Incumbent members of Congress are commonly understood to have an advantage in reelection contests, especially during their own party’s primary process. Party faithful are expected to support incumbents as doing so helps elevate their prominence, influence and reach.
So, two-term Democratic incumbent Cori Bush in Missouri’s 1st Congressional District would be expected to have a relatively easy time winning her bid for a third term as part of her party’s effort to take control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
But that was not to be. On Aug. 6, St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell defeated Bush decisively in the Democratic primary, marking the second time this year one of the party’s incumbents was ousted in an expensive contest that reflected deep divisions over U.S. policy regarding Israel’s war in Gaza.
Bush is an outspoken member of the progressive congressional group known as the “Squad.” She has a disturbing record of anti-Israel statements and votes, which include accusations that Israel is engaged in an “ethnic cleansing campaign” in response to the Hamas Oct. 7 attacks, and that Israel’s “collective punishment against Palestinians for Hamas’ actions is a war crime.”
Bush was one of just a few House members to oppose a resolution that expressed support for Israel last year. And when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress last month, Bush called it “sickening that Congress gave him a standing ovation.”
Bush’s repeated targeting of the Jewish state prompted backlash, even among supporters in her district. She also faced other controversies, including a federal investigation into how she was using campaign funds and accusations that she had broken too often with her party, such as with her “no” vote on President Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure law. Bush’s hold on her congressional seat appeared vulnerable.
Bell, who had planned a Senate run against incumbent Republican Josh Hawley, changed course and decided to challenge Bush, questioning her record and pointing to her comments about Israel as “wrong and offensive.”
Bell’s campaign attracted attention and support from the pro-Israel community. Bush, on the other hand, was supported organizationally and financially by progressive advocacy groups, including Justice Democrats and Protect Our Power. But they were outmatched.
AIPAC’s super PAC spent more than $8 million on the race, following a gameplan that worked in New York’s June primary, when the United Democracy Project spent millions to help Westchester’s County Executive George Latimer defeat another Squad member, Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY).
The efforts to support Bell and Latimer were deliberate, methodical, carefully calculated and targeted. And though funding came from pro-Israel donors, neither campaign focused on Israel, in recognition that Israel is not a key issue for many voters. But in both the New York and St. Louis Jewish communities, the campaigns organized active grassroots efforts to generate voter interest and increase voter turnout and early voting.
Pro-Israel advocates argue that the recent primary victories prove that “being pro-Israel is good policy and good politics.” Maybe. More likely, the victories prove that organized, focused and well-financed campaigns can help quality candidates overcome the traditional incumbent advantage.
