitor that displays vote totals. Pelosi was speaking to the president on her cell phone and asked Clyburn to update Biden on the status of negotiations.

“I need you to talk to him, to explain to him where we are,” Clyburn recalled Pelosi telling him. “So I told the president that I thought that we were in a good place. That we could pass a bill. But I thought that he needed to get on the phone with several people.”

snip-------------------------------

“And I told him I thought he just needed to let them know that it’s time to pass this bill, and we need to do it tonight. And he did. He got on the phone with those people,” Clyburn said.

https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article255742646.html

[dsc]

133. Latimer would have voted against the infrastructure bill just like Bowman did

assuming he is telling the truth now about his opposition to any tax hike.

[lapucelle]

159. County Executive Latimer supported the bill.

Bowman takes heat from local Dems for voting against Biden's bipartisan infrastructure bill

Westchester Democrats were largely left disappointed by U.S. Rep. Jamaal Bowman’s vote against the bipartisan infrastructure bill Friday that is expected to bring billions of dollars to New York once President Joe Biden signs it into law. The $1.2 trillion package, formally know as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, will go toward upgrading roads and bridges, airports, public transit and water systems. Biden called it “a monumental step forward as a nation.”

But Bowman, along with five other progressive congressional Democrats, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, rejected the bill. Part of Bowman's district covers Yonkers, New Rochelle, Mount Vernon and other towns in the southern portion of the county.

snip-----------------------------------------

Legislator Catherine Parker (D-Rye) said the bill Bowman opposed will provide good opportunities to address a myriad of local infrastructure needs. “I felt (Bowman's) protest vote spoke more of his unwillingness to accept compromise than actually accomplishing anything,” Parker said in a statement. Greenburgh Supervisor Paul Feiner's called Bowman's decision "irresponsible." Bowman's district covers part of the town.

Westchester County Executive George Latimer took a softer tone. The Democrat said he supports the bill, though he noted, "Congressman Bowman is a friend and friends disagree sometimes on issues."

https://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/westchester/2021/11/09/jamaal-bowman-takes-heat-westchester-democrats-no-vote-infrastructure-bill/6338487001/

[dsc]

161. He said he supports the bill but he also said he won't support tax increases

that bill had tax increases so his support of the bill is similar to a person who wants to lose weight while eating boxes of ho ho's.

[lapucelle]

168. The infrastructure bill did not include tax increases. That was a Republican talking point.

Here’s what’s in the bipartisan infrastructure package
How Congress will pay for it

The legislation includes a multitude of measures to pay for the proposal – none of which would raise taxes.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/28/politics/infrastructure-bill-explained/index.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The last thing we need is for anti-Democratic Party superpacs like Justice Democrats to succeed in any effort to depress the general election vote in November with their "_______ is not a real Democrat" talking points.

The same goes for their "Democrats are corrupt" and "AIPAC controls the Congress" claims.

Lifelong Democrat George Latimer is the Democratic general election candidate in NY-16

The primary is over. It's time to support Democrats.

[Ace Rothstein]

8. He would have lost without AIPAC spending.

[Oopsie Daisy]

25. No. He lost all by himself, without any help from others.

No need to look for a scapegoat. The true answers are revealed when one looks within. He was receiving bad campaign advice and his bigoted comments and voting against the Biden agenda caused many to question if he was right for the job and if he truly represented their interests.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

29. I think that's what Ace was saying that he would have lost even without AIPAC's contributions NT

[Oopsie Daisy]

41. Yes. I see now. That may well be true. But why take chances?

I've seen weak candidates (or candidates with weaknesses) fly under the radar and get elected (or re-elected) in spite of themselves, because of an ill-informed electorate. There's a certain benefit and advantage to being the incumbent.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

103. Certainly have seen it on the Republican side NT

[Oopsie Daisy]

116. Indeed.

[karynnj]

69. I agree. That is without even mentioning the fire alarm pulling

And then trying to double down that it was just an honest mistake. Consider if you would have thought pulling it would open the door. Then consider where the door was. He likely went though it many many times before.

Between that and the comments from the last few days, I wonder if he could have even lost the seat to the Republican. Note - I know nothing about her. If she was a moderate Republican it could happen.

