pageok
pageok
pageok
Elderly Jews More Likely to Vote for Obama than are Younger Jews:

For months, there has been a constant stream of claims that unlike their hip, Progressive grandchildren, many elderly Jews would refuse to vote for Barack Obama because he's black. Jon Stewart even did a segment on it, which was both funny and nasty. Not to mention Sarah Silverman's "Great Schlep," in which young progressive Jews were supposed to persuade their clueless grandparents that it's okay to vote for the black guy with the funny name. Why this was supposed to be a particular problem for older Jewish voters, despite their history of racial liberalism, but not for other older voters, who, say, supported Jim Crow, was rarely if ever explained.

It turns out that the most recent Gallup poll of Jewish opinion, released yesterday, shows that Jews 55 and older are supporting Obama 74 to 19 percent, and Jews ages 18 to 34 are supporting him by a significantly lower margin, 67 to 29 percent. This is especially surprising because of the large concentration of older Jews in South Florida, which McCain is vigorously contesting, while other areas with high concentrations of Jews--the New York area, Chicago, L.A., the Bay Area, Maryland--have been ceded to Obama, and he will win the overall vote in those areas by huge margins.

So it turns out, at least based on this poll, that things are exactly as past elections would have predicted. Older Jews are more liberal than are younger Jews, so they vote in greater numbers for the more liberal candidate.

The poll also shows Obama doing as well as Kerry among Jewish voters. That's a bit of a distortion, because if Obama gets about the same percentage of Jewish voters as did Kerry, but beats Kerry handily in the overall popular vote, he will actually do relatively worse among Jewish voters.

Nevertheless, Obama is doing somewhat better than I expected, according to this poll. I wrote a few months ago, that Obama was virtually guaranteed at least 50% of the Jewish vote, and McCain 15%. As for the rest,

the relevant implicit question is, "in whose social circle would I feel more comfortable?" In recent elections, it's been rather clear where most Jews thought they would "fit" better. With regard to McCain versus Obama, I think the question is very much up in the air.

I'd speculate (and it's only speculation), that with the Rev. Wright, who gave many Jews the willies, having faded almost entirely from the campaign, and with McCain having chosen Sarah Palin, who is extremely unpopular among Jewish voters, Obama is doing far better in this regard than could have been predicted in the Spring.

EPluribusMoney (mail):
If the "test" Biden was referring to was a major attack wiping Israel off the map and Obama does nothing, I think a lot of Jews will regret their vote.

But when he also lets Taiwan fall to a Chinese attack and Eastern Europe get taken over by Russia, the Dems will be out of power for a generation. So maybe one painful Obama term wouldn't be totally bad.
10.24.2008 10:13am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
McCain having chosen Sarah Palin, who is extremely unpopular among Jewish voters


I think that's true, even though various issues are getting relatively little notice. Although maybe they are starting to circulate privately.

There's her proclamation of "Christian Heritage Week," which "plucks Founding Father quotes out of context to give misleading impressions about their views on the role of religion in society."

There's her practice of using state funds to attend religious events:

An Associated Press review of the Republican vice presidential candidate's record as mayor and governor reveals her use of elected office to promote religious causes, sometimes at taxpayer expense and in ways that blur the line between church and state. Since she took state office in late 2006, the governor and her family have spent more than $13,000 in taxpayer funds to attend at least 10 religious events and meetings with Christian pastors, including Franklin Graham, the son of evangelical preacher Billy Graham, records show.


There's the report that Palin apparently became mayor by (in part) suggesting that her opponent (Stein) wasn't Christian. See also here and here.

There's her accepting a blessing from the witch-hunter shortly after he spoke of "the wealth of the wicked," and about "the Israelites, that's how they work. And that's how they are, even today."

There's her sitting through "a sermon by the founder of Jews for Jesus, who argued that the Palestinian terrorist acts against Israel were God's 'judgment' on the Jews because they hadn't accepted Jesus."

There's her saying "teach both" in response to a question about creationism (although she backpedaled the next day).

On the other hand, there's that photo of her office showing a little Israeli flag in there. She also said this:

The only flag at my office is an Israeli flag


How odd. Really?

