2004 US Presidential Election
August 16, 2004
Kerry | Poll: 75 percent of U.S. Jews say will vote for Kerry
75 percent of Jewish American voters will vote for Democratic candidate John Kerry in the upcoming November elections, a survey revealed on Monday.
Posted by Laurence Simon at August 16, 2004 02:44 PM | TrackBack
VAT ? !
This is Israel we’re talking about here right ?
It should Read 75% of Jewish democrats will vote for Kerry, that makes sense. 25% of Jewish
Posted by: augurwell at August 16, 2004 05:24 PM
President Bush’s only contribution to Middle East peace was that ridiculously ambiguous Roadmap, that he created without any input from the parties. Even this document was issued only after two years of war between Irsaelis and Palestinians (almost all on his watch with no Amercian intervention), and even then was just a fig leaf to get people off his back about Iraq. No wonder Kerry is leading among American Jews by a factor of 3:1.
Posted by: rdelephant at August 16, 2004 06:24 PM
Augurw: It’s one thing to Spin something; quite another to make up another entirely New Story and attempt to sell it.
Just go with the facts as presented. Ha’aretz is not known for its bias on such matters.
Posted by: Don at August 16, 2004 06:47 PM
This is up from 19% in 2000.
Posted by: jones at August 16, 2004 07:21 PM
That’s not much of a gain considering that there was a Jewish Amercian on the ticket in 2000.
Posted by: rdelephant at August 16, 2004 07:29 PM
Only one poll counts - in November - all the spin doesn’t matter unless you want to argue with trial lawyers over hanging chads!! The democrats in 2000 hurt this country by not accepting defeat graciously, but instead started a fight and movement that has divided the country ever since. Nixon did the right thing in 1960 even though contesting the election may well have made him president - he knew the fight over “vote counting/cheating” would hurt the country. If only Gore and company could have had the same respect for the system, the country and the people. NONE of it was necessary, but it sure fueled hate when the “new tone” went to Washington. Even when education bills were partnered by Teddy Kennedy and perscription drug care was pushed, people still want to make it sound like Bush is a neocon - what a crock.
With respect to the Jewish vote, I do not live in an area with a large Jewish population, but I have 7 friends who are Jewish and 4 were for Gore, 3 for Bush in 2000, 6 are for Bush and 1 for Kerry in 2004. Certainly not a large cross section, but interesting nonetheless.
Posted by: I collect political items at August 16, 2004 09:01 PM
“President Bush’s only contribution to Middle East peace was that ridiculously ambiguous Roadmap….”
I still wonder how long you people think it would have been before Saddam or one of his crazy sons lobbed a chemical or biological weapon in Israel’s direction. What, you think he wasn’t crazy enough to do it?
Of course, at that point, Israel retaliates with nukes, and all hell breaks loose through the entire region. So, yes, Bush has done quite a bit to preserve Mideast peace.
Posted by: samuelv at August 16, 2004 10:33 PM
I guess President Clinton’s ‘Roadmap to Peace’ was a success story. President Clinton was there for the start of both Intifadas. Not quite the Olympics, but you take what you can get sometimes…
Regretfully, to a non-Jewish American it is starting to look like victory might be required to quell the barbarians. We might not like it, it might not make us feel good about ourselves, but it might be necessary…
Posted by: BoghRD at August 16, 2004 10:43 PM
Hardly Bush’s fault that Arafat threw away the chance that Oslo gave him to have a state. Bush didn’t declare the intifada.
Arafat’ stupidity and greed is why the Palestinians lost the war.
Posted by: DWC at August 16, 2004 11:58 PM
.. pleezze..this ship is sinking,get off while you can,Nov 3 is the only poll that matters …
Posted by: Rob_NC at August 17, 2004 09:23 AM
I collect political items -
Posted by: Jim at August 17, 2004 12:31 PM
I certainly hope this means that we won’t be hearing from any of those people after Kerry wins and sells out Israel. On that score alone, it may be worth it.
Posted by: TL at August 17, 2004 01:19 PM
My mother has been a rabid Democrat all her life. She begged me to vote against Bush. The “smirk” drives her crazy.
Sorry mom. I’ve voted Libertarian since ‘88. Bush gets mine this year.=========
Why was John Kerry mistaken about Christamas eve in Cambodia? Because John’s brain was seared..
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release all the records.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 17, 2004 02:51 PM
Did I mention I’m Jewish?=========
I don’t believe a man with a character like John Kerry’s could be a war criminal. I believe he lied to the Senate in 1971.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release all the records.
Posted by: M. Simon at August 17, 2004 02:53 PM
I have to admit I am a little bit confused as to what the explanation is for Jews tending to support democrats in those numbers, especially given that Jews living in Israel show overwhelming support for Bush as compared with Kerry.