[Oopsie Daisy]

85. Very astute observations.

[Old Okie]

33. AIPAC

Then why did AIPAC feel the need to spend $15 Mil on the race? If we decry Russian and Chinese influence on our elections; why not Israel attempting to influence our elections?

[tritsofme]

37. AIPAC is not a foreign entity, they are Americans.

[Nanjeanne]

46. They are a lobbying organization with one issue - supporting Israel. So you would be ok when

American pharmaceutical companies spend a fortune to elect anti drug negotiation politicians, or an anti abortion organization spending a fortune to support anti choice politicians or gas and oil companies - as long as they are based in US? Ok then.

[tritsofme]

50. That is a different argument, I responded to the false comparison of AIPAC to Putin's interference.

AIPAC is playing by the rules of the game today, just like progressive super PACs.

[Nanjeanne]

51. Right. Different. Got it.

[emulatorloo]

40. AIPAC is made up US Citizens and IS NOT a foreign government. Surely you know this and understand

the difference between foreign governments and US citizens?



Or are you employing some sort of “divided loyalty” trope? Surely you aren’t suggesting US Jews are ‘secret agents’ of a foreign govt, right?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

44. I won't say it's straight out of the Protocols

But the anti-AIPAC fervor does has a certain whiff to it.

[sheshe2]

78. You felt that too. 🤔

[choie]

80. Just stop

[tritsofme]

82. I wish the folks deploying these anti-Semitic tropes would!

[choie]

83. There's enough real antisemitic tropes

So that you don’t need to create false ones.

[tritsofme]

86. I agree completely, which is why I would never do such a thing. But that is great advice in general!

[AZSkiffyGeek]

89. Jews controlling the government IS a real antisemitic trope

As is "American Jews are more loyal to Israel".
Maybe (probably/hopefully in most cases) people don't realize the subliminal message behind these criticisms, but that doesn't mean these attacks on AIPAC don't carry millennia of history, or that they aren't being used as dogwhistles by SOME.

[CincyDem]

84. Of course...out of the billions of PAC $$$$ annually...

…much of which I’m sure we disagree with, it’s just so interesting to see the energy for singling out AIPAC for spending money to support a candidate that espouses the cause they stand for.

[dsc]

134. I have a problem with any group doing this

but it seems AIPAC is the only one doing this to this extent. The NRA does the same in the general election as do many others, which I also oppose it should be noted, but this is a major problem and needs to stop. I would be opposed to the HRC doing this.

[oldsoftie]

63. False. His opponent was as well known as he was. HE blew it with his attitude.

If yo saw the video of him yelling at his opponent that was just an example of "incumbent arrogance"

[yardwork]

68. That's what the post you're responding to said.

Posters seem to be misunderstanding it. Seems crystal clear to me.

[oldsoftie]

101. I read it as the challenger wouldve lost without the funding.

But NOW it makes more sense the other way around.

[Nanjeanne]

11. Bowman voted 94% on Biden's agenda. The votes where he differed are some that were expected and

some where his votes against were part of a progressive strategy or some I can understand even if I might have not agreed. Actual votes, statements and records are easily searched and read. Not tweets or opinion pieces. I prefer learning that way. I don’t know enough about Latimer to make judgment on what policies he holds that I agree or disagree with. That is to be seen and I hope his constituents got a good deal with him.

I hope Bowman stays in politics. But I am even more saddened by the influence of lobbying groups in our politics. This is a dangerous era we are entering. AIPAC endorsed Elise Stefanik & over 100 other Republicans who refused to certify that Biden beat Trump. They are a single issue lobbying group and they represent a foreign government’s interest.

The unprecedented $20 million to oust Jamaal Bowman encourages every special interest to replicate their model of buying elections. Wait for the day when Big Pharma, crypto, Meta, Amazon,, the Saudis, etc. create their own AIPACs, turning democracy into an auction where the highest bidder wins.

I am not cheering this assault on democracy. I am saddened to see so many here are.

[emulatorloo]

30. He lost essentially by 60/40. No amount of money causes an effective incumbent rep to lose by that much.

His constituents obviously felt he wasn’t an effective representative and therefore voted him out.

