Jamaal Bowman's concession speech highlights a key failure in his campaign

Progressive New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman’s primary election loss to George Latimer is a Rorschach test. 

Many people across the political spectrum benefit from claims that the biggest takeaway is that AIPAC’s money affords it unmatched political power. 

But I think Bowman’s concession speech provided better answers. 

This line stuck out to me:

I agree with this sentiment, but I’m also not running to represent New York’s 16th District. These comments demonstrate Latimer's criticism that Bowman focused less on his New York constituents and more on national politics.

Multiple things can be true. Was Bowman targeted by millions of dollars in AIPAC money? Yes — but that spending started in May, months after polls showed him lagging significantly behind Latimer. Did Democrat-led gerrymandering spell his demise? Not exactly. While some have noted that redistricting in 2022 dimmed his re-election chances, he also narrowly won his district on the new map in 2022. And there have been changes made to the map since that arguably could have boosted his re-election chances.

So while it’s hard to tell whether, or to what degree, political chicanery contributed to Bowman’s loss, we can say with much more certainty that his poor judgment was on vivid display during this campaign. And that can be fatal for a politician.  

Politicians can be principled and go against the grain — perhaps, even against the prevailing sentiment in their districts — when folks have faith in their direction.

But with little to show for their stances, politicians who are constantly performing can exhaust the voters. In this case, voters in New York’s 16th District preferred the substantive benefits of liberalism — which Latimer sought to represent — over the performance of progressivism, which Bowman has offered with some of his actions.

For example, when a candidate votes against his party’s signature legislative achievement, as Bowman did with the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure bill, the best he can do for himself is explain how he’ll pass something better, which he didn’t do. Or, when a candidate portrays himself as a truth-telling anti-imperialist, as Bowman has with his criticism of Israel’s bombardment of the Gaza Strip, it’s counterproductive to claim that stories of rapes committed by Hamas against hostages are false. Bowman ultimately apologized for this. But “I’m sorry for denying rapes happened” is a sentiment you never want to have to express while campaigning.

There are other lessons to be learned from Bowman’s campaign. For example, candidates should avoid having conspiratorial YouTube accounts linked to their names exposed for all the world to see. That’s especially true for candidates like Bowman, who’d already had to answer for other dalliances with conspiracy theories in his past.  I’d also recommend not being caught pulling a fire alarm in the Capitol building. Or telling campaign rallygoers that AIPAC is going to feel the power of the “motherf------ south Bronx” when the south Bronx is not in your district. 

The lessons from Bowman’s loss are plentiful, and some are quite simple. Reducing this race to a statement on AIPAC ignores a more obvious takeaway: candidates facing political headwinds can win — as long as they run focused, disciplined campaigns that allow them to brag about their accomplishments and avoid embarrassing missteps.

If you're going to step into the spotlight, you'd better put on a good show. Otherwise, people are going to get tired of watching.