Can someone explain? It can’t be because they love/respect the UN (which is always condemning them), there seems to be more anti-semitism on the left than the right. There is obviously more support for organized religion on the right than the left. More support for business on the right than the left, etc.
Is it because they tend to live in more metropolitian (NYC for ex.) areas that tend to lean left anyway? What is it about their Jewishness that disposes them towards the Dems I guess is the fundamental question I am asking?
please note, I am asking this question seriously, not challenging the above poll results.
Posted by: Paul at August 17, 2004 04:29 PM
The first thing that caught my eye on this one was 75%. With having the most loyal Democratic block next to African Americans, I would have expected to see that number in the high 80% range at least if not closer to 90%.
As some of the others have noted, I am equally intrigued by what I’m not hearing from my Jewish friends: very vocal and strong support for the Democratic ticket. The apparent silence may be an omen. For the Democrats just to be sure, I would roll out Sen. Leiberman more often, who appeals across both spectrums, except that he is obviously persona non grata with the far left anti-war/anti-bellicose element within the Dems.
Just as the Democrats think that a Kerry-McCain ticket was the dream entry, many moderates and even conservatives find a potential Bush-Leiberman a dream ticket too. Alas, never the twain would meet.
Ol’ Joe is a good man… I hope he get’s some recognition for all that he has done and the very high standards he has maintained, too. He deserves more than a footnote on the political scene. As a conservative, I would even like to see him as UN ambassador or even Secretary of State in a Republican administration, but I don’t think it would ever happen.
Posted by: steve at August 17, 2004 04:43 PM
This survey is beyond meaningless. First, it was done by a Democratic polling firm. Second, it wasn’t a random sample; it solicited responses on the internet.
Posted by: Nudnik at August 17, 2004 04:55 PM
I’m also impressed that 25% of American Jews would support the Republicans (I’m one of ‘em).
In answer to the question above, I usually say that it’s the in-breeding, but the fact is that it’s probably just brainwashing. The Democratic party was originally the party of the working people, and the vast majority of Jews weren’t really that wealthy. The Democrats tended to have common interests with the Jews. The Republicans were seen as more patrician, and catering to the interests of people in the US who tended to hate the Jews. Lastly, a Jewish senator was on the Democratic ticket as the VP candidate.
The fact that things have changed doesn’t seem to have sunk in just yet, although they may be changing. In a sarcastic mood, I’d say that most Jews have drunk the kool-aid. You’d need something like Kerry selling Israel down the toilet to get the change you need.
Posted by: RPL at August 17, 2004 05:57 PM
The article says nothing about the methodology, I doubt seriously that it was just an Internet poll the way it is presented.
The Second Intifada did start during Clintons’ term but the casualties were relatively few until after Bush took office. The war definitely escalated under Bush and we disengaged at the same time; the opposite of what was called for.
I agree that Arafat was to blame for the failure of the final status negotiations. That doesn’t mean that we should just walk away from the situation
And even if Saddam had WMD (which he did not), he was not stupid enough to make an unprovoked WMD attack on a nuclear power, so no I don’t see the Iraq war as contributing to Mideast peace.
Posted by: rdelephant at August 17, 2004 06:15 PM
I have sincerely agree with your assessment and what others have said about Arafat, however, please be careful about blanket statements on WMD and whether Hussein may or may not have wanted to use them. If you have access to sources that most if not all of the intelligence communities in the U. S., France, Germany, Russia, Jordan, U.K., Turkey among others did not have… well you are sitting on a goldmine of information and I would encourage you to get on the talk show circuit or write a book. You’d make a killing and go down as brilliantly intuitive to say the least.
Recent reports from Iraq and interviews with Iraqi border guards report that just prior to the invasion, Saddam’s highly loyal intelligence service replaced the regular Border Guards for several days on the Syrian border to supervise truck convoys leaving Iraq. These could have been carrying Saddam’s loot and stolen wealth or it could have been stuff much more serious. I do not know enough to speculate on such things nor would I encourage others to read into this more than just what it is.
The increase in violence by the intifada was funded by many sources, not the least of whom was Saddam himself. Add to that the increase in power achieved by the Iranian backed terriorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbullah (sp?) at the same time and you’ve got a powerful incentive to escalate the war against the Zionists and infidels. While I’m sure that the Administration (and Clinton’s too) may have looked back and seen in 20/20 hindsight where they may have been more productive in dealing in the Middle East, I do not agree that they are primarily to blame for the increase in violence. It is way too complicated for such a simple answer and reflects more influence in that region by any American President than realistically exists.
Posted by: steve at August 17, 2004 06:54 PM
Saddam and Syria had a very strained relationship. I seriously doubt that Syria agreed to take Saddam’s “hot” WMD and thereby make itself a target. I don’t think that Saddam’s payments to the families of suicide bombers played much of a role or that the ending of those payments have much affected recruitment. I don’t want to overstate the influence of America either, but I do believe that the death toll could have been substantially reduced had we made an effort.
