In the NY-16 district election, Jamaal Bowman received 84% of the vote in the Bronx, a working class area. He did poorly in the suburbs of Westchester and ended up with 42% He lost in the suburbs. Why do you think that is?
Spending. I think his outreach was unable to beat the advertisements paid for by his opposition, in part due to the absolutely bonkers investment from the AIPAC. So, that's my answer
simple people over simplify answers. money was one factor. but his outreach game sucked. he embarrassed himself in nationally visible ways (fire alarm). he took hard stances on divisive political issues (Israel/Hams) when his constituents had divided opinions. he district was redrawn so he lost part of his base.
But, of course, if that were the case his vote total would be lower in all of his district and it was not.
That's not how that works, different communities consume different forms of media and at different rates.
So, you're saying that people in the Bronx don't have TVs?
I'm saying people in the suburbs seem more adept at picking up garbage takes
But more pointedly, suburban households are more likely to purchase cable television packages or engage in live TV coverage, where a majority of that spending took the form of advertisements.
I worked in NYC a lot. Which is the reason I still watch NYC TV. Local stations had quite a number of Latimer commercials, which you can pick up with an antenna BTW. The Bronx saw the same number of commercials. Yet they still broke Bowman's way when the suburbs did not. Occums razor.
Look up public television viewership numbers based on income, ask me whether or not the Bronx WATCHED Latimer's commercials, or even saw them.
Occums razor still applies. What is more logical? That Bowman couldn't carry the suburbs because he didn't appeal to them, or because of advertising? Hey, I like the Bronx, and I know they get as much crap during political season as the next guy. It wasn't advertising, it was Bowman himself.
Someone gets outspent by a factor of 7, and you think the most likely reason is the candidate? I don't know man, I think you're not applying Occam's* Razor appropriately.
Again, if money was the reason, his whole district would have voted the same way. It did not.
Again, if the whole district could be marketed to the same exact way, you'd be right.
Hidayati, N., Kartikowati, S., & Gimin, G. (2021). The influence of income level, financial literature, and social media use on teachers consumption behavior. Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(3), 479-490.
In case you needed a source
Nuts that anyone would need a source for "people with different incomes consume different media".
If you're too dumb to understand that, you're too dumb to read an academic study.
No I agree, but he seemed keen to try and bring up facts, wanted to be sure we had receipts just in case.
Fair
Why didn't local democrats in his district come out to support him with more rigor? Did he forge those relationships? Did he cooperate and take time to get to know the Westchester community? If I understand correctly, the redistricting made him lose a chunk of the Bronx. Race-wise it looks like based on wikipedia change history the district changed from 30% black and 30% white to 40% white and 20% black. I am not saying this is inherently racism, but his constituency changed. He lost a pocket of his base and was required to forge new relationships and build up a new base. And his fumbles and positions on Israel did not help in that regard. Money played into it, but he redistricting and bad choices created the vulnerability that allowed them to step in.
His district boundaries changed and he did nothing to reach out to and attempt to represent his new constituents.
And that's why it's important to look at the data. Sorry about the inevitable downvotes, but falsehoods fly around the world as truth is tying up its boots.
In the NY-16 district election, Jamaal Bowman received 84% of the vote in the Bronx, a working class area. He did poorly in the suburbs of Westchester and ended up with 42% He lost in the suburbs. Why do you think that is?
Spending. I think his outreach was unable to beat the advertisements paid for by his opposition, in part due to the absolutely bonkers investment from the AIPAC. So, that's my answer
simple people over simplify answers. money was one factor. but his outreach game sucked. he embarrassed himself in nationally visible ways (fire alarm). he took hard stances on divisive political issues (Israel/Hams) when his constituents had divided opinions. he district was redrawn so he lost part of his base.
But, of course, if that were the case his vote total would be lower in all of his district and it was not.
That's not how that works, different communities consume different forms of media and at different rates.
So, you're saying that people in the Bronx don't have TVs?
I'm saying people in the suburbs seem more adept at picking up garbage takes
But more pointedly, suburban households are more likely to purchase cable television packages or engage in live TV coverage, where a majority of that spending took the form of advertisements.
I worked in NYC a lot. Which is the reason I still watch NYC TV. Local stations had quite a number of Latimer commercials, which you can pick up with an antenna BTW. The Bronx saw the same number of commercials. Yet they still broke Bowman's way when the suburbs did not. Occums razor.
Look up public television viewership numbers based on income, ask me whether or not the Bronx WATCHED Latimer's commercials, or even saw them.
Occums razor still applies. What is more logical? That Bowman couldn't carry the suburbs because he didn't appeal to them, or because of advertising? Hey, I like the Bronx, and I know they get as much crap during political season as the next guy. It wasn't advertising, it was Bowman himself.
Someone gets outspent by a factor of 7, and you think the most likely reason is the candidate? I don't know man, I think you're not applying Occam's* Razor appropriately.
Again, if money was the reason, his whole district would have voted the same way. It did not.
Again, if the whole district could be marketed to the same exact way, you'd be right.
Hidayati, N., Kartikowati, S., & Gimin, G. (2021). The influence of income level, financial literature, and social media use on teachers consumption behavior. Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(3), 479-490.
In case you needed a source
Nuts that anyone would need a source for "people with different incomes consume different media".
If you're too dumb to understand that, you're too dumb to read an academic study.
No I agree, but he seemed keen to try and bring up facts, wanted to be sure we had receipts just in case.
Fair
Why didn't local democrats in his district come out to support him with more rigor? Did he forge those relationships? Did he cooperate and take time to get to know the Westchester community? If I understand correctly, the redistricting made him lose a chunk of the Bronx. Race-wise it looks like based on wikipedia change history the district changed from 30% black and 30% white to 40% white and 20% black. I am not saying this is inherently racism, but his constituency changed. He lost a pocket of his base and was required to forge new relationships and build up a new base. And his fumbles and positions on Israel did not help in that regard. Money played into it, but he redistricting and bad choices created the vulnerability that allowed them to step in.
His district boundaries changed and he did nothing to reach out to and attempt to represent his new constituents.
And that's why it's important to look at the data. Sorry about the inevitable downvotes, but falsehoods fly around the world as truth is tying up its boots.