|
|
Bush Unites Jews and Arabs...to oppose him...
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§...=25&m=8&y=2004
NEW YORK, 25 August 2004 � As Republicans prepare for their convention in New York City next week, pollsters and pundits are asking which presidential candidate has won the heart � and most importantly the vote and financial backing � of Arab and Jewish Americans.
Despite Bush�s reputation as what one Republican called �the best friend that Israel has ever had in the White House,� the president�s full-term effort to court Jewish Americans has failed, according to a new poll that shows him trailing Sen. John Kerry.
�The work the Bush administration has done over the last three years to reach out to Jewish voters has been largely unsuccessful,� said pollster Anna Greenberg, who conducted the poll for the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC).
This could set up an ironic double win, because polls show Kerry leading among Arab-Americans as well, a switch from their overwhelming support for Bush four years ago.
Believing George W. Bush would follow his father�s Mideast polices, Arab-Americans gave Bush their support in 2000. But four years later, many are repelled by his decision to launch the Iraq war and his support for the USA Patriot Act, not to mention his pro-Israeli stance.
�The anger among Arab-Americans toward Bush is palpable,� pollster John Zogby said recently after conducting a poll in Dearborn, Michigan, home to one of the largest Arab-American communities in the United States.
�John Kerry has fulfilled the main criterion Arab-Americans are looking for: He�s not George Bush,� pollster John Zogby recently told journalists. �There�s no doubt in my mind Kerry will get the lion�s share of their vote, and Bush will get around 25 percent.�
Some Democrats believe Arab-Americans have nowhere else to turn. �Arab-Americans for whom the relations between Israelis and Palestinians is the most important issue are going to be frustrated this cycle because neither camp is going to give them any light,� Democratic strategist Steve Rabinowitz recently told the media. �The rhetoric on both sides is going to be extremely pro-Israel.�
�Bush �lied and made commitments and promises that never came true and Republican Arab-Americans are completely disillusioned with the Bush campaign,� Ali Dagher, an Arab-American lawyer from Dearborn, Michigan, told journalists during the Democratic Convention last month.
�At this point, you can�t be certain people will vote for Kerry, either. How do you get that vote? The Democratic ticket has to do something to give an incentive (for Arab- Americans) to go the polls.�
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Herzliya
Status:
Offline
|
|
lol.
But like Dagher points out, Kerry isn't really an alternative for Arab-Americans either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Bush Unites Jews and Arabs...to oppose him...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status:
Offline
|
|
Bush won Arab-Americans last election? That surprises me. I know they're not a huge population in the US, but everything I've ever seen shows that Bush won whites, and Gore won every other ethnic group. For example, here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by BRussell:
Bush won Arab-Americans last election? That surprises me. I know they're not a huge population in the US, but everything I've ever seen shows that Bush won whites, and Gore won every other ethnic group. For example, here.
That example doesn't list Arab-Americans as a distinct ethnic group. I have to say, though; some of the results on that page are very interesting indeed.
|
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status:
Offline
|
|
I was always under the impression that Middle Easterners are categorized as white, although I'm not sure where I got that impression. I'll have to ask my girlfriend which box she checks on things that ask for ethnicity. I don't remember there being a check box for Arabs being on the college application.
|
Nemo me impune lacesset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status:
Offline
|
|
Of course, the article asks Jewish Democrats if they intend to vote for Bush, and they answer no.
Stop the presses, what a big revelation!
Now, looking at Jews outside of the National Jewish Democratic Council, you may find that things aren't so decided. Certainly, there are a number of Jews who will vote Democrat because they always have. You will also find there are a number of Jews who will be voting Republican as John Kerry spends his time giving lip-service to Jewish communities and working to woo the Arab vote.
JewishWorldReview.com is but one resource to note that not all Jews are beholden to the Democrat party or that their vote can safely be counted as Mr. Kerry's. It even has articles from some Democrats who profess to have voted for Mr. Gore last election and intend to vote for Mr. Bush.
In fact, this is almost too easy- given the commonality of attacks on Jewish Neo-Cons, and the attacks on JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, you could just as likely conclude that Jews would vote for Mr. Bush.
But that's not necessarily so, either. The truth is that neither party has the vote locked up, and whether people vote for or against their interests, they should not be taken for granted- it removes their vote from being courted, their interests being considered.