‘ I am not cheering this assault on democracy. I am saddened to see so many here are.’

No DU’ers are cheering for an “assault on democracy.” Additionally the voters in Bowman’s district spoke loudly in a Democratic election. Are their votes in an election an “assault on Democracy?” Absolutely not.

If they felt he had done a good job, they would have re-elected him. They didn’t. That’s how Democracy works.

I understand you are upset that a candidate you like lost badly. It happens to all of us at sometime or another.

That’s not an excuse though to baselessly smear your fellow DU’ers or the large majority voters in Bowman’s district who obviously found him to be an ineffective representative.

I too hope Bowman continues in politics.

[Nanjeanne]

43. Oh please. Smear fellow DUers. By saying I was disappointed in the fact that lobbying money is

being used in extreme dollar amounts in our politics and some DUers don’t see the implications and that saddens me?

I guess you don’t care about that and that’s fine. I prefer to keep that kind of money out of politics. But smearing anyone? Think you might be overreacting a bit.

[emulatorloo]

48. You wrote it, Nanejeanne. You clearly stated DU'ers are cheering an "assault on democracy"

So own it.

And course I care about extreme dollar amounts in politics.

However as I noted if Bowman’s constituents were happy with his representation, no amount of money could ‘bamboozle’ or ‘hypnotize’ them into defeating him by essentially 60/40.

They clearly though he was not representing their interests.

[Nanjeanne]

54. I own it. I do feel sad that DUers are

cheering in big money in our elections. I’m sorry you don’t see it as an assault on democracy. No problem owning it.

Have a good day.

[yardwork]

53. Sounds like a smear to me.

I am not cheering this assault on democracy. I am saddened to see so many here are.

I don't see anybody cheering AIPAC in this thread. Suggesting so is disingenuous, at best.

And, equating support for AIPAC with "cheering an assault on democracy" is equally... disingenuous.

Sorry your candidate lost. Apparently his constituents didn't like him.

[Nanjeanne]

56. See previous response. This has zero to do

with Bowman. But everything to do with lobbying groups with one single issue having ability to buy elections. You don’t care and that’s fine. I’m not surprised you feel smeared. My opinion shouldn’t matter that much to you. Do you disappoint me in your stance. Yes. As I’m sure I do to you. I’m not offended though. Different strokes.

[yardwork]

67. "You don't care..."

You continue to make false accusations and insinuations and personal insults.

"I'm not surprised you feel smeared."

You don't appear to have read the OP or many responses - including mine - that agree with your concern about lobbying groups.

In short, you've leaped to false conclusions, ignored everything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions, and now you're lashing out.

[dsc]

135. It isn't who spent the money it is the fact the money was spent

I would have the very same complaint had the HRC done this. I am deeply saddened as a gay educator that I most likely wouldn't have voted for Bowman in this race due to his bad conduct (though Latimer's refusal to support even a cent of tax increases makes me think I might have voted for Bowman). I think both educators and gays are under represented in Congress. But as much as that saddens me the idea that a group of billionaires can write checks for what for them is a few pennies and at the very least force Congress members to spend a king's ransom to keep their seats is a problem more pernicious than either Bowman or Latimer.

[yardwork]

139. And I, and many others in this thread, have stated agreement with you

[Nixie]

100. They are saying it wasn't the money that defeated Bowman.

You keep making a direct link from money to the loss, but it wasn't the money. It was Bowman, himself. He failed the majority of his constituents and they didn't like him.

The same thing was done with Katie Porter's huge loss. The false framing was about money, but the reality is that she was a poor candidate and a poor politician during her tenure.

[betsuni]

109. Yes. Constituents were unhappy with the status quo. Happens in politics. No need for elaborate money conspiracies.

At least Bowman didn't say the word "rigged."

[lapucelle]

57. In May, Nihad Awad hosted a high dollar fundraiser for Bowman at a private home in VA.

Jamaal Bowman took money raised by a guy who is actively working to see President Biden "crushed".

