The American Jewish Commitee released its annual survey of American Jewish opinion last week and the results were disappointing to progressive Jews. First, a few caveats: the survey was compiled between September 8-21, meaning that the early results would be almost meaningless in terms of subsequent campaign developments. In other words, the Republican national convention ended on September 4th. So survey results compiled in the early part of the polling period would be heavily influenced by the convention afterglow. Subsequent events in the campaign have harmed McCain and this would not be reflected in the results.
Barack Obama garners only 57% of the Jewish vote, down from 62% in a July J Street poll. McCain gets only 30% of the Jewish vote, down from 32% in the J Street poll. Undecideds are 13%, up from 6% in J Street. Certainly, if the same poll were conducted today Obama’s results would be much higher and there would be fewer undecideds. But whether that gets Obama anywhere near the 70% that is more characteristic of previous Democratic presidential campaigns is anyone’s guess.
What this shows is that the Republican Jewish Coalition’s smear tactics are working to an extent in depressing the Jewish vote for Obama. The e-mail hoaxes claiming Obama is a Muslim or that he’s anti-Israel–all these are having an impact. The Clarion Fund’s 28 million DVDs of Obsession flooding swing states–that’s having an impact as well.
So while current national polls show Obama moving into a commanding lead over McCain, the Jewish community is mired in mud which is preventing Obama from picking up the votes he might expect from this community.
The AJC poll also contains some more disappointing results. 42% of American Jews support military action against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. That result last year was 35%. It should be noted that contrary to James Besser’s contention in Jewish Week, that American Jews are far out of synch with Americans on this subject. A June, 2008 Public Agenda poll (pdf) found that 47% favored diplomatic engagement while only 12% of Americans supported either using or threatening military force against Iran (75% supported diplomacy or economic sanctions). So the anti-Iran campaign mounted by Aipac, Conference of Presidents and the Israel Project lobbying for a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran is also bearing fruit.
The Iran result completely gives the lie to a recent Israel Project poll which found that 63% of Americans support an Israeli attack on Iran if other means fail. It just goes to show how a pollster can either intentionally or unintentionally skew results in a client’s favor (the Israel Project supports such an attack).
American Jews are similarly dispirited about the prospects for peace between Israel and her Arab neighbors: 56% believe Israel will never settle its differences with the Arab states; 68% believe Israel can never attain peace with a Hamas-led government.
Unfortunately, this year’s survey was severely truncated for financial reasons (or so the AJC claims). There were no questions asked about the status of Jerusalem. No question was asked about whether Israel should negotiate with Hamas. No questions were asked about settlements. No question was asked about the Israel-Syria negotiations or whether Israel should return the Golan. All these would’ve likely elicited more dovish replies as they did in last year’s survey.
I also find it rather pathetic that this is perhaps the most important Jewish survey produced in the U.S. and the AJC can’t raise enough money to do it right? It only increases the importance of the new J Street poll which was done for the first time last July.
I noticed Palin claimed in last night’s debate that she was in favor of moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. I suspect she was prepped by her handlers to say that.
I am not surprised by the results of this poll. I have found over the past 6 years more and more Jews becoming very conservative and mostly because of the issue of Israel’s safety. They strongly believe that Israel will be safer in the hands of conservatives (Republicans). I am shocked by this logic because I see Israel in greater danger as a result of the Iraq war and other conservative policies and it never occurred to me that this thinking is actually being spread by well funded Jewish conservative campaigns. Could this mean that my well educated Jewish friends who pride themselves on their knowledge and logic are actually pawns in the hands of politicos with a radical agenda?
I believe more in the J Street poll even though that one was reported earlier. I don’t recall off hand exactly which poll and when, but not too long ago I saw other polls showing Obama doing much better among Jewish people. I think that this AJC poll is slanted. Just like in most past elections, in 2004 John Kerry got approximately 80% of the Jewish vote and Obama is already doing better among the public at large. Polls show him ahead in Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, and Michigan among other states and McCain just pulled up stakes in Michigan. There are a lot of Jews in those states that must be a part of Obama’s lead. A solid majority of Jews tend to be more liberal and care about other issues besides in addition to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and I think that even on that issue more Jews want peace and a just settlement.
Regardless of this poll’s possible slant, the Obama campaign knew it’s results as soon as it became available, and have already stepped up tactics to counter it, have no fear.
Rather than just coasting to an assured victory, it looks like his people are looking for a rout, and a counter to an assured October surprise.