(
Last edited by vmarks; Aug 25, 2004 at 01:52 PM.
)
|
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
As far as I know, the jews in the US were never that fond with the republican party, they mostly favoured the democrats, but and that is the decisive element here, there are a lot pro-Israel-christians in the US, some of them very fundamental christians, and those vote for the republicans.
Taliesin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by vmarks:
Of course, the article asks Jewish Democrats if they intend to vote for Bush, and they answer no.
Stop the presses, what a big revelation!
Now, looking at Jews outside of the National Jewish Democratic Council, you may find that things aren't so decided. Certainly, there are a number of Jews who will vote Democrat because they always have. You will also find there are a number of Jews who will be voting Republican as John Kerry spends his time giving lip-service to Jewish communities and working to woo the Arab vote.
JewishWorldReview.com is but one resource to note that not all Jews are beholden to the Democrat party or that their vote can safely be counted as Mr. Kerry's. It even has articles from some Democrats who profess to have voted for Mr. Gore last election and intend to vote for Mr. Bush.
In fact, this is almost too easy- given the commonality of attacks on Jewish Neo-Cons, and the attacks on JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, you could just as likely conclude that Jews would vote for Mr. Bush.
But that's not necessarily so, either. The truth is that neither party has the vote locked up, and whether people vote for or against their interests, they should not be taken for granted- it removes their vote from being courted, their interests being considered.
It's actually more of a modern myth these days that Jews vote Democrat.
There's an outspoken democratic group... but it's not a landslide anymore. Not by a long shot.
Why do you think Bush had this whole 'roadmap' thing on his agenda, then scrapped the idea? His political advisors aren't that stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status:
Offline
|
|
Bush did not, and has not, scrapped the road map idea. The Palestinians did that for him, by way of not attempting to achieve a single step of it, and the Israelis by acting unilaterally to fence themselves from terror and withdraw after realizing they had no honest partner for peace.
|
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by vmarks:
The Palestinians did that for him, by way of not attempting to achieve a single step of it, and the Israelis by acting unilaterally to fence themselves from terror and withdraw after realizing they had no honest partner for peace.
Projection. What did you expect, that the palestinians disarm themselves, prohibit all resistance-groups and emprison the members of these groups, while Israel keeps oppressing the palestinians, kills them, expropriates them from their land and water and builds their own settlements on them?
Resistance and retaliation are key-tools for getting free from the oppressors, doing what you would expect would be giving in and allowing the oppression to continue undisturbed.
Taliesin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by vmarks:
Bush did not, and has not, scrapped the road map idea. The Palestinians did that for him, by way of not attempting to achieve a single step of it, and the Israelis by acting unilaterally to fence themselves from terror and withdraw after realizing they had no honest partner for peace.
May want to read a newspaper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status:
Offline
|
|
The following quote is from here.
Among the poll's major findings:
-- Senator Kerry maintains a very strong lead over President Bush within the Jewish community. Senator Kerry leads President Bush by a margin of 75 percent to 22 percent. Senator Kerry's lead is as strong as the American Jewish vote was in 2000 for then-Vice President Gore over then-Governor Bush; respondents voted in 2000 for then-Vice President Al Gore over then-Governor Bush by a margin of 76 percent to 21 percent.
-- American Jewish support for Senator Kerry is extremely solid. Fully 78 percent of Kerry supporters indicated that there is "no chance" that they will vote for President Bush, while only 52 percent of Bush supporters are solid in their support.
-- Jewish voters overwhelmingly agree with Senator Kerry on the issues -- including on Israel and the war against terrorism. On the issue of abortion, for example, American Jews believe that Senator Kerry does a better job on the issue than President Bush by a margin of 85-15 percent. On the issue of the economy and jobs, respondents believe Senator Kerry will do a better job by a margin of 79-21 percent. Even on the issues of Israel and America's war on terrorism, American Jews overwhelmingly believe Senator Kerry will do a better job, both by a margin of 66-34 percent. Only 24 percent of respondents said they were closer to President Bush on Israel than Senator Kerry.
-- President Bush is deeply unpopular among American Jews. President Bush is seen as favorable by only 20 percent of respondents; a stunning 73 percent see him unfavorably. Conversely, Senator Kerry is seen as favorable by 59 percent of the respondents, while only 27 percent view him unfavorably.
