People were talking a lot about AIPAC money when Bowman lost his primary, but he lost with 41.3% to his opponent’s 58.7%. It was a wipe-out because he was genuinely unpopular after making a series of unforced blunders. I’m sure that he would have lost, although perhaps not by so much, even with no AIPAC spending.
Now Bush lost with 46% to Bell’s 51%. That’s not nearly as one-sided as Bowman’s loss, but I still find it strange that commentators are so quick to dismiss the ability of the people of St. Louis to make their own decisions. Maybe they were actually able to think for themselves, consider the two candidates, and pick the one they preferred rather than being led like sheep?
Being pro-Israel and anti-Netenyahu, and pro-Palestinian and anti-Homicidal death cult, is actually really popular amongst people who vote at the ballot box instead of voting online ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
People were talking a lot about AIPAC money when Bowman lost his primary, but he lost with 41.3% to his opponent’s 58.7%. It was a wipe-out because he was genuinely unpopular after making a series of unforced blunders. I’m sure that he would have lost, although perhaps not by so much, even with no AIPAC spending.
Now Bush lost with 46% to Bell’s 51%. That’s not nearly as one-sided as Bowman’s loss, but I still find it strange that commentators are so quick to dismiss the ability of the people of St. Louis to make their own decisions. Maybe they were actually able to think for themselves, consider the two candidates, and pick the one they preferred rather than being led like sheep?
The idea that money is unimportant in influencing votes is quite a take.
Alternative theory:
Being pro-Israel and anti-Netenyahu, and pro-Palestinian and anti-Homicidal death cult, is actually really popular amongst people who vote at the ballot box instead of voting online ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Agreed. Fuck PAC money but losing as the incumbent is telling.
Edit- lot of butthurt “progressives” that can’t handle they’re not as popular as they think.
deleted by creator