--------------------------------------

White House Disavows U.S. Islamic Group After Leader’s Oct. 7 Remarks

The director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said in a speech that he was “was happy to see” Palestinians break out of Gaza on the day Hamas attacked Israel.

A spokesman for President Biden condemned the remarks by Nihad Awad, the national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who declared in a speech that Palestinians in Gaza “have the right to self-defense” but that Israel “as an occupying power” does not. Mr. Awad said his comments were being misconstrued.

“We condemn these shocking, antisemitic statements in the strongest terms,” said Mr. Biden’s spokesman, Andrew Bates. “The horrific, brutal terrorist attacks committed by Hamas on Oct. 7 were, as President Biden said, ‘abhorrent’ and represent ‘unadulterated evil.’” Mr. Bates added that the atrocities of that day “shock the conscience” and said that “every leader has a responsibility to call out antisemitism wherever it rears its ugly head.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/08/us/politics/white-house-cair-nihad-awad.html


=============

Arab American Fury Toward Biden

So Nihad Awad was in the Detroit area this week to support the campaign to get voters to choose “uncommitted” in Michigan’s Democratic presidential primary on Tuesday. But as our conversation progressed, it became clear to me that his objective is not simply to send President Biden a message about the war and make him shift his policy, as is the aim of many I spoke with in Michigan in the past few days. Awad wants more.

He doesn’t only want Biden to be politically corrected; he wants him politically crushed. Of the president, Awad says, “I don’t think he can continue to lead our country.” When I asked if there is anything Biden can do to change his mind, Awad said, “He can retire.”

snip-----------------------------------

Awad said he doesn’t like Trump and doesn’t welcome a second Trump term, but he’s prepared to accept that outcome for the sake of punishing Biden. “I’m going to live under Trump, because I survived under Trump, because he’s my enemy,” he says. “I cannot live under someone who pretends to be my friend.”

He believes that proving a point about the power of the Muslim vote is worth it. “Is it going to be painful? Four more years under Trump?” he asks. “I say yes, and we are bracing for it,” adding, “At least what I have accomplished is, I told every politician, ‘Don’t take us out of the equation, because you will miss.’”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/28/opinion/voters-michigan-biden-gaza.html


------------------------------------------------------

[Nanjeanne]

62. Yes I've seen your posts in the other threads.

[tritsofme]

74. Wait...you were being rude to...yourself?

[yardwork]

77. Oops. Mismatched socks?

[tritsofme]

79. That was sure strange!

[emulatorloo]

104. Really really strange. Would love an explanation. Maybe site owners could untangle what just happened.

[tritsofme]

106. Or maybe the other one could jump back in this thread and let us know?

[emulatorloo]

107. !!!!

A real head-scratcher.

[DeeDeeNY]

12. Outside money doesn't necessarily affect anything

If it did, Jaime Harrison would have won the Senate seat in 2020. He broke records for the amount of money he raised, plus he was far and away the better candidate and outshone that lying slug Lindsay Graham in the debates, but Graham the incumbent still won.

[Glaisne]

14. Do you think AIPAC is going to throw it's support to Latimer

in the general election? I don't think so.

[tritsofme]

16. I doubt they have much reason, this is a D+20 district, the Democratic primary is the final word.

[Oopsie Daisy]

26. No need. It's a SOLID-Democratic district. This election is over.

The district covers the southern half of Westchester County, including Mount Vernon, New Rochelle, and Yonkers, as well as a small portion of the Bronx.

[onecaliberal]

73. Nope. They're recons.

They did it to fuck Dems.

[tritsofme]

76. Kind of hard to reconcile with President Biden and Leader Jeffries being amongst AIPAC's largest recipients.

But I guess some folks find fairy tales to be comforting!

[Dorian Gray]

17. Since the money was spent by a special interest group

to promote American and Israeli partnership, I'm not sure that the money would automatically be re-allocated to the defeat of Trump.

I know people are bitter about the PAC money going into this race, and it's a good discussion and long overdue that special interest money needs to be limited more. But that's not singularly why Bowman lost.

[dsc]

136. Bowman's side spent money too

and that money most certainly would have gone to elect Democrats otherwise. I also am not saying it was the only reason Bowman lost.