-- An amazing 77 percent of respondents believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. The two greatest concerns of respondents are in the areas of the economy and jobs, and terrorism and national security -- both areas in which Senator Kerry is strongly preferred by American Jews, according to this survey (see above).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Those are some curious poll results. From my own microscopic view of the world, I'd probably have to agree with vmarks. I know plenty of American Jews who typically vote for Democrats but will vote for Bush in November. I wouldn't say American Jews are overwhelmingly for or against either candidate, but I do think they are tilting Republican at levels higher than I've previously observed. If it's any indication of how people will vote, it may be worth noting that most Jewish-American interest groups are tilting toward the conservative side these days (there are exceptions).
Of course, the easy response to this poll would be to point out that it was conducted by a liberal interest group. This is by no means the kind of objective organization one would typically look to for accurate polling.
(
Last edited by itai195; Aug 25, 2004 at 05:33 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
I always wondered why the HUGE majority of minorities vote for a Democrat. Something like 40 or 50% Democrat, and only 10% Republican, with the rest independent.
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nashville
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by vmarks:
Of course, the article asks Jewish Democrats if they intend to vote for Bush, and they answer no.
Stop the presses, what a big revelation!
Now, looking at Jews outside of the National Jewish Democratic Council, you may find that things aren't so decided. Certainly, there are a number of Jews who will vote Democrat because they always have. You will also find there are a number of Jews who will be voting Republican as John Kerry spends his time giving lip-service to Jewish communities and working to woo the Arab vote.
JewishWorldReview.com is but one resource to note that not all Jews are beholden to the Democrat party or that their vote can safely be counted as Mr. Kerry's. It even has articles from some Democrats who profess to have voted for Mr. Gore last election and intend to vote for Mr. Bush.
In fact, this is almost too easy- given the commonality of attacks on Jewish Neo-Cons, and the attacks on JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, you could just as likely conclude that Jews would vote for Mr. Bush.
But that's not necessarily so, either. The truth is that neither party has the vote locked up, and whether people vote for or against their interests, they should not be taken for granted- it removes their vote from being courted, their interests being considered.
John Kerry does very little to attract the Arab vote. His positions are most similar to those of Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status:
Offline
|
|
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/27021.htm
Dislike for Bush has created the most curious Arab coalition in a long time.
The pan-Arab nationalists are angry at Bush because, toppling Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime in Baghdad, he destroyed the illusion of a “strongman” leading Arabs to unity and socialism. “It may take a generation before anyone talks of Arab unity without being laughed out of the room,” says columnist Ahmad Rabii. “Those who dreamed of an Arab superpower will never forgive Bush.” The pan-Islamists also dislike Bush, but for different reasons.
They see his talk of democracy as an attempt at preventing them from establishing their “ideal Islamic” system based on the Shariah rather than elections.
Bush’s “Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative” is seen by Islamists as “a plot to impose a Western model.”
“The Muslim world is not a blank sheet on which Mr. Bush could draw what he likes,” says writer Walid Abi-Merchid, who would vote for Kerry if he could. Opposition to Bush’s plans for democratization in the Middle East is put even more dramatically by Muhammad Shariatmadari, a mullah of Arab origin now acting as an advisor to Iran’s “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenehi.
“Bush is trying to develop an American Islam,” Shariatmadari says. “He thinks that Americans will not be safe in their homes until the Muslim world is dominated by pro-U.S. governments.”
That view is echoed in sermons preached at mosques throughout the Middle East, Europe and the United States in recent weeks with an eye on the forthcoming American election.
One theme of these sermons is that Bush’s call for free elections and reform in the Muslim world amounts to “an act of cultural aggression.”
“Our Prophet did not run for office in any election,” the sermon says. “He did not win any political debate. [Instead] he won the war against the infidel.”
|
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by olePigeon:
I always wondered why the HUGE majority of minorities vote for a Democrat. Something like 40 or 50% Democrat, and only 10% Republican, with the rest independent.
One word. Welfare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
The reason minorities (whatever that means nowadays) typically vote Democratic is purely because of false promises made by their leaders. Things never change because you cannot give someone something without them earning it first. Otherwise it is wasted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
The reason minorities (whatever that means nowadays) typically vote Democratic is purely because of false promises made by their leaders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status:
Offline
|
|
When you believe you're a victim - you seek assistance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by LoganCharles:
The reason minorities (whatever that means nowadays) typically vote Democratic is purely because of false promises made by their leaders. Things never change because you cannot give someone something without them earning it first. Otherwise it is wasted.
