Anybody following this able to give a balanced summary? I find The Hill to tend right-leaning and don't much trust their analysis.
The Hill seems to be placing the defeat of Bowman on his stance against the genocide in Palestine, which is becoming a sort of dog-whistle saying, "stand against the invasion of Palestine, and this is what happens to you." It may in this case be true; I can believe it, but I don't trust The Hill to not be constructing a narrative.
I think it I saw an article about how this was the most expensive primary for the House.
So yeah, because of his stance on Palestine (which was "genocide bad") Israel interfered in our election.
But Schumer, Harrison, and Biden take more AIPAC money that pretty much anyone else, so they're going to say this proves voters don't want progress and love genocide.or some other crazy shit.
Our system is broken and abused, and a D by someone's name clearly isn't enough anymore.
This is all right, Iāll just add that Bowman was among the first to call for a ceasefire in Gaza, basically right after Oct 7th happened. A number of large progressive Dems have rallied to his side (including Bernie and AOC this past weekend), which clearly wasnāt enough.
This was also a D primary, so everyone had a D by their name.
It corrupts everyone. You aren't keeping up with people taking 459 million "campaign donations" if you don't. Its fucked. But yes, I'm glad we're not both sidesing for a second and pointing out something that should never have been allowed in the first place.
The other shoe is this is the guy who pulled the fire alarm. The attack ads for his primary have been written for a long time and he didn't have good odds no matter who primaried him. The Dems went with the conservative guy to get AIPAC to fund the campaign and because they don't fundamentally care about ideology, just having the most seats.