There's also the report about how she once made a friendly visit to a synagogue. But that's probably not enough to compensate for all the baggage.
10.24.2008 10:17am
anonimator:
Ahh - the level-headed commentary here at Volokh. Not sure how Orin can stand it. Shorter EPluribusMoney: Democrats are bad because they won't blow enough stuff up. Seriously, it's like you've been in hibernation during the last eight years. You mean to tell me that you look at these two candidates and their responses to various international crises (from Iraq to Pakistan to Georgia) and you think Obama is the dangerous one? For some folks, there is literally no problem they think can't be solved by shooting people first and thinking about it later.
10.24.2008 10:22am
hawkins:

Why this was supposed to be a particular problem for older Jewish voters, despite their history of racial liberalism, but not for other older voters, who, say, supported Jim Crow, was rarely if ever explained.


I missed this implication. I would expect few Jim Crow supporters would be voting for Obama. It was Obama's middle name, rather than his race, which I heard as the reason that older Jews wouldnt support him.

The key was also the high voting rates among elderly Jews.
10.24.2008 10:27am
Sarcastro (www):
EPluribusMoney has a great point there! There are all sorts of things Obama could do that would make Jews regret their vote. There are so many things Obama could hypothetically do. Can Jews take that risk?

If Obama made Ahmadinejad secretary of Jewish Affairs, I think a lot of Jews will regret their vote.

Or if Obama were a vampire, feeding on the flesh of the innocent, Jews might regret their vote.

But if Obama entered into a pact with Satan to bring about the end of days, the Dems will be out of power for all time. So maybe one painful Obama term wouldn't be totally bad.
10.24.2008 10:28am
Hoosier:
The poll results are not an accurate reflection of the thinking of elderly Jews on political issues. They are simply confused: When Obamaphiles ask them "Do you want change?" they hear "Do you want to be changed?"

So naturally they say "Yes."
10.24.2008 10:33am
Hoosier:
Sarcastro:

Or if Obama were a vampire, feeding on the flesh of the innocent, Jews might regret their vote.

Get it right, Sarc. It's zombies that "feast" on human flesh. Vampires do suck blood. But they eat mostly Chinese carry-out.
10.24.2008 10:35am
corneille1640 (mail):

The poll also shows Obama doing as well as Kerry among Jewish voters. That's a bit of a distortion, because if Obama gets about the same percentage of Jewish voters as did Kerry, but beats Kerry handily in the overall popular vote, he will actually do relatively worse among Jewish voters.

I don't quite understand your point. If Mr. Obama gets around the same percentage of Jewish voters as Mr. Kerry did, why would that mean he did relatively worse?
10.24.2008 10:41am
Sarcastro (www):
Hoosier

Damn! The whole flesh/blood difference is why I failed out of medical school!
10.24.2008 10:42am
Hoosier:
Sarcastro

Hoosier

Damn! The whole flesh/blood difference is why I failed out of medical school!


Ditto for me and seminary.
10.24.2008 11:01am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
anon:

For some folks, there is literally no problem they think can't be solved by shooting people first and thinking about it later.


Speaking of using explosives to solve problems: I think McCain has only one hope, which is that Bush invades Iran. My confidence that this won't happen is based mostly on my belief that Bush is currently mad at McCain because of the way McCain is trashing him.
10.24.2008 11:03am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
hoosier:

they hear "Do you want to be changed?" So naturally they say "Yes."


If we're going to make jokes about old people, it makes sense to include this one from McCain:

In June 1986, McCain [was heard] jokingly referring to Leisure World, a retirement community, as ''Seizure World.''


Probably not his most offensive joke, but that's not saying much.
10.24.2008 11:04am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
corn:

If Mr. Obama gets around the same percentage of Jewish voters as Mr. Kerry did, why would that mean he did relatively worse?


I think what he's saying is that among voters in general, Obama is doing better than Kerry. So he should also do better among Jewish voters.
10.24.2008 11:04am
SP:
It is funny - Palin is some theoretical bad person, because she's a fundamentalist Christian, but Obama goes to a church that at times has explicitly embraced anti-Semitism, and that's somehow okay. Ah, the contraditions of the modern Jewish voter.
10.24.2008 11:05am
Hoosier:
If we're going to make jokes about old people

Jokes?
10.24.2008 11:09am
Oren:

I think McCain has only one hope, which is that Bush invades Iran. My confidence that this won't happen is based mostly on my belief that Bush is currently mad at McCain because of the way McCain is trashing him.

