• Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 months ago
    • Much of the spending came after a poll in March from pro-Israel group Democratic Majority for Israel showed Bowman trailing by 17 points.

    So he was down 17 points pre-AIPAC money. Then after AIPAC spent a record breaking amount of money, he remained down 17 points and lost by that exact margin.

    The ungodly amount of money probably didn’t radically change the opinion of what most of his constituents were going to do in the ballot box.

    Maybe he would’ve closed the gap a bit, but he wasn’t in great shape to begin with.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      You should definitely take the NY Post’s summary of Democratic Majority for Israel’s factual claim at face value, those are both highly reputable and trustworthy organizations /s

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Around the same time Bowman had his own poll (the DMFI poll is effectively a pro-Latimer poll) with him up +1. Also weak for an incumbent, but there’s no reason to place the baseline at -17. AIPAC money almost certainly had a strong effect on the race, otherwise they wouldn’t have felt spending $14.5 million was a good use of their donation money. That’s fully half of all their expenditures reported thus far. The people with full time jobs focused on influencing US policy very much believe spending money influences elections.