Posted by: rdelephant at August 17, 2004 07:12 PM
Y U ? Thanks for the Capitalization. (You got part of it right. )
I was not sitting and spinning, I was supposing reason.
If you consider what I wrote a bit more closely you might realize that I was supposing that the reality of the world would be reflected in the American Jewish voters perception of this reality in the world a bit more clearly than this rather unreal
If my post above lead you to think I was distorting reality than this a good example of what’s amuck in the world, (a) failing to grasp reality and (b) the need for remedial explanations.
By “The true still free pure precepts.”
PS Thanks for the critique.
Post Script After-burner thought: What are the American Jewish Electoral demographics ? (What ridings do they influence and could sway ? )
Posted by: augurwell at August 17, 2004 08:08 PM
Good post and well presented… I very much respect your opinion. Thanks.
I would differ on some of your views and assessments, but I have an unfair advantage by having access to classified information that you may not have had. This should not diminish your firmly held and well stated assessments that would point to other than these conclusions you now enjoy. But even with access to that information, I have seen many an expert come to differing conclusions as to what it means. Even many of us on duty at the time monitoring these events were caught off guard by Syria’s apparent willingness to cooperate with Saddam, but the background information pointed to their common Baathists roots and possibly monetary incentives. Some of us are not even sure if the Syrian government knew what was going on.
These are treacherous times and the terrorists are banking on our desire for peaceful resolutions. They themselves are determined to achieve our destruction or theirs in the process if need be. There is no middle ground with these folks… they exploit our “play by the rules” princeples, respect for human life and sense of democractic governmental process as a weakness.
If your man (whom I might surmise is Sen. Kerry) wins, I pray him the wisdom, steadfastness and courage to make the bold and decisive decisions to confront these enemies quickly and effectively. I know first hand that contrary to what is being said, the Iraq invasion caught them completely off guard. It really threw them for a loss… they are regrouping and will attempt another massive attack… that’s a given. There was a whole lot of equipment, funds and training areas denied them with Saddam’s departure. It did hurt… was it worth the invasion and subsequent battles in Iraq… well I guess we all have our opinions based in part on facts and half truths but only time will tell for sure.
Much like the invasion of Sicily and Italy was widely criticized by the Republicans in 1943 as a side show and hotly attacked by Stalin who was battling the Wermacht almost single-handedly, in hind sight it probably did contribute to the Nazi’s eventual defeat. Given the terriorists current set backs globally, Iraq may come to be seen in the same vein. With that comparison in mind, I think that the real “D-Day” is yet to come in this current war. Where and when that may be, I’m not sure. I just hope the enemy continues to underestimate our collective resolve and misread our desires for their complete destruction… no matter who the President may be.
Posted by: steve at August 17, 2004 08:10 PM
Yeah, Steve, no security clearances here, so I will defer. I agree with you that the war on terrorism is a fight that must be won, even if it means some bloody battles with the Islamists who are the enemy. Even though I opposed the Iraq war as a sideshow, at least it has the virtue of being a “honeypot” where some of the worst characters can be taken out. Still, I tend to think that it has created more problems than it solved. I hope I am wrong, but I think it will be many years before we have any good idea whether that is true or not.
Posted by: rdelephant at August 17, 2004 08:33 PM
You are more right in some areas than you realize and time (and declassifications) will prove you right in those aspects. Even us “experts” missed a few of the problems here and there. I guess we Americans are really not very proficient at invading places and try too hard to cut everyone a break. We’re paying for some of that now, but I’m not sure I would like to have us be otherwise.
I enjoy the discussion and the fact that we enjoy the right to lock friendly horns on issues both great and small!
Good Luck, partner!
Posted by: steve at August 17, 2004 08:40 PM
Thanks, Steve… good luck to you, as well.
Posted by: rdelephant at August 17, 2004 08:46 PM
Posted by: Rob_NC at August 17, 2004 10:18 PM
“And even if Saddam had WMD (which he did not), “
Repeat until true, even it you have to put your own conclusion after a supposition to make a tangential long-term talking point re-emphasizing a dispelled meme.
Posted by: Max Darkside at August 17, 2004 11:44 PM
Why is it that people like elephant haven’t a clue what’s going on in the world?
Why is it they would elect a liar, a traitor, and criminal like Kerry, but hate a man who has never lied?
Elephant, why don’t you go live in an Islamic nation where they embrace Sharia law? I’m sure they will welcome a gay guy like you with open arms.
There is no such a thing as a “palestinian”
Bush’s “roadmap” was an attempt to create peace, and give an illigitamite, non- people an out. It was however, refused, because the truth is, Islamic Jihad does not want jews in the land at all. Read the Hamas Charter.
