Anybody following this able to give a balanced summary? I find The Hill to tend right-leaning and don’t much trust their analysis.
The Hill seems to be placing the defeat of Bowman on his stance against the genocide in Palestine, which is becoming a sort of dog-whistle saying, “stand against the invasion of Palestine, and this is what happens to you.” It may in this case be true; I can believe it, but I don’t trust The Hill to not be constructing a narrative.