(1) People are always inclined to one or the other language, even the non-technical people. I am sure most of the HN audience knows businessmen who read 3-4 short articles and felt like tech experts. Or a junior dev friend of theirs told them "man, language X is awesome". And it picks up from there.
(2) Python is a pretty good language, there's no arguing that. And if you have a team where even not-very-technical people can code an easy script with it, there's a subconscious peer-pressure to choose it for your next greenfield project. It's easy to pick up even if you're new to programming. That's a plus per se, but us the Homo Sapiens always prefer instant gratification over sensible long-term investments. It's our nature. That's why I picked Ruby -- after running away screaming from the Java EE world -- seven years ago. (Now I regret that decision, by the way.)
(3) Many projects don't care about concurrency. Languages with GIL who are easy to pick up -- Python and JS being the prominent examples -- are bound to be popular. You're correct on that point, 101%.
(4) Python has good C-bindings with awesome libraries. Facts are facts.
(5) I've known people who ran away from Python. I am not making this an argument against the language itself, I am just giving you perspective on your statement that "one can grow with Python". Yes they can, some choose not to. That's not an argument in either direction -- not for, and not against the language. It's a natural phenomena with humans.
---
I'm seeing popularity in general only loosely bound to quality. Many actors, software technologies, hardware pieces, TV shows etc. etc. became popular because there was a pressing need for something in the area and that entity arrived in time to satisfy the need. From then on the human nature of being creatures of habit kicks in and much better alternatives go unnoticed for years (or decades) and the old stuff gets replaced only when it becomes blatantly obvious that it's inadequate, many times in a row.
It seems our human systems hate gradual and constructive change. It always has to be semi-cataclysmic changes.
I digressed. Please note that I am in partial agreement with you, but felt compelled to give another take of your points.