Or better yet, go jump of a tall bridge over a shallow stream. Why people like you are so clueless as to what is really going on in this world puzzles me. With such a wonderfull device at your fingertips available to seek out the truth, it seems it only serves as a device for you to anounce your ignorance to the world. Perhaps a statement as to how bad the education system has become in the USA.
Posted by: Grand Ayatollah Nathan at August 18, 2004 02:41 AM
Then again elephant boy, you could also be one of those allah rock worshipping jihadists, spreading their lies across the internet which is so common these days.
As far as the survey goes, I believe that the population is about 75% pro Bush. You won’t see this reflected in the major media however, as they have their own anti Bush agenda.
If you follow chain cast, which is a service you can use on your PC to listen to radio talk shows all across the USA, you will see that the polling they do reflect this.
Bush will win, and the democrats, loony left party, liars, or what ever you want to call them, will be
Posted by: Grand Ayatollah Nathan at August 18, 2004 02:51 AM
I also laugh my ass off at these loony left thinking that the democrats are going to give them “free” health care.
You already have “free” health care if your a bum on the street, the rest of you either pay for insurance, like every Canadian does through taxes.
Democrats had 8 years of Clinton, how come he didn’t give you democrats “free” health care? All Clinton did is create an enviroment where American health insurance skyrocketed. Bush is the one who actually made the buren lighter for low income people.
Posted by: Grand Ayatollah Nathan at August 18, 2004 03:01 AM
Why do I think the transport of WMD to Syria has potential?
First, its a story that doesn’t go away. It recycles on a regular basis, often with a bit more info thrown in. The first reports I heard mentioned only satelite photos. The current stories also mention the border guard changes. This makes me wonder.
next, although the relationship between Syria and Iraq was what it was they were both both Ba’athists and that makes for some common ground, even if only that they were secular governments in a very clerically dominated arena.
Another historical point that comes to mind is the way the Iraqi airforce flew it’s high tech planes to the dreaded enemy Iran. If you recall this was during the first gulf war. If Iraq could do that then, why not now?
I also like the theory that the official Damascus might not even have know about the transport.
Another point: the attack on Jordan that was foiled. Those guys traveled from Syria into Jordan and they had the good, no?
so yeah, it could be in Syria. Wouldn’t that be an October surprise? Watch for the running dogs of the left, like Oh Say The New Republic, to run a story claiming that Bush knows where the WMD’s are and is waiting for the best time to trot them out.
Posted by: skip at August 18, 2004 03:52 PM
Good post… excellent cncepts. You may be more right than you realize on some of these.
The Iranian adventure in the first Gulf War included Shiite pilots who for the most part knew they would be treated well in Iran. They also knew they would not get the aircraft back as the Iranians at the time were sorely hurting for spares and equipment for their own air force. Was this independent of Saddam’s wishes and a regional Shiite iniatitive? I’ve not seen nor heard confirmation one way or the other. The evidence may lie in the unmarked mass graves in the South.
Could local commanders secretly move stuff to Syria without Saddam knowing? Maybe, but that is doubtful and they better be the last thing crossing the border or their butts are ashes back in Baghdad.
One of the threads that now seem to be emerging is that Al Qeuda really was operating as a system within a system in Iraq and even Saddam could not break it. A lot of stuff fled across the border from Afghanistan after Enduring Freedom hit, heading into Iran. Some of those convoys were tracked to the Iraq border where the Iranian backed Al Queda linked terrorists in the north were camped.
After Iraqi Freedom began, these groups may have gone to the next best haven… Syria and Iran. When we could not get the Turks involved because of concerns by the Kurds nor could we get our heavy armor groups quickly into the north of Iraq to block the borders, it provided a window of opportunity for stuff to flow both east and west out of Iraq… bad guys and even badder stuff, I’m guessing.
Keep in mind that none of this assessment is “official”. It is purely surmising on my part based upon various public sources of information gleamed over time.
Posted by: steve at August 18, 2004 05:56 PM
Back on topic: Jews had always leaned towards socialism. I guess because they were oppressed for millennia and socialism/communism promissed to “free” them. That’s why Jews were instrumental in getting Lenin into power. Well, it did not turn out well after all as we all know now, and most of the them fled Russia/Eastern Europe and settled in the States. Unfortunately, sixty years of brainwashing goes a long way and they are still clinging to the socialist principles of equality for all, hence their “attraction” to the Democratic Party - the more left, the bigger the pull.
However, I would love to see a real poll of Jewish voters and am willing to bet that there will be a great divide along the generation line - older Jews will be voting overwhelmingly Democrat and all the younger, second generation Jews - overwhelmingly Republican.
Oh, and I do think Bush effectively dealt with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. About the only bombings we hear about lately are work accidents; PA is imploding; Arafat is on his last breath - what can be better? Once PA and Arafat are out of the way, then real progress can be made…
Posted by: v at August 19, 2004 12:40 PM