Well, Smallpox, and Polio were defeated that way.
Remember these vaccinations only succeeded because they were in part handouts. Causing virtually all americans to stop spreading them.
The idea was also harshly attacked by Republicans when first proposed (and a few fought it all the way until they decided it wasn't necessary for young children anymore).
We all won that battle. Were no longer living in fear that you can catch Smallpox or Polio (minus terrorism). The health costs today for such diseases would be astronomical (take a look at what the US has done just to prep for if these diseases came back... modern medicine, and isolation/protection for those who don't have it isn't cheap.... it would be a multi-billion dollar problem for the US today if it wasn't stopped).
Thankfully, the odds of smallpox are rather slim. Nobody is fearing that their child could catch smallpox in school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Zimphire:
One word. Welfare.
so your contention is that the jewish and arab american populations are on welfare?
or just blacks and hispanics? Do you believe white people don't get welfare?
Please elaborate what you mean by that remark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by LoganCharles:
The reason minorities (whatever that means nowadays) typically vote Democratic is purely because of false promises made by their leaders. Things never change because you cannot give someone something without them earning it first. Otherwise it is wasted.
so you are saying that minorities vote democratic because they get handouts and don't want to earn it? I just want to make sure I've got this clear.
Perhaps you could explain that more clearly. I"d hate to misunderstand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
When you believe you're a victim - you seek assistance.
so...you think minorities or democrats seek assistance because they want to believe they are victims? What do you think about whites or those who vote republican on welfare? Are they believing in their victimhood as well, or do you segregate your feelings on minorities and whites in regards to voting democratic?
and why do you equate voting democratic with seeking assistance?
Just want to make sure I completely understand your argument here.
I live in Ohio, where there is a large appalachian community base of whites on welfare who also vote republican.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
so...you think minorities or democrats seek assistance because they want to believe they are victims?
Yes, absolutely. They're forever insisting that they're victims.
What do you think about whites on welfare? Are they believing in their victimhood as well, or do you segregate your feelings on minorities and whites in regards to voting democratic?
Why would their skin color matter? I have the same low opinion of anybody that begs for the guiding hand of government - white, black, or purple.
and why do you equate voting democratic with seeking assistance?
Because Democrats primarily tend to believe they need assistance.
Just want to make sure I completely understand your argument here.
Why? You planning to take notes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by olePigeon:
I always wondered why the HUGE majority of minorities vote for a Democrat. Something like 40 or 50% Democrat, and only 10% Republican, with the rest independent.
It's rather ironic too, especially in the south amungst blacks, when not even 50 years ago the majority of southern democratic politicians were fighting AGAINST civil rights.
Not only that, but we currently have two of the highest ranking black gov't officals in American history with Powell and Rice, under a Republican administration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by greenamp:
Not only that, but we currently have two of the highest ranking black gov't officals in American history with Powell and Rice, under a Republican administration.
Not to your typical liberal bigot. Powell and Rice are nothing but "house niggers" in their book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
so your contention is that the jewish and arab american populations are on welfare?
or just blacks and hispanics? Do you believe white people don't get welfare?
Please elaborate what you mean by that remark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
so you are saying that minorities vote democratic because they get handouts and don't want to earn it? I just want to make sure I've got this clear.
Perhaps you could explain that more clearly. I"d hate to misunderstand.
Quit the BS.
(in little baby, whinny voice) "I'd hate to misunderstand"
By breeding a welfare state, then yes we have created an apathetic minority base that tends to vote heavily democratic...that is when they vote.
Crystal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Not to your typical liberal bigot. Powell and Rice are nothing but "house niggers" in their book.
Interesting. You, Zimphire and Spliffdaddy reduce the entire history of minority voting patterns to "welfare," and it's not bigotry?
No need to explain - I know exactly where you're coming from . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status:
Offline
|
|
No it's not bigotry. Not the ENTIRE minority mind you.
Most minorities I know that have welfare vote democratic because they get more benefits.
That isn't being a racist, or a bigot, or any other 2� knee jerk word.
So please. Save the drama for your momma.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Zimphire:
No it's not bigotry. Not the ENTIRE minority mind you.
Most minorities I know that have welfare vote democratic because they get more benefits.
