The latest poll shows Jews supporting Obama over McCain by 57% to 30%, with 13% undecided. Back in February, I suggested that McCain started with a base of the 25% that Bush received in 2004, would almost certainly do better because he is a more attractive candidate to Jews, and Obama less so, than were Bush and Kerry, and could go as high as 40%. I think the Palin choice has dampened his chances of doing quite that well (Jews overwhelmingly approve of Biden, but a majority disapprove of Palin), but he's still on track to have the best Republican perfomance among Jewish voters since at least Ronald Reagan in 1980.
UPDATE: As far as methodology goes, the survey relied on self-identified Jews from "the Synovate consumer mail panel." This suggests to me that the poll would underrepresent Russian and especially ultra-Orthodox Jews.
Don't underestimate the effectiveness of the Jews for Obama campaign Sara Silverman is spearheading, the Great Schlep, here
Note: there's some bad language so not safe for some offices Also note, this is pro-Obama, so some VC readers might not be amused. But pro-Obama Jews -- and as David notes, that's most of us -- and many others should definitely check out the video.
I think you underestimate how toxic Palin is to most jews -- she strikes many older (moderate-liberal) jews I've talked to as part of a particularly literalist christianity that doesn't really appeal to them (nor does Obama's church, of course).
But damned if somebody hasn't looked at it:
http://www.levy.org/pubs/wp_508.pdf
Take what you like from it, but one of the key findings is that the group skews toward lower income Jews and away from higher income Jews, relative to other data sets.
chsw
This is the closest any politician I've ever heard come to treating Israel as a sovereign nation rather than a client State.
(Yes, I know Florida is a swing state. Hardly sufficient for McCain to win.)
Really? What other sovereign nations do our leaders believe we are unable to second-guess?
None, except for Israel. That is the point.
And while we are at it, Obama sat in Wright's church for 20 yeas listening to his spiritual mentor who is a very close friend with that great promoter of Jews and Israel, Farakhan. Wright even accompanied the same guy to Libya to meet with Ghadafi.
But, Sarah Palin makes Jews nervous? Go figure.
so, if the jews want to vote democrat overwhelmingly they will marginalize themselves - they are supposedly the puppetmasters behind everything that happens in the world, so they should be smart enough to recognize that!
Still, I largely agree with David that McCain will do the best of any Republican nominee for president since Reagan in 1980, though I don't think McCain gets more than 30% of the vote and Obama manages to crawl up to 65% to 70% of the Jewish vote. The question for Obama supporters is will that make the difference in Connecticut and Florida, and possibly New Jersey?
"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
That's a quote from his book, "Audacity of Hope." This is from the same man who wants to buddy-up to Ahmedinejad, and surrender Iraq to Al-Qaida. He is not a friend to Israel or to Jews.
We can see that you're good at copying stuff out of an email that you got, but that's not exactly what he said.
Sounds like an eminently Jewish position to me.
The conservative base is a paper tiger with nowhere else to go. When the Republicans finally start treating them the way Bill Clinton treated Jesse Jackson, they will be able to win a lot more elections.
As I'm sure you know, there are many liberals, Jews among them, so angry at Lieberman that policy differences notwithstanding they might object less to Palin. I may be one. That said, you may be right anyway if you only consider potential swing voters.
I don't doubt there are some. But I think overall, you get far more Jewish votes (as well as swing voters) with Lieberman than with Palin. And I really don't think you lose as many conservatives as is generally thought-- Karl Rove has convinced the Republicans of something they would like to believe but which is not, in fact, true, i.e., that elections can be won by bringing out the base and doing little to appeal to centrist voters. In fact, the base isn't going anywhere, as they have nowhere else to go. You win by getting centrists to vote for you.
Just to be sure, I never meant to imply that there is a paucity of things to dislike about Obama. It's just that particular phrase, when shown in context, is really just not one of 'em.
It's easier, more comfortable, and emotionally safer to pretend to yourself that your worst enemy is somebody whom you know in your heart of hearts not only wouldn't, but couldn't, hurt you.