[AloeVera]

164. Bowman was outspent 8:1.

Not a fair fight.

[BannonsLiver]

169. Too bad

[Evolve Dammit]

21. Great piece! Spot on.

[Mr. Sparkle]

22. This guy has the new Joe Manchin written all over him.

If control of the house is close, i expect he will be asking for a lot of favours, for his vote.

[JohnSJ]

52. Latimer is no Manchin. If anything it is Bowman's voting against the

infrastructure bill and refusal to vote to raise the debt limit are reasons etc. are why he lost in his district, and by a wide margin.

[dsc]

137. Latimer would have voted against it too

unless his opposition to any tax increase is a lie. That bill did increase taxes.

[JohnSJ]

141. What are you about? That was one of Latimer's arguments against Bowman that

he voted against President Biden’s infrastructure bill.

As an aside, yesterday Manchin made it pretty clear he would not vote for the insurrectionist, and would be voting for Biden.

I wonder if the same can be said for Bowman’s supporters?

[dsc]

142. He also said he wouldn't support any tax increases

since that bill included them, he either is lying when he says he would support that bill or when he says he wouldn't support any tax increases.

[Music Man]

23. Well put.

Disagreeing with Bowman and being concerned about the implications of the money in this race are opinions we can hold simultaneously.

[pecosbob]

24. A shit sandwich...now the district gets a Joe Manchin.

[Oopsie Daisy]

32. Someone who will support the Biden agenda is not a "shit sandwich".

[Demsrule86]

39. That is ridiculous. Latimer is not Joe Manchin. And I sure as hell wish we still had Joe...the Senate is looking tough

for us.

[Zorro]

27. Bowman was a school principal

He surely knew what a fire alarm looks like.

IMO his lame excuse about pulling one to open an emergency exit door (and subsequently interfering with a key funding vote) is what sunk him. Voters saw that as an immature stunt and remembered the incident as they cast their ballot.

Nevertheless, the flood of money awash in our political system is a major source of today's government dysfunction.

[AloeVera]

87. A Republican talking point is that it interfered with the vote.

That was found to not be true by the House Ethics Committe but the damage had been done. And perhaps the AIPAC-funded attack ads also repeated this falsehood.

It shouldn't be repeated here.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

91. Bowman ddn't pull the fire alarm? The vote wasn't delayed because the Capitol was evacuated?

I thought the Republican argument was that it was a deliberate stalling technique, which wasn't proven, not that it didn't happen.
But frankly, saying you pulled the fire alarm to open the door because you had to get to the Capitol quickly is a terrible excuse, especially coming from someone who surely had to deal with false fire alarms being set off during his previous career.

[yardwork]

94. I didn't know he'd been a school principal.

That's interesting because it suggests that he might not have been as confused by the fire door sign as he claimed.

All by itself, nobody would have cared. But Bowman's later behavior and statements raised questions about his judgment, overall.

[TBF]

31. I could make a pretty strong argument that we already have

a "government by money". Government by, of, and for money if we're being honest.

Campaign finance has needed overhaul for a long time. It's interesting that it actually started with labor pooling funds together, but thanks to cases like Citizens United we now have Super PACS that can raise unlimited amounts of money to be spent on candidate advertising etc.

[patphil]

34. I was very disappointed over the hugh money that went into taking Bowman down.

Latimer's campaign was too much like a Republican campaign to suit me; wall to wall ads, with too many personal attacks.
We don't want our country to be Government of the money, by the money, and for the money.
Perhaps the party should put a spending limit on primaries.

[Demsrule86]

38. The money was because of Bowman's unpopular views. There is a large percentage of Jewish Americans in that district.

[patphil]

45. What you say is true, but I understand over $20 million was spent for Latimer to win.

That's just way too much. And the tenor of the ads was not to my liking at all.
It wasn't necessary to burn the building down to get the job done.

[Demsrule86]

58. That is not Latimer's fault...Bowman was unpopular...in an area which has a substantial number of Jewish voters, he

refuse to condemn Hamas. I don't think he would be reelected. He lost an important endorsement...so I am glad that Latimer will run...we need to win the House back and hold the Senate.

