- Jamaal Bowman became the first squad member to lose reelection.
- Progressives saw the primary as a battle against the well-funded pro-Israel group AIPAC.
- That was certainly true, but Bowman was also a particularly vulnerable incumbent.
Rep. Jamaal Bowman suffered a major defeat in the Democratic primary for New York’s 16th Congressional District on Tuesday, becoming the first member of the progressive “Squad” to lose reelection.
His moderate opponent, Westchester County Mayor George Latimer, defeated the congressman by more than 16 points and is almost certain to be elected to Congress this fall.
In the final days of the campaign, progressives vented their anger at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a super PAC that poured millions of dollars into steering the race in Latimer’s favor.
“We should be outraged when a dark-money super PAC can spend $20 million to brainwash people into believing things that aren’t true,” Bowman said at an election night party on Tuesday.
But while AIPAC played a major role in this election, as it has in several high-profile Democratic primaries in recent years, it would be a mistake to blame Bowman’s defeat solely on pro-Israel groups.
He is especially vulnerable to challenges in the primary, and the group continues to lose influence within the Democratic Party.
AIPAC can make big changes, but it can’t directly buy elections
Ahead of the 2022 elections, AIPAC, a lobbying group that advocates essentially unconditional support for Israel, has launched a super PAC called the United Democracy Project to increase its direct influence on the election.
As progressives like to point out, super PACs, much of their funding comes from Republican billionaires, and they have poured money into Democratic primaries primarily to thwart the rise of progressives.
Bowman has been one of AIPAC’s biggest targets this year after he called for a ceasefire days after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and described Israel’s actions in Gaza as a “genocide.”
AIPAC spent more than $17 million on Bowman’s primary, the largest amount ever spent by AIPAC on a single election and the largest amount ever spent by a single group on a congressional election this cycle. This massive spending made this House primary the most expensive in American history.
Locally, AIPAC’s offensive has taken the form of television ads attacking Bowman and praising Latimer, as well as mass mailings arriving on residents’ doorsteps. The ads focused primarily on Bowman’s vote against a bipartisan infrastructure bill in 2021, rather than any criticism of Israel.
Having the backing of AIPAC, or any other super PAC, can be a big advantage for a candidate. Especially in an open primary.
Last month, AIPAC played a major role in Oregon’s 3rd Congressional District, helping Maxine Dexter defeat Susheela Jayapal in the Democratic primary, likely thanks to AIPAC’s spending of $2.3 million, which was channeled through the 314 Action Fund and a PAC called “Voters for a Responsive Government.”
Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn might have been elected to Congress if AIPAC hadn’t spent $4.2 million supporting State Sen. Sarah Elfreth, who raised just $1.4 million on her own before defeating Dunn in the May Democratic primary — and that doesn’t even take into account the group’s success in the 2022 Democratic primary.
But AIPAC can also have missteps: In March, the group spent $4.6 million to defeat state Sen. Dave Min, a fairly moderate critic of Israel, in California’s congressional primary. Min ultimately won by more than six points.
More broadly, there’s a reason why only a few of the Squad’s members were at risk of being challenged in this year’s primaries, despite widespread concern among progressives about the latter half of 2023. It would be far too difficult to actually remove them all, especially given how politics around Israel have shifted within the Democratic Party in recent months.
For example, AIPAC reportedly tried to recruit a primary challenger to Rep. Summer Lee in Pennsylvania, but the effort apparently failed: The group did not put any money into the campaign, and Lee went on to handily win the April primary.
Bowman was a vulnerable incumbent who was embroiled in a major personal scandal and had made inflammatory statements about October 7th.
In 2022, Bowman faced two challengers, each of whom raised significantly less money, and AIPAC did not put money into running against Bowman.
He received only 54% of the vote and was heavily defeated in upscale Westchester County neighborhoods.
It’s impossible to actually say how Bowman’s infamous September fire alarm incident affected his election, but there’s no doubt it was a highly significant event.
For this he was censured by the entire House, including three of his Democratic colleagues, and while the most generous explanation Bowman offers is that he was genuinely confused when he acted, this does not paint a good picture of the congressman’s temperament.
A more sinister view, certainly exploited by George Latimer, is that Bowman, as a former secondary school principal, knew exactly what he was doing and was trying to sabotage a vote on the government’s budget bill.
The congressman’s description of the October 7 rape coverage as “propaganda” was perhaps his worst remark (for which he has since apologized).
This, combined with his support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and his inflammatory rhetoric about the Jewish state, has alienated many of Bowman’s Jewish voters, who appear to have turned out in record numbers to the polls.
Not to mention the revelation that Bowman previously believed in 9/11 conspiracy theories, it created the impression that he held radical and unorthodox views that were outside the mainstream of American politics.
Months before AIPAC began pouring millions of dollars into the race, polls were already showing Bowman struggling against Latimer.
Latimer was a well-positioned challenger despite his own shortcomings.
In the final weeks of the campaign, Latimer consistently made statements that could be considered racist at best.
Bowman told congressmen during the virtual debate that his district is “Dearborn, Michigan,” but he has received less than $2,000 in itemized contributions from the majority-Arab city. Bowman later said he wasn’t referring to a “Muslim presence” in the city, but the fact that he has a joint fundraising committee with Rep. Rashida Tlaib, whose Detroit-area district includes Dearborn. But all of the money that flowed through the committee came from New York donors.
He also accused Bowman of “trying to play the ethnic game” by highlighting those comments. Jacobin also reported that Bowman was slowing down desegregation efforts in Westchester County.
Nonetheless, Mr. Latimer was well positioned to challenge Mr. Bowman: He is well known in the county, has strong ties to some of the districts where Mr. Bowman has consistently underperformed and is an undisputedly skilled retail politician.
Looking at each candidate’s fundraising history is also a useful indicator of local support.
As of June 5, 61% of Latimer’s donations had come from within New York state, and more than a third from within his district. In contrast, only about 30% of Bowman’s donations had come from within the state, and less than 10% from within his district.
There’s a ray of hope here for progressives.
Bowman’s defeat is truly a victory for AIPAC, and it could score another victory this summer when Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri, who is under investigation by the Justice Department for possible campaign finance misuse, faces an AIPAC-backed opponent in Missouri’s August primary.
Progressives fear, and pro-Israel advocates may hope, that Bowman’s defeat will send a broader message that lawmakers who publicly criticize Israel will be punished.
But look closer and you’ll see that while AIPAC has won here, there are plenty of signs that its hardline pro-Israel stance is losing influence within the Democratic Party.
This year, Democrats in Congress ignored AIPAC lobbying and delayed independent aid to Israel for six months.
The party’s mainstream members have grown increasingly accustomed to ignoring the chilling effect that AIPAC has long promoted and criticizing Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank.
Lawmakers openly debated the possibility of attaching conditions to military aid to Israel, a position once considered heretical.
In the end, 37 House Democrats and three Senate Democrats voted against military aid to Israel.
AIPAC could take down up to two of them this year.