That isn't being a racist, or a bigot, or any other 2� knee jerk word.
So please. Save the drama for your momma.
Thanks for clearing that up. I could've sworn that in response to a question as to why a huge majority of minorities voted Democrat, you said "One word. Welfare."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by zigzag:
Thanks for clearing that up. I could've sworn that in response to a question as to why a huge majority of minorities voted Democrat, you said "One word. Welfare."
That is why a huge majority do vote Democratic.
Go look at the welfare lines. It's mostly minorities there.
I live in Welfareville USA. The state votes Democratic BECAUSE of handouts.
I have no problem with people in need getting help. But half these people just don't WANT to work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Zimphire:
That is why a huge majority do vote Democratic.
Go look at the welfare lines. It's mostly minorities there.
I live in Welfareville USA. The state votes Democratic BECAUSE of handouts.
I have no problem with people in need getting help. But half these people just don't WANT to work.
I guess that's closer to an explanation, but it's still only a very partial one. What about those who aren't on welfare? Got an explanation for them? Can't reduce it to one word, right?
It's a more complex thing. That's all I wanted to establish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by zigzag:
I guess that's closer to an explanation, but it's still only a very partial one. What about those who aren't on welfare? Got an explanation for them? Can't reduce it to one word, right?
It's a more complex thing. That's all I wanted to establish.
Yes and then there are the ones that are tricked into believing the Left our out for the best interests and the right are full of racist hood wearers.
I am sure there are people that are Democrats "just because"
I was one once because I was a lot more idealistic than I am now.
I know a lot of minorities that are conservative now. It's not as abnormal as it used to be.
These people are offended by ANY kind of discrimination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Pax Americana
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by macvillage.net:
It's actually more of a modern myth these days that Jews vote Democrat.
There's an outspoken democratic group... but it's not a landslide anymore. Not by a long shot.
You are statistically incorrect. All one has to do to disprove your statement is to do a quick search of political donations in areas that are predominantly Jewish. The donations are a matter of public record and denote the candidate or party the donations were made to. The two zip codes below denote areas that are approximately 50-85% Jewish.
If you look at the surnames of the donors you will notice that about three-fourths of people who can be assumed to be Jewish have traditionally donated to Democrats or the DNC.
You can search back to before George W. Bush took office and notice that those with Jewish surnames have always voted traditionally Democrat and not just in this recent election cycle.
Zip Codes: 48322 60035
http://fundrace.org/
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/qind/
You can go further and take a traditionally Jewish surname like, Gould, and input it into the search field. You'll note that only 81 out of 309 individuals with that name donated to the Republican party. With results like these the finding of the National Jewish Democratic Council are anything but shocking. If the rates of Republican Jews were higher you'd see a larger number of donors reflecting that. Even if you surmise that the Democratic Jews are more a more outspoken group you would still see more equal numbers on lower levels of contributions.
With Arab-Americans you will see a shift away from the level or support George W. Bush found in 2000. But polling numbers from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee who are headquartered in the largest Arab-American community in Michigan, which happens to also be a swing state, show that there is no land slide of support for John Kerry either. It is a split vote like much like the country but it does now lean slightly in favor of John Kerry.
It is sad and pathetic the original poster lowered himself to post a clearly misleading article that used statistics that taken out of context choose to support the views of a bias news source. If one were to take the same information and compare it to previous numbers the facts show very little has changed within the same demographics since 2000 or 1996
|
damnant quod non intellegunt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status:
Offline
|
|
Now that my folks was a...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Hessian:
It is sad and pathetic the original poster lowered himself to post a clearly misleading article that used statistics that taken out of context choose to support the views of a bias news source. If one were to take the same information and compare it to previous numbers the facts show very little has changed within the same demographics since 2000 or 1996
It is impressive has to how suddenly the simple quoting of an article turns personal.
Criticize the article and stop lecturing people who bring topics of discussion. You may disagree, but to make it personal is a mistake.
On the other hand, the use of so-called "Jewish" surname does not seem like a reliable way to make a statistic search; it is actually a very poor and limited way of sampling a population and veers dangerously on prejudice. I know many individuals with "Arabic Surnames" who do not consider themselves "Ethnic Arabs".
Now, with a nick like yours, should we consider you "Ethnic Arab" or "Ethnic Jew"?
|
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by angaq0k:
It is impressive has to how suddenly the simple quoting of an article turns personal.
