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, I’ll 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 wasn’t enough.
This was also a D primary, so everyone had a D by their name.
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.
AIPAc spent like 14 million against him.
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, I’ll 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 wasn’t enough.
This was also a D primary, so everyone had a D by their name.
My point was Bowman’s opponent took 14 million from a foreign government to support their genocide
He has a D by his name, but he’s a piece of shit. If the party has standards he wouldn’t be in the party
But the party doesn’t have standards, because the party leaders take AIPAC money too.
Like, I thought it was pretty clear already, is it making sense yet?
Yup, what’s important for people to understand is that AIPAC is the single largest source of GOP money in Democratic primaries and campaigns.
They take money from right-wing billionaires and use it to back right-wing Democrats who they know can be relied upon to be obstructionist.
AIPAC funding needs to be banned within the party, same as they did with the NRA who tried to do the same thing.
With Hillary weighing in on the side of AIPAC to endorse the challenger, I’d say that the establishment is pretty comfortable taking AIPAC’s money.
Because the heads of the party are pocketing Israeli checks.
The D or R does not matter when it comes to Israel and its disgusting.
The only way to end it is to end lobbying.