AIPAC is not the only reason Jamaal Bowman lost

• Jamaal Bowman just became the first Squad member to lose reelection.

• Progressives largely saw the primary as a battle against AIPAC, a deep-pocketed pro-Israel group.

• It was — but Bowman was also a weak incumbent who was uniquely vulnerable.

Rep. Jamaal Bowman was roundly defeated Tuesday in the Democratic primary for New York's 16th Congressional District, making him the first member of the Squad to lose reelection.

His moderate opponent, George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, will almost certainly be elected to Congress this fall after defeating Bowman by over 16 points.

In the closing days of the race, progressives focused their ire on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a group whose super PAC spent millions to sway the race toward Latimer.

"We should be outraged when a super PAC of dark money can spend $20 million to brainwash people into believing something that isn't true," Bowman said at his election-night party Tuesday.

But while AIPAC did play a big role in this race — as it has in several high-profile Democratic primaries in recent years — it would be a mistake to simply blame the pro-Israel group for Bowman's loss.

The congressman was uniquely vulnerable to a primary challenge, and the group is continuing to lose influence within the Democratic Party.

AIPAC can make a big difference — but it can't straight up buy elections

Ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, AIPAC — a lobbying group that advocates for essentially unconditional support for Israel — established a super PAC called United Democracy Project to increase its direct influence on elections.

As progressives like to point out, much of the super PAC's funding has come from Republican billionaires, and it has primarily poured money into Democratic primaries to block progressives from gaining ground.

Bowman emerged as one of AIPAC's top targets this year as a result of calling for a cease-fire in the days after Hamas' attacks on October 7 and describing Israel's actions in Gaza as a "genocide."

AIPAC spent over $17 million on Bowman's primary, the most it's ever spent on one race and the most a single group has spent on a congressional race this cycle. That avalanche of money made this House primary the most expensive in American history.

On the ground, AIPAC's offensive translated into TV ads attacking Bowman and praising Latimer, as well as a deluge of mailers to residents' doors. Those ads mostly focused on Bowman's vote against President Joe Biden's Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021 rather than the congressman's criticism of Israel.

Having the backing of AIPAC — or any super PAC, for that matter — can be a huge leg up to candidates.

Last month, AIPAC played a major role in Oregon's 3rd Congressional District, where Maxine Dexter defeated Susheela Jayapal in the Democratic primary with the help of $2.3 million in AIPAC spending, apparently routed through 314 Action Fund and a PAC called Voters for a Responsive Government.

Harry Dunn, a former Capitol Police officer from Maryland, may have been headed to Congress if AIPAC hadn't spent $4.2 million to boost state Sen. Sarah Elfreth, who raised just $1.4 million on her own before defeating Dunn in the Democratic primary in May. And that doesn't even consider the successes the group had in Democratic primaries in 2022.

But sometimes AIPAC flops, too. The group spent $4.6 million to defeat state Sen. Dave Min in a California House primary in March after he expressed fairly moderate criticisms of Israel. He ended up winning by over six points.

More broadly, there's a reason just a few Squad members ended up being vulnerable to a primary challenge this year, despite widespread progressive fears in late 2023: It would be way too difficult to take them all out, especially given how the politics around Israel have shifted among Democrats over the course of recent months.

For example, AIPAC tried to recruit a primary challenger to Rep. Summer Lee in Pennsylvania, only for the effort to apparently fizzle. Lee easily won her primary in April after the group declined to spend any money on the race.

Bowman was a weak incumbent, had significant personal scandals, and said incendiary things about October 7

In 2022, Bowman faced two primary challengers, each of whom raised a fairly paltry sum. AIPAC did not spend any money against him.

He got just 54% of the vote, losing big in the more upscale portions of Westchester County.

It's impossible to really say what effect Bowman's infamous September fire-alarm incident had on his race, but there's little doubt it was a high-salience event.

He was censured by the House over it, including by three of his Democratic colleagues. The most charitable explanation — the one that Bowman has put forward — is that he was genuinely confused when he did it, which doesn't paint a flattering picture of the congressman's temperament.

The more sinister view — the one that Latimer capitalized on — is that as a former middle-school principal, Bowman knew exactly what he was doing and was seeking to disrupt a vote on a government-funding bill.

The congressman's characterization of reports of rape on October 7 as "propaganda" was probably the single worst thing he said. (He has since apologized.)

That, combined with his embrace of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement and some of his incendiary rhetoric about the Jewish state, alienated many of Bowman's Jewish constituents, who appeared to have turned out in record numbers.

Additionally, the revelation that Bowman once embraced 9/11 conspiracy theories created the impression that the congressman held radical views outside the mainstream of American politics.

Months before AIPAC began dropping millions of dollars on the race, polling already showed Bowman struggling against Latimer.

Despite his own flaws, Latimer was a well-positioned challenger

In the closing weeks of the campaign, Latimer consistently made statements that — at best — were racially insensitive.

He told Bowman during a virtual debate that the congressman's "constituency is Dearborn, Michigan," even though Bowman had received fewer than $2,000 in itemized contributions from the majority-Arab city. Latimer later said that he wasn't referring to the "Islamic presence" in the city but to the fact that Bowman has a joint fundraising committee with Rep. Rashida Tlaib, whose Detroit-area district includes Dearborn. Yet 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 kinds of statements. And Jacobin reported that Latimer had slow-walked desegregation efforts in Westchester County.

Despite all that, Latimer was well positioned to take on Bowman. He's well known in the county, has strong relationships in parts of the district where Bowman has consistently underperformed, and is by all accounts a skilled retail politician.

Looking at each candidate's fundraising is also an instructive indicator of local support.

As of June 5, 61% of Latimer's itemized contributions had come from New York, and over one-third had come from within the district. By contrast, only about 30% of Bowman's itemized contributions came from in state, and less than 10% came from the district.

There's a glimmer of hope for progressives

Bowman's defeat is indeed a victory for AIPAC. And it may get another one later this summer when Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri — who faces a Department of Justice probe over whether she misused campaign funds — faces an AIPAC-backed opponent in her Missouri primary in August.

Progressives fear, and pro-Israel forces may hope, that Bowman's loss will send a broader message that lawmakers will be punished for being outspoken in their criticism of Israel.

But look closely, and you can see that while AIPAC notched a win here, there are plenty of signs that its rigid pro-Israel stance is losing sway within the Democratic Party.

This year, Democrats on Capitol Hill held up stand-alone aid to Israel for six months in defiance of AIPAC's lobbying.

Mainstream members of the party have grown far more comfortable levying criticism against Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank, defying a chilling effect that AIPAC had long helped enforce.

Lawmakers have openly discussed the prospect of conditioning military aid to Israel, a position that was once viewed as fringe.

In the end, 37 House Democrats and three Senate Democrats voted against sending military aid to Israel.

AIPAC may be able to defeat two of them this year, at most.

Correction: June 26, 2024 — A previous version of this article misstated Harry Dunn's profession. He's a former Capitol Police officer, not a current one.

Read the original article on Business Insider