Criticize the article and stop lecturing people who bring topics of discussion. You may disagree, but to make it personal is a mistake.
On the other hand, the use of so-called "Jewish" surname does not seem like a reliable way to make a statistic search; it is actually a very poor and limited way of sampling a population and veers dangerously on prejudice. I know many individuals with "Arabic Surnames" who do not consider themselves "Ethnic Arabs".
Now, with a nick like yours, should we consider you "Ethnic Arab" or "Ethnic Jew"?
Good advice. However I would add that continuous posting of potentially misleading information is viewed by some as a passive agressive persoanl attack in itself.
I have often wondered why certain people (both sides) feel the urgency to constantly be "in your face" so to speak about the issues they feel strongly about. So far I can come up with only two possibly reasons: 1)they truly believe they have a message to get out to people whom they feel would not know otherwise. Sometimes this motivation can have it's roots in borderline insanity. 2)they do it out of spite for the people they know have differing opinions.
I just don't understand why it is so important for some that people see things the same way they do. I guess that's just my personality though. I don't give advice unless someone wants it, and I don't care if people see things the way I do nor are personal differences a big deal to me.
I have known people who honestly would not socialize with someone they didn't know solely based on the fact that they were republican, democrat, christian, athiest, pro life, pro choice, etc.
I just don't understand how a persons worth can be determined based on certain issues they agree or disagree with you on.
Yikes, I've gotten a bit of topic here, lol, I s'pose I should go to bed now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Hessian:
You are statistically incorrect. All one has to do to disprove your statement is to do a quick search of political donations in areas that are predominantly Jewish. The donations are a matter of public record and denote the candidate or party the donations were made to. The two zip codes below denote areas that are approximately 50-85% Jewish.
If you look at the surnames of the donors you will notice that about three-fourths of people who can be assumed to be Jewish have traditionally donated to Democrats or the DNC.
You can search back to before George W. Bush took office and notice that those with Jewish surnames have always voted traditionally Democrat and not just in this recent election cycle.
Zip Codes: 48322 60035
http://fundrace.org/
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/qind/
You can go further and take a traditionally Jewish surname like, Gould, and input it into the search field. You'll note that only 81 out of 309 individuals with that name donated to the Republican party. With results like these the finding of the National Jewish Democratic Council are anything but shocking. If the rates of Republican Jews were higher you'd see a larger number of donors reflecting that. Even if you surmise that the Democratic Jews are more a more outspoken group you would still see more equal numbers on lower levels of contributions.
With Arab-Americans you will see a shift away from the level or support George W. Bush found in 2000. But polling numbers from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee who are headquartered in the largest Arab-American community in Michigan, which happens to also be a swing state, show that there is no land slide of support for John Kerry either. It is a split vote like much like the country but it does now lean slightly in favor of John Kerry.
It is sad and pathetic the original poster lowered himself to post a clearly misleading article that used statistics that taken out of context choose to support the views of a bias news source. If one were to take the same information and compare it to previous numbers the facts show very little has changed within the same demographics since 2000 or 1996
Your research assumes every person makes the same income.
May want to take a look at estimated home value:
http://www.city-data.com/zips/48322.html
http://www.city-data.com/zips/60035.html
Your looking at the richest jewish communities, and assume their sentiments are for an entire group of people.
Old money votes republican. Princeton NJ is a very republican town for the same reason (most people are several generations in their wealth, handed down with the home).
If I do that, I can ge the statistics for anyone. I can pinpoint black, arab republicans... and say they 90%+ vote republican.
Slanting isn't good.
The name thing doesn't work either. Most Jewish immigration happened over 1 generation ago (and during ellis island). Jewish names were among the top names hacked up by ellis island officials (leading many to have their legal name to be different from their ethnic ancestrial name). There's also assimilation (those who chance name because they are silly enough to be so vain), and those who marry and change their name (but not faith). And those who are children of a jewish and non jewish parent.
There's also much more spreading of the jewish community. It used to be mainly NYC (in particular parts of Brooklyn). Many have since moved out to other places, like upstate NY, or NJ... spreading a much larger area. Not as condenced into 1 or 2 area codes like they were 40-50 years ago. Do I really need to remind you they are regular people living in the general public?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by greenamp:
Good advice. However I would add that continuous posting of potentially misleading information is viewed by some as a passive agressive persoanl attack in itself.