What, when you come to think of it, could a president or veep do against Jews?
Nothing. That's right. So worrying about them is silly. Unless it's what we refer to as a "binky" when my granddaughter is fussing.
Compare the power of, say, Hamas, or Iran to hurt Jews to that of the executive of the US. Nothing.
There is, of course, one exception, the fate of Israel. Those Jews who vote dem insist they are not all that interested in the fate of Israel. If they were, they'd have to vote rep, and that would never do.
I'm part of a large Jewish family. Some are Zionists, some aren't. Of those who aren't, some vote Democratic, some Republican, and some third party. Of the Zionists, every one votes Democratic.
So much for that theory.
As for whether the POTUS or Hamas and Iran is more dangerous to Jews, I spend no time worrying about the former, and some the latter. But if you really find it incomprehensible that the POTUS could be the bigger threat if he was so inclined, try using what's left of your imagination where all roads don't lead to lying liberals out to undermine all things American.
Whatever lets you sleep nights.
You mean like Bill Clinton ignoring Arafat's intentions and willfully overlooking Arafat's continuing the war against Israel? Or GW Bush's doing the same with Mahmoud Abbas? Or Reagan, Carter, and GH Bush threatening to renew the arms embargo against Israel for acting in self defense? Or Ike threatening to make contributions to Jewish charities taxable? Or Reagan extorting military concessions from Israel in exchange for promises to disarm the terrorists and put in a buffer force, then letting the terrorist withdraw fully armed, and pulling out the buffer force when it suffers massive casualities due to criminal naivete on the part of its CO? I don't have to imagine; all these happened within my lifetime. And yeah, both candidates scare me on that score.
It turns out that Jews have a lot of experience with local authorities who were friendly to Jews until they stopped being friendly to Jews. I'm not making a prediction. I'm just saying that history matters, and Jews have a lot of history. It's not an accident that Jews are vehement about defending civil liberties and rights.
I have a hunch that you're not a Jew. I also have a hunch that Jews aren't that impressed by non-Jews who condescendingly insinuate that Jews are too dumb to make wise voting decisions.
She said exactly what I said she said. And "any person of good will already knows" that, because I provided the citation.
She backpedaled somewhat the next day. That's in the same article. The backpedaling is not too impressive, because she's made lots of other statements (video) that turned out to be untrustworthy.
We also get some insight into her scientific views when we pay attention to a report from a named witness who heard her talk about dinosaurs.
This is all consistent with watching her accept a blessing to be protected from "the spirit of witchcraft" (video). If you watch the long version, you can also catch the part about "the wealth of the wicked," and about "the Israelites, that's how they work. And that's how they are, even today."
The idea that Obama said "IRan is not a threat" has been debunked often enough that any person of good will already knows it. The video explaining this has been seen over a million times, but I guess somehow you missed it.
About history: Jews have, in the last hundred years, had a good deal more to fear --presuming current politics doesn't require wiping the memories--from unfriendly regimes overrunning friendly regimes than from friendlies turning on them.
Look at "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Big hit with the libs. Too dumb to vote right, right? Hey. Is the author Jewish?
Some people think history started more than a hundred years ago. And some people are wise enough to not always be fighting the last war.
Not exactly dumb. A better word is ignorant. Some people are actually too ignorant to vote right. Good luck convincing anyone that Jews are in that group.
Frank's book got reviewed by somebody who knew what was going on. The bad things happening to Kansans prove not to be happening. So they aren't dumb or ignorant.
Just not dems.
It would seem reasonable to think that recent history has a bit more weight than distant history in drawing lessons.
However, my duty as an adult is to tell somebody that he's about to get run over by the elephant stampede. If he blows me off, it's between him and the elephants. I might watch, if I have nothing better to do. Which I probably would.
Are you sure? In 2004, Bush won KS by over 25 points. McCain is currently leading there by only 14 points. Only a handful of other states (TX, NC, VA, IN) show a swing that large. What happened?
You really have a talent for missing the point.
I'm wasting my time hauling you back to the point. So I'll quit wasting my time.