[leftstreet]

35. DURec

[Demsrule86]

36. Primaries are two way streets...Progressives have primaryed sitting Democrats which annoys me but is their right.

The reality is that Bowman would likely lose the General so it is better to have a different candidate...and Bowman has not been loyal to the party-often voting against us for things like infrastructure. I doubt very seriously that Latimaer would vote against major Biden legislation including tax cuts. As for money in campaigns, you need money to run. That is the bottom line.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

42. I find it odd that people decry Latimer primarying Bowman because "you don't primary Democrats"

The only reason Bowman is in Congress now is because he primaried a sitting Democrat.

[dsc]

138. I have no problems with the existence of primaries

I have a massive problem with the existence of 16 million dollar primaries for US House seats. 16 x 435 is 6,960 meaning we would be spending nearly 14 billion dollars on such primaries if that were to hold true for both parties for all House seats. That is obscene.

[berniesandersmittens]

47. Rec nt

[Jilly_in_VA]

49. Some outlets

(WaPo among them) are attempting to conflate Bowman's loss as not only a defeat for progressives but a shift in the way the whole country feels toward Israel. Please.

[yardwork]

55. AOC won her primary, so that seems unlikely.

There's a lot of weak analysis this morning, imo.

[lapucelle]

64. There is no shift in the way people in the country feel about Israel.

That's one of the lessons Jamaal Bowman learned yesterday.

[DinahMoeHum]

93. Another lesson learned. . .

A liberal constituency and a leftist constituency are NOT the same thing.

Bowman learned this the hard way last night.

[oldsoftie]

59. he blew this on his own. Money doesnt win elections

or we would've had several different presidents Senators & governors.
Money just gets an unknown person known. In this case both were already well know & Bowman blew it with his own words & deeds

[betsuni]

119. Would've had a President Romney.

Why Michael Moore predicted Romney would win, especially with all that magic Wall Street money. Oops.

[H2O Man]

60. Recommended.

I liked him, and dislike the outside influences you've noted.

[jaxexpat]

61. There are all manner of conclusions one can draw from Bowman's loss and the money invested to defeat him, but....

one aspect will stand up to any and all analysis. Whoever wins an electoral contest arguably decided by the wealth of their campaign's war chest has more to repay than the loser would have, had he won.

[lapucelle]

66. Latimer was leading Bowman by 17% before AIPAC weighed in.

[jaxexpat]

92. The conclusion I draw from such info is that AIPAC has money enough to budget some on needless(?) insurance.

My point is that Rep Latimer will deem it more prudent to answer calls from AIPAC and other big donors more readily than those who had not funded him as generously.

[lapucelle]

97. Why would you assume that?

It’s not like Latimer went hat in hand to the DSA for an endorsement and wound up promising to deliver a “no” vote on helping to fund the Iron Dome defense system.

[betsuni]

110. Heh.

[jaxexpat]

111. There's a difference between an assumption and a deduction.

I speak of logical hypotheticals. The basis of most "rules of thumb". You appear to be carrying a banner. Is that what I see in your words? I've always determined banners are burdensome and nonessential. Though, truth be told, I've had none forced upon me by fate or faith. Luck, I think, is better than skill or expertise. But I am curious. There are many ideas growing in our current fertile cauldron of ideas.

[lapucelle]

113. Yes, I know that there is a difference between an assumption and a deduction.

What exactly is your "logical hypothetical"? What evidence do you have to to support your "deduction"?

Frame it as a set of "if ... then" statements, or as a syllogism, or as a Venn diagram.

I'll wait.

[jaxexpat]

115. No.

[lapucelle]

120. Perhaps it will come to you if you think. again.

[jalan48]

65. So, will AIPAC be supporting Biden or Trump in the general election?

[Emile]

99. Fair enough question, anyone have the answer?

[jalan48]

105. A bit uncomfortable for some.

[lapucelle]

127. I have the answer. AIPAC doesn't support / endorse / raise money for presidential candidates. N/T

[lapucelle]

121. AIPAC doesn't support / endorse / raise money for presidential candidates. N/T

[jalan48]

125. Right

[lapucelle]

126. It is right. We're Democrats. Facts are our friends.

[betsuni]

128. A day without a conspiracy theory accusing Democrats of evil right-wing motivations is like a day without sunshine.

[WA-03 Democrat]

70. I was hoping for the "it was rigged"

part but he maintained to keep his chin up.
One winner and personally think the voters made the right choice.