I have often wondered why certain people (both sides) feel the urgency to constantly be "in your face" so to speak about the issues they feel strongly about. So far I can come up with only two possibly reasons: 1)they truly believe they have a message to get out to people whom they feel would not know otherwise. Sometimes this motivation can have it's roots in borderline insanity. 2)they do it out of spite for the people they know have differing opinions.
I just don't understand why it is so important for some that people see things the same way they do. I guess that's just my personality though. I don't give advice unless someone wants it, and I don't care if people see things the way I do nor are personal differences a big deal to me.
I have known people who honestly would not socialize with someone they didn't know solely based on the fact that they were republican, democrat, christian, athiest, pro life, pro choice, etc.
I just don't understand how a persons worth can be determined based on certain issues they agree or disagree with you on.
Yikes, I've gotten a bit of topic here, lol, I s'pose I should go to bed now.
It's not that complicated. Here, let me boil it down for you, "Neener neener neener! I'm right and you're wrong!"
Other ways to express this are, "I told you so," and the ever popular, "I win, I win, I win!"
BG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Pax Americana
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Your research assumes every person makes the same income.
May want to take a look at estimated home value:
http://www.city-data.com/zips/48322.html
http://www.city-data.com/zips/60035.html
Your looking at the richest jewish communities, and assume their sentiments are for an entire group of people.
Old money votes republican. Princeton NJ is a very republican town for the same reason (most people are several generations in their wealth, handed down with the home).
If I do that, I can ge the statistics for anyone. I can pinpoint black, arab republicans... and say they 90%+ vote republican.
Slanting isn't good.
The name thing doesn't work either. Most Jewish immigration happened over 1 generation ago (and during ellis island). Jewish names were among the top names hacked up by ellis island officials (leading many to have their legal name to be different from their ethnic ancestrial name). There's also assimilation (those who chance name because they are silly enough to be so vain), and those who marry and change their name (but not faith). And those who are children of a jewish and non jewish parent.
There's also much more spreading of the jewish community. It used to be mainly NYC (in particular parts of Brooklyn). Many have since moved out to other places, like upstate NY, or NJ... spreading a much larger area. Not as condenced into 1 or 2 area codes like they were 40-50 years ago. Do I really need to remind you they are regular people living in the general public?
No, I have not presented you with research unlike the above polls. I have given you two areas of high concentration of Jewish populations. That is not a debatable fact. You can perform any type of litmus test to determine that and you will always come back to the same conclusion. The area is not a very ethnically diverse and is predominantly Jewish.
The Jewish community has not splintered off to the point of high dilution as you suggest. Relative to other immigrant populations of the same era the Jewish community has only migrated from different areas they once inhabited but have remained for the most part intact. Given the relatively small size of their community in the United States it would not be difficult to say that these areas now represent a notable portion of that population. Because of the social characteristics and relatively recent migration to this country you can not apply the same method of sampling to all other demographics. Where once this population may have been condensed to 2 to 3 area codes it is now chosen to settle into 20-40 zip codes. Random sampling does not work in this case as the settlement of this group is not random. As a result these communities are quite representative of the sentiments of the group.
You are trying to find flaw in my assertions based on lack of use of the scientific method when in fact that method of study can not apply as stringently when you take in to account the sociological study of this demographic. By virtue of being a highly concentrated and cohesive social unit the only logical and potential way to sample this specific group is to look to communities such as these. If you can find another community in the United States that has such high percentages of Jews residing there and are of a lower income level please point it out to the group so we can apply the same polling of political donations.
The correlation between the average income of these individuals and their political affiliation spits in the face of all the other findings that apply to the general public. As a general rule non-Jews of the same net worth would tend to vote for Republicans. The fact that this is not the case with Jewish Americans only highlights their continued loyalty to the Democratic party throughout the economic spectrum. Your assumption is that financial status has had a large impact on political affiliations with this group as it has had with other groups. Your argument relies on this group remaining inline with the behavior of other groups who experienced similar economic diversity. As a result your argument fails because Jews in America up until now have not follow the same political trends based on income.
