AIPAC is not the only reason Jamaal Bowman lost

In the closing days of the race, progressive trained their ire on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), 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 on 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 election, AIPAC — a lobbying group that advocates for essentially unconditional support for Israel — established a super PAC called “United Democracy Project” to increase their 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 the ascent of progressives.

Bowman emerged as one of AIPAC’s top targets this year as a result of calling for a ceasefire in the days after the Hamas attack on October 7 and describing Israel’s actions in Gaza as a “genocide.”

AIPAC spent over $17 million on Bowman’s primary. It’s the most they’ve ever spent on one race, and it’s the most that 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 at residents’ doors. Those ads mostly focused on Bowman’s vote against the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021, rather than his criticism of Israel.

Having the backing of AIPAC — or any super PAC, for that matter — can give a huge leg-up to candidates, especially in open primaries.

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.”

Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn 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’s not even considering the successes that 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 the he expressed fairly moderate criticisms of Israel. He ended up winning by over 6 points.

More broadly, there’s a reason why 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 actually take them all out, especially given how the politics around Israel have shifted among Democrats over the course of recent months.

For example, AIPAC reportedly 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 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 3 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 George Latimer certainly capitalized on — is that as a former middle school principal, Bowman knew exactly what he was doing, and he 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, Divest, and Sanction movement and some of his incendiary rhetoric on the Jewish state, alienated many of Bowman’s Jewish constituents, who appear to have turned out in record numbers.

Not to mention the revelation that Bowman once embraced 9/11 conspiracy theories, created the impression that the congressman held radical, fringe 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 the congressman during a virtual debate that his “constituency is Dearborn, Michigan,” even though Bowman had received less than $2,000 in itemized contributions from the majority-Arab city. He later said that he wasn’t referring to the “Islamic presence” in the city, but 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’s flowed through that committee has come 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 he has slow-walked desegregation efforts in Westchester County.

Despite all of that, Latimer was well-positioned to take Bowman on. 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 came from New York, and over a third came 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 here for progressives

Bowman’s defeat is indeed a victory for AIPAC. And they may get another one later this summer, when Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri — who faces a Department of Justice probe over potential misuse of 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 standalone 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 has long helped enforce.

Lawmakers 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 will be able to defeat two of them this year, at most.