[betsuni]

112. I was waiting for it, but he probably remembered Katie Porter's rigged comment.

Don't say the word, just don't say it out loud, he repeated to himself.

[stopdiggin]

75. Bowman lost this race (by a LOT) because he had become deeply unpopular

with his constituents (in a brief three short years).
You can rant and rave about 'big spending' and 'outside spending' (with perhaps some solid ground) - but in the end that wasn't the issue here. In this case - it was about shooting yourself in the foot - in a very safe Democratic seat.

What some of us seem to NOT want to address - is just how deeply out of step Bowman was with many of the voters. THAT is what lead to a crushing 60/40 loss.

[DinahMoeHum]

95. Very safe Democratic seat, indeed.

However, Bowman learned the hard way that a liberal constituency and a leftist constituency are NOT the same thing.

[tritsofme]

90. Now we're just calling it "Jewish money"? The veils have really come off lately.

Not even trying to pretend anymore.

[JoseBalow]

96. That ship sailed long ago

[Nixie]

102. These just sound like the familiar Bernie talking points.

-Raising taxes is going to solve everything and every politician should be gung ho about that or they are not pure,

-Money means corruption, except when money is spent on a preferred squad candidate.

Etc

The squad introduced the concept of primarying incumbents, so here we are. This sounds like sour grapes that one of theirs was eliminated.

Voters keep rejecting the all or nothing approach to politics. It's not realistic.

That is all.

[betsuni]

117. The magic word "grassroots" purifies money,. THEY are corrupted by (repeat long list of evil enemies & villains).

Same song and dance.

[dsc]

140. We are undertaxed as a nation

it is that simple. Taxes are the dues we pay for citizenship and society. Our schools are begging for teachers because we don't have the money to pay them. Our bridges are falling apart because we don't have the money to repair them. The rich are paying less in taxes, measured by percent of income, then the middle class. Nothing, including tax increases, will solve everything, but refusing to raise taxes will ruin us all.

[mcar]

108. Except...

Link to tweet

Angela Alsobrooks got outspent 7:1 in her Senate Primary after her opponent pumped more than $50 million dollars of his own money into the race. Instead of sitting around and crying about it, she spoke to voters about issues important to them and won by double digits.

[Prairie Gates]

114. The lack of gracious winning in a Democratic primary has been pretty gross

To be fair, Bowmn is also being a sore loser, but I'm seeing a lot of trashbag winners as well.

I also have no dog in this fight, but wow, some people are really exposing themselves as fanatics and jerks.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

118. Bowman and the squad were elected through the use of dark money sources

I am on the Justice Democrat mail email list and I was getting four or five emails a day pleading for money for Just Us Democrats. How is the dark money from Justice Democrats, DSA, Our Revolution, and Sunrise any better than the money from other sources?

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

I have gotten three or four emails today asking for money for other Justice Democrats

[betsuni]

123. I'd like that explained. Dark money completely ignored. Grassroots dark money? Okay then, that's different!

[AZSkiffyGeek]

129. I'm sure there's a (((reason)))

[dsc]

144. It is badly false to equate what the DSA did to this race

In 2020, the DSA spent less than 1 million on that race https://www.opensecrets.org/races/outside-spending?cycle=2020&id=NY16&spec=N
I am also thinking it wasn't dark money but money whose donors could be tracked down.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

154. Great White Hope? What, pray tell do you mean by that?

[TexasDem69]

155. What do you mean by great white hope?

Is Latimer white? Not sure I’ve seen his picture. I just know he’s not Bowman and doesn’t support Hamas/Hamas conspiracy theories like Bowman, which makes him a decent human being (unlike Bowman).

[Ace Rothstein]

156. You're still trying to make this about race?

I'm sure you'll say you're not making it about race despite almost every reply you've made regarding this particular election being about race.