Ironically the numbers I come up with are in line with the findings of all the other studies cited in this thread. Everyone who has tried to find the figures on this ends up with numbers that say that Jews tend to vote for Democrats in a ratio very close to 3:1
I offered up to you two areas where known large Jewish communities exist. I gave you a politically unbiased method to check freely chosen affiliations these people have made over time. The numbers returned on the ratio of democrats to republicans is there in black and white. If you care to ignore the numbers that is your decision but the historical trends that pertain to these figures are there for those who want to come to their conclusions. If you don't want to use that criteria find us another study that has used other data and show me where the discrepancy in the numbers is wrong.
|
damnant quod non intellegunt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Hessian:
No, I have not presented you with research unlike the above polls. I have given you two areas of high concentration of Jewish populations. That is not a debatable fact. You can perform any type of litmus test to determine that and you will always come back to the same conclusion. The area is not a very ethnically diverse and is predominantly Jewish.
The Jewish community has not splintered off to the point of high dilution as you suggest. Relative to other immigrant populations of the same era the Jewish community has only migrated from different areas they once inhabited but have remained for the most part intact. Given the relatively small size of their community in the United States it would not be difficult to say that these areas now represent a notable portion of that population. Because of the social characteristics and relatively recent migration to this country you can not apply the same method of sampling to all other demographics. Where once this population may have been condensed to 2 to 3 area codes it is now chosen to settle into 20-40 zip codes. Random sampling does not work in this case as the settlement of this group is not random. As a result these communities are quite representative of the sentiments of the group.
You are trying to find flaw in my assertions based on lack of use of the scientific method when in fact that method of study can not apply as stringently when you take in to account the sociological study of this demographic. By virtue of being a highly concentrated and cohesive social unit the only logical and potential way to sample this specific group is to look to communities such as these. If you can find another community in the United States that has such high percentages of Jews residing there and are of a lower income level please point it out to the group so we can apply the same polling of political donations.
The correlation between the average income of these individuals and their political affiliation spits in the face of all the other findings that apply to the general public. As a general rule non-Jews of the same net worth would tend to vote for Republicans. The fact that this is not the case with Jewish Americans only highlights their continued loyalty to the Democratic party throughout the economic spectrum. Your assumption is that financial status has had a large impact on political affiliations with this group as it has had with other groups. Your argument relies on this group remaining inline with the behavior of other groups who experienced similar economic diversity. As a result your argument fails because Jews in America up until now have not follow the same political trends based on income.
Ironically the numbers I come up with are in line with the findings of all the other studies cited in this thread. Everyone who has tried to find the figures on this ends up with numbers that say that Jews tend to vote for Democrats in a ratio very close to 3:1
I offered up to you two areas where known large Jewish communities exist. I gave you a politically unbiased method to check freely chosen affiliations these people have made over time. The numbers returned on the ratio of democrats to republicans is there in black and white. If you care to ignore the numbers that is your decision but the historical trends that pertain to these figures are there for those who want to come to their conclusions. If you don't want to use that criteria find us another study that has used other data and show me where the discrepancy in the numbers is wrong.
Your 'study' is pretty bogus since it's very wrong.
You pick a very rich community to show how high the donations are for democrats. Big deal, that says little. THat's a handful of people in the entire american-jewish population. It's not representitive of the jewish population. It's representitive of the 0.8% that live there.
Statistically most Jews immigrated to NYC. The population there is not nearly as condence as it was even 10 years ago. Formally jewish communities have now become mainly korean. As with every population to live in those areas... they fan out, and a new population moves in. With the Jews, were many Italians... before that? Irish.
Your taking a handful, and saying they represent the population... far from the truth.
I can find 2 white people that hate black people... is that representitive of the entire white american population? Of course not. I can even find a town where the KKK has high penetration... is that representitive? Or do I have to look at the US as a whole?
Get a clue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Hessian:
You are statistically incorrect.
blah blah blah
Why don't you just look at the polls that I posted above instead of going into this utterly meaningless sampling of "jewish names" and donations? Jews vote about 75%+ Democratic, and Bush doesn't appear to have changed that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status:
Offline
|
|
I would argue that. I personally know a few that aren't voting Kerry this way around. They have relatives in Israel, and are concerned over what might happen there if Kerry is elected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Well I suppose I can't speak for traditional Jewish communities in, for example, NYC. But within the community around me, which is somewhat sizable, I have noticed a growing strain of conservatism. And I have noticed groups like the AJC, AIPAC, ADL, etc continually moving rightward in their policy goals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|