I hope your optimism for an Obama victory rules the day. I fear and loath the idea of another 4 years of a Republican president. But even moreso I don’t understand the attraction to conservatism in its current form. I understand good old fashioned conservatism, the kind I think we once saw in people like Ike or even a Bob Dole. Today’s version is a far cry from that and yet still attractive enough to grab the attention of about 50% of the voting population.
Well, I wish I was as confident of victory as my post sounded. I’m sure of the fact that Mr. Obama’s team is working the ground game like rabid weasels(?) hehehe.
As we all know, the Republicans are desperately working up some kind of smash-mouth Octoberfest party favor for Barack, and have no doubt that it will be Muslim-flavored with fear-mongering accents.
No doubt you’re right about that. I still can’t get over the original October surprise of 1980.
Richard Ramer wrote: “I hope your optimism for an Obama victory rules the day. I fear and loath the idea of another 4 years of a Republican president. But even more so I don’t understand the attraction to conservatism in its current form. I understand good old fashioned conservatism, the kind I think we once saw in people like Ike or even a Bob Dole. Today’s version is a far cry from that and yet still attractive enough to grab the attention of about 50% of the voting population.”
While I believe that Obama will win, I never believe in being overly optimistic. Of course we have to work for it.
I was a child and not even a teenager when Ike was President. Most of the adults in my family voted for the Democrat Adlai Stevenson in ’52 and ’56, and I would have too were I an adult. Nevertheless, Ike was not a bad President. It was Eisenhower who very eloquently warned us to be aware of the military-industrial complex. It was Eisenhower who expanded Social Security so that it would cover more people. When he was president, we funded our schools, libraries, parks, transit systems and other necessary services. We didn’t have homeless and mentally ill people on our streets. The wealthy people paid a much larger percentage in taxes to fund these necessary government services. I remember 2 liberal Republican Governors here in California during that time, Earl Warren who became one of our nations’ greatest Chief Justices, and Goodwyn Knight and even San Francisco was served by some good liberal Republicans. Those kinds of Republicans have since either become Democrats or Independents or died. It’s also important to note that the granddaughter of President Eisenhower, Susan Eisenhower along with Richard Nixon’s daughter Julie Nixon Eisenhower and many other Republicans disgusted at the current direction of the Republican Party, are supporting Barack Obama in this election.
I did not know about Eisenhower’s and Nixon’s children supporting Obama. This is very interesting indeed. If things go as I hope they do we will soon find out that old fashioned conservatives and old fashioned liberals have far more in common than the Repubs and Dems of today. I always imagine a real third party growing out of this phenomenon- something called the Common Sense party or something along those lines.
I gotta admit, true conservatives have been marginalized and ignored even more than we liberals. One reason for McCain’s lackluster polling is that conservatives are even more appalled by the shredding of our constitution than we are. Privacy rights have always been on the conservative platform. Conservatives who were in keeping with Ike’s worldview would also have been right alongside the anti-war protesters against the nation-building being done by us today. It sounds like an eternity, but it was only 8 years ago that Dubya proclaimed that we cannot do the nation-building crap, just as his father had said during his ‘desert storm’ gig.
Richard and trog69, You might be interested to know that even Barry Goldwater became disenchanted with the Republican Party in his later years after he retired from the Senate. You might recall that when Bill Clinton originally wanted Gays and Lesbians to be allowed in the military, Goldwater supported that and said “As long as they can shoot straight!” Among other things, Goldwater disagreed with the Republicans position on abortion, as he was a civil libertarian and pro-choice. I read that Goldwater voted for Clinton in 1996 over Bob Dole, which was the last election he voted in before he died.
Richard, regarding what you said about perhaps their being a new “Common Sense” party, that very well be what happens during the next few years. I think that if Obama and the Democrats don’t really screw up, that the Republicans as presently constituted will indeed become for all practical purposes a minor party. After the Great Depression it took the Republicans 20 years to gain power again, and they only did so with that moderate Ike. Also, I have nothing good to say about Joe Lieberman, but McCain wanted to have either him or Tom Ridge as his VP, but the right-wing of his party would have revolted at the convention had McCain picked either of those 2 because they’re pro-choice. The Republican Party can’t go on when the far right has a veto power over their Presidential candidate’s decisions.
I forgot to mention that Susan Eisenhower addressed the Democratic Convention.
Walter: Given what you say about the Republican Party becoming a minor party it seems difficult to see that happening given how powerful they’ve been over the past 15 years. There are times when I think it is the Democratic Party that will crumble because they are so incapable of delivering a message that resonates. But, if you are right about the Repubs it is kind of hard to tell which part of the party will remain the more relevant, the far right which has a very strong base or the moderate, which is closer to the way the party used to be.