Seriously, that's the only reason Bush won't do it? You can't think of any other reasons not to invade Iran right now?

Reminds me of a (perhaps apocryphal) story about LBJ talking to a reporter. He asked the reporter what he thought would happen if he picked up the red phone and told the JCS to nuke Russia -- the reporter just sat there speechless so LBJ answered for him: the JCS would say "fuck you mr president" and hangup.
10.24.2008 11:12am
Andrew Perlman (mail):
I think you overstate your case. 67% is not "significantly lower" than 75%, especially after you factor in the margin of error.

Moreover, I suspect the numbers would be quite different if you looked only at Jews over the age of 65. People between 55 and 65 came of age during the 1960s and are likely to have a different point of view than Jews over the age of 65.
10.24.2008 11:12am
Al Maviva:
Hey, Jukebox, I hear Sarah Palin's favorite drink is actually a cola made out of the blood of young Jewish boys.

I mean as long as we're going to be making accusations of anti-semitism, why bother with the insinuations? Why not just go straight to blood libel? I'm sure if she's as anti-semitic as you seem to think, she wouldn't have any objection to the claim. Besides, like comparable claims Hezbollah makes about Jews, you can't prove it's not true...

Ps. Nobody tell Sarah Silverman about younger Jews not being sufficiently in the tank for Obama, while older Jews are actually much stronger supporters. Her humor works better when she's embarassingly wrong. This poll adds a whole new meta joke to her recent video.
10.24.2008 11:14am
Oren:
SP, I don't know of anyone that really thinks Palin is a bad person. Many people think she would make a bad president. Those are very different things -- quite a lot of my friends, for instance, are good people that I wouldn't put in charge of a 7-11.
10.24.2008 11:15am
Hoosier:
All kidding aside, I've been making the rounds of the retirement communities and "elderly" neighborhoods in Greater Indianapolis, and bringing them hats, buttons, and posters reminding them to "Vote for Obama on November 5th."

I hope I'm having an impact.
10.24.2008 11:21am
Sarcastro (www):
Hoosier has inspired me to send as many Federal absentee voting forms to Virginia troops stationed overseas as I can.

This is such a well thought out plan!
10.24.2008 11:33am
SP:
Oren, I have seen a lot of commentary suggesting Palin *is* a bad person - and her lack of experience has played up far more than John Edwards' similar lack of experience in 2004.
10.24.2008 11:52am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
sp:

Obama goes to a church that at times has explicitly embraced anti-Semitism


Naturally. That's why we see this:

the Anti-Defamation League says it has no evidence of any anti-Semitism by Mr. Wright.


I've cited undisputed evidence of two separate occasions where Palin was present while someone at a pulpit delivered anti-Semitic remarks. Let us know when you can do the same regarding Obama.

And speaking of the ADL:

we are deeply disappointed that you [McCain] did not expressly retract your statement that "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."
10.24.2008 11:53am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
oren:

You can't think of any other reasons not to invade Iran right now?


Naturally I can think of lots of reasons. It's just that the reasons that mean a lot to me probably don't mean much to Bush.

the JCS would say "fuck you mr president" and hangup


I think it's actually true that there are a bunch of sane generals who would respond to Bush in a similar manner, especially at this precise moment. But I think that's not the main reason it's not happening.
10.24.2008 11:53am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
maviva:

Why not just go straight to blood libel?


I realize you have a hard time avoiding straw-man arguments.

Nobody tell Sarah Silverman … Her humor works better when she's embarassingly wrong.


As DB correctly pointed out, Obama is doing "relatively worse among Jewish voters," compared with Kerry, once you account for the fact that Obama is doing better than Kerry with most voters. So Silverman isn't wrong. You are.