Richard: The Republican Party was also powerful for 14 years before FDR was elected in 1932 and his subsequent landslide victories. The Great Depression pretty much ruined the party for many years as I mentioned before, and it was 20 years later that the moderate Republican Eisenhower was elected. It is true that the Democrats have not always delivered a message that resonates. Examples are Jimmy Carter’s administration. I don’t want to be misunderstood. Carter had excellent intentions. Had the country listened to him regarding conserving our natural resources and saving energy, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in today. The problem was that his experience was being a one-term Governor of a small state, and he was not familiar with the people in Washington. Carter’s administration couldn’t even work well with the Democratic majority in Congress. This contributed to his losing to Reagan in 1980. Four years earlier, polls showed Reagan being the weaker candidate against Carter, as opposed to Ford. Bill Clinton also failed to deliver much during the first 2 years of his term, when he had a Democratic Congress. So the right-wing Republicans who took over their party over the past 30-40 years only were elected because the Democrats goofed up when they had power. I think that it will be different with Obama. Obama will probably have a larger Democratic majority in Congress. He knows how to work with other members of Congress, and he even has good relations with Republican Senators Richard Lugar and also Coburn from Oklahoma, who happens to be off to the right. Who knows what will happen, but perhaps the Democrats will become again the more liberal party and that there will be something like a moderate “Common Sense” party that you mentioned that will be the main opposition party sometime down the road.
@Richard Ramer: Also keep in mind that Bill Buckley hated George Bush, or at least he hated the war on terror and Bush’s defoliation of the Constitution.
I believe if Sarah Palin is elected, it will not be a conservative administration we will have, but one which wants to lead us toward a theocracy.
People tell me it cannot happen, but those of you are a little older, as I am, think about in 1950 or 1960, if someone had described to you the loss of our constitutional liberties, beginning with Clinton and executed with Bush, would you have said, ‘Impossible, it can’t happen here’?
As far as the idea that “Republicans are friends of Israel” – I like to point out this analogy: Who’s your better friend, the one that takes your keys away from you or the one who encourages you to drive when you are drunk?
To continue Mr. Sniderman’s analogy; …or the one who encourages you to drive when you are drunk, after selling you a .44 automag and a box of ammo?
Dan Sniderman wrote: “As far as the idea that “Republicans are friends of Israel” – I like to point out this analogy: Who’s your better friend, the one that takes your keys away from you or the one who encourages you to drive when you are drunk?”
I like that one. I point that one out myself.
I discovered this Tikun Olam site a week ago while searching for information on whether Israelis really love Bush as I hear so many people tell me. The other question they raise is whether Obama does not and there is the seed of fear so successfully planted by the conservative mindset. It’s funny how questions of peace and Israel are so closely linked to this election, at least for Jews.
Good morning, Mr. Ramer. I too found this site while gathering info. While I am not Jewish, I am concerned about the terrible conflicts in the ME, particularly the Palestinian insanity, how Arabs are treated in Israel, and threats to AND from Iran. Though I haven’t posted here for some time, I find Richard Silverstein’s work here highly commendable, and comment-able!
@trog69: Thanks & comment away!
These are nice points but just one thing:
Eisenhower did have much higher taxes on the rich, but he was not responsible for them. It was Roosevelt and Truman who established them, Eisenhower only inherited them. He did keep them up, though.
One more thing: Truman also organized a substantial in crease in Social Security coverage and benefits.
Jim S wrote: “Eisenhower did have much higher taxes on the rich, but he was not responsible for them. It was Roosevelt and Truman who established them, Eisenhower only inherited them. He did keep them up, though.
“One more thing: Truman also organized a substantial in crease in Social Security coverage and benefits.”
I won’t argue with any of that. Unlike Reagan and the current Bush, Eisenhower further expanded Social Security benefits that were already improved by his Democratic predecessor Truman, and kept the higher taxes on the rich. Eisenhower also supported at least one increase in the minimum wage, which went further in those days than today’s minimum wage. Bush only signed a minimum wage increase because it was inserted in his Iraq funding bill.
Walter Ballin:Bush only signed a minimum wage increase because it was inserted in his Iraq funding bill.
Wait a second; Bush signs the minimum wage increase, and soon afterward the economy collapses?
You-you don’t think…By God, I KNEW those damned libs were responsible for this!!
hehehe.