You also might want to consider the possibility that Silverman's efforts (and the efforts of people sharing her perspective) might be part of the reason that Obama's position with older Jews has improved. Her video has been seen almost a million times on Youtube.
10.24.2008 11:53am
geokstr:
Funny isn't it that all the Muslim countries and Islamic organizations are backing Obama bigtime? Are they finally ready to make peace in our time because of the spriritual emanations from the penumbra of The One, perhaps?

NOT.

Jews are supporting Obama because he's not a republican, pretty much as they always do. It is very difficult to shift the party allegiance of a group in a single election. It almost seems that Jews are unaware of the blatant and vicious anti-semitism of Wright, Phleger, and Farrakhan.

If McCain had played up those associations instead of one who can just be passed off (illegitimately) as a harmless, aging hippie, we might actually see a seismic shift in the Jewish vote this election. But luckily for Obama, McCain has honor (look it up, those of you who live on the coasts.)It's misplaced in this case, but at least he has it.
10.24.2008 11:55am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
sp:

I have seen a lot of commentary suggesting Palin *is* a bad person


Good point. I've seen some of that too. Like this person, who didn't exactly say Palin was "bad," but described her as a poor "role model:"

what kind of role model is a woman whose fifth child was recently born with a serious issue, Down Syndrome, and then goes back to the job of Governor within days of the birth?
10.24.2008 11:59am
Sarcastro (www):
geokstr's point about Muslims backing Obama is a good point. I have it on good authority that they were totally about to back McCain but then their hated for Jews made them vote for Obama.

If McCain had only used guilt by association even more than he has, I'm sure he would totally make him win the election! Voters love fear-based politics and are in no way tired of them!
10.24.2008 12:03pm
Angus:
Funny isn't it that all the Muslim countries and Islamic organizations are backing Obama bigtime?
So are the Christian ones, and the Hindu ones, and the Confucian ones, and the Shinto ones, etc., etc., etc.
10.24.2008 12:04pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
geo:

Funny isn't it that all the Muslim countries and Islamic organizations are backing Obama bigtime?


Please keep up:

On Al-Qaeda Web Sites, Joy Over U.S. Crisis, Support for McCain …"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor," President Bush. … The Web commentary … suggested that a terrorist strike might swing the election to McCain and guarantee an expansion of U.S. military commitments in the Islamic world.


sarcastro:

I have it on good authority that they were totally about to back McCain


Indeed.
10.24.2008 12:06pm
Kevin P. (mail):
We can always count on jukeboxgrad to show up and display his Palin Derangement Syndrome.

And he has unimpeachable sources too! If the yeti crawled out of the desert bearing in hand Dead Sea Scrolls, written in Aramaic and warning of the evil Palin who will come at the time of the Apocalypse, jukeboxgrad would present this as obviously truth.

Obviously, I have no hope of ever persuading jukeboxgrad that he is a caricature. He is a true believer. For the rest of the readers, just try to apply jukeboxgrad's methodology of extreme partisan slime, rumor, insinuation and distortion to Obama - or any other public figure - and see how far you can take it and run with it.
10.24.2008 12:13pm
Arkady:

But luckily for Obama, McCain has honor (look it up, those of you who live on the coasts.)It's misplaced in this case, but at least he has it.


Reminds me of the exchange in Paper Moon:

--I have scruples.

--Well give 'em back.

McCain gave up his honor when he hired the people who trashed him so dreadfully and painfully in North Carolina in 2000 to do the same thing to Obama in 2008.
10.24.2008 12:13pm
Hoosier:
jbg--I think the Sarah Silverman reference was directed at her "shtick" that has old Jews scared of Obama. Which is the opposite of what DB's post suggests. But not as funny.

Nice to see you are posting other people's nasty personal comments about Palin. Because then, you see, you can say "I never said that she was a bad person or bad role model."

That was Nixon's favorite rhetorical device, of course: "Some people have said X. Now, I do not say X, but . . ."

So you're in good company.
10.24.2008 12:20pm
Sarcastro (www):
Kevin P. what did you do to me?!

I tried the jbg technique on Obama and now I'm convinced he's a Kenyan Muslim antisemite Marxist!
10.24.2008 12:21pm
Kevin P. (mail):
See! It works!
10.24.2008 12:26pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
kevin:

jukeboxgrad's methodology of extreme partisan slime, rumor, insinuation and distortion


Surely you can prove that I've done all those things, right? Or even one of those things? There's no time like the present. Why haven't you shown any proof? What are you waiting for? Because when you present no proof, you appear to be engaging in "partisan slime, rumor, insinuation and distortion."
10.24.2008 12:28pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
arkady:

McCain gave up his honor when …


McCain gave up his honor when he ran off with someone barely half his age, leaving behind his kids and his disfigured wife. That's why Ross Perot said this:

McCain is the classic opportunist. He's always reaching for attention and glory … After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history.
10.24.2008 12:28pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
hoosier:

Because then, you see, you can say "I never said that she was a bad person or bad role model."


Except that what you claim I "can say" is not something I've ever said, or intend to say. I'm not at all shy regarding what I've said about Palin (like here, for example). But people might find Dr. Laura's views more interesting than mine, which is why in this instance I quoted her instead of myself.

Here's an idea: argue with what I've actually said, instead of your fantasy of what you think I might say in the future.
10.24.2008 12:29pm
Getting Bored (mail):

Funny isn't it that all the Muslim countries and Islamic organizations are backing Obama bigtime?


http://www.economist.com/Vote2008/

Almost every country in the world that has been polled (by Fox, BBC, AP, Economist, etc.) prefers Obama.

Iraq, Sudan, Cuba and the Congo (all lovely places) are the only places polling in favor of McCain. Weird.
10.24.2008 12:29pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
The explanation of elderly support for Obama is simple: senile dementia.
10.24.2008 12:31pm
r.friedman (mail):
10.24.2008 12:38pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
zarkov:

The explanation of elderly support for Obama is simple: senile dementia.


On 10/1, Pew reported that McCain led in only one age bracket: 65+. And Obama had a huge lead with people under 30. Go figure.
10.24.2008 12:50pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
see Specification 23


I like this part: "Shanda fur de goyem."
10.24.2008 12:51pm
Dave N (mail):
Kevin P.,

You are exactly right. JBG is a partisan hack. He provides plenty of links--but his schtick is to provide links to the most dubious of sources (he has linked to a Kos-like anti-Palin site in Alaska for some of his Palin smears, for example).

Of course, he will then demand absolute proof if you say otherwise. But he is a troll--that is why I don't bother either a) usually reading his posts; or b) responding to them.

Oh, and I am sure that THIS post will get a patented JBG screed in response. Just remember he is a troll--and not worth your time.
10.24.2008 12:54pm
Steve:
If I can make the first on-topic post of the comment thread, the results of this survey are indeed fascinating, but there is rarely enough of a sample size in subgroups like "Jews ages 18 to 34" to draw any firm conclusions about the results. Gallup's page indicates that the margin of error for the sample as a whole is in the neighborhood of 4-5 points; the margin of error for a particular subgroup is surely much greater. So the difference identified in this post (67 versus 74 percent) may or may not be genuine.
10.24.2008 12:59pm
Observer:
Getting Bored: The Economist also claims that, within the U.S., the votes are 20% McCain 80% Obama. Which makes me question the accuracy of their polls elsewhere in the world.
10.24.2008 1:13pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
jukeboxgrad:

"On 10/1, Pew reported that McCain led in only one age bracket: 65+. And Obama had a huge lead with people under 30. Go figure."

My comment applies to Jews. The senile gentiles go for McCain. The correct answer for the election is "none of the above."
10.24.2008 1:21pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
dave n:

his schtick is to provide links to the most dubious of sources


If you can present a single material example of me using "the most dubious of sources," that would be helpful. Of course you won't, because you can't. Your "schtick" is to make claims that are pure wind.

By the way, here's a partial list of the sources I've cited so far in this thread:

beliefnet
ap
nyt
salon
seattletimes
time
alaska daily news
politico
gov.state.ak.us
adl.org
drlaurablog
wapo
dailymail.uk
pew

I guess that since I left out Rush and Sean, you consider these "the most dubious of sources."

he has linked to a Kos-like anti-Palin site in Alaska for some of his Palin smears, for example


I think I have linked to mudflats on exactly one occasion, because they did a nice job of extracting the portion of the Branchflower report that covered the very humorous matter of the Safety Bear. Are there any errors in that article? Hopefully you can tell us where they're hidden.
10.24.2008 1:23pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
observer:

The Economist also claims that, within the U.S., the votes are 20% McCain 80% Obama.


Citation?
10.24.2008 1:23pm
Observer:
jukeboxgrad:

I was looking at the link that Getting Bored above provided, http://www.economist.com/Vote2008/
10.24.2008 1:28pm
Nathan_M (mail):

The Economist also claims that, within the U.S., the votes are 20% McCain 80% Obama. Which makes me question the accuracy of their polls elsewhere in the world.

It's remarkable how a newspaper which endorsed Bush in 2000, and has largely kept the same policy preferences since then, is now so strongly Democratic.
10.24.2008 1:28pm
Observer:
"It's remarkable how a newspaper which endorsed Bush in 2000, and has largely kept the same policy preferences since then, is now so strongly Democratic."

Remarkable given that McCain is more left-leaning than Bush, and Obama is far, far more left-leaning than Gore. I would take a third Bush term over either one of the two current candidates, but I do not understand under what set of policy preferences someone could prefer Bush to Gore but prefer Obama to McCain.
10.24.2008 1:36pm
Joey Plummer (mail):
Sarcastro:

Or if Obama were a vampire, feeding on the flesh of the innocent, Jews might regret their vote.

Get it right, Sarc. It's zombies that "feast" on human flesh. Vampires do suck blood. But they eat mostly Chinese carry-out.


...and once I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's
10.24.2008 1:37pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
observer:

I was looking at the link that Getting Bored above provided


Oop, I should have realized that. Thanks for answering my question.

The Economist also claims that, within the U.S., the votes are 20% McCain 80% Obama. Which makes me question the accuracy of their polls elsewhere in the world.


From your comment I inferred that they were claiming to have done a scientific poll. But they haven't. It's an internet survey via their web site.
10.24.2008 1:43pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
I see there was one other time I linked to mudflats, because it was one of the few places that had detailed information about Troopergate as early as 8/29. Various details in that article were later confirmed by Branchflower and others.
10.24.2008 1:43pm
Christopher Cooke (mail):
Why is it when David posts a relatively non-partisan remark about the reasons for the Jewish support of Obama, the comments degenerate into a partisan set of remarks on Sarah Palin? If not for Sarcastro's always insightful analysis, I would find this thread tiresome.

Here is my take: as others have noted, I think the "surprising" level of support that older Jewish voters have for Obama indicates: (1) the definition of "older" includes older Babyboomers; (2) the historically liberal, Democratic makeup of this particular group of voters and (3) the economic crisis, and the natural tendency of voters to blame the party seen to be in charge of the economy (White House), which is a factor that is likely religious-neutral and (4) the inability of the right to scare away these voters by convincing them that Obama is anti-Israel through the guilt-by-association/Rev. Wright campaign, the Ayers stuff, and the "he will talk with Iran, and therefore wants Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth stuff". Like it or not, Obama does not come across as some anti-Israel nut job, he comes across as a very mainstream, pro-Israeli, politician.

While Palin may have done McCain's campaign some damage with this group (which historically has mistrusted the Christian right), I think these other factors are likely more important.


10.24.2008 1:44pm
second history:
Kevin P:

It's just that Palin (and the campaign) makes her a target rich environment. Like today's story that the highest paid campaign worker on the McCain campaign for the first two weeks of October is her makeup artist, receiving $22,800, and her hairstylist receiving $10,000 in the same period. Apparently the campaign has money to burn, and makes a $400 haircut look cheap.
10.24.2008 1:46pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
the highest paid campaign worker on the McCain campaign for the first two weeks of October is her makeup artist


But after they're done with the makeup, they're going to give it to charity. It's like the old saying, let them eat makeup.
10.24.2008 2:00pm
Nathan_M (mail):

Or if Obama were a vampire, feeding on the flesh of the innocent, Jews might regret their vote.

But if he was a sexy vampire like on True Blood? That would be pretty awesome.
10.24.2008 2:03pm
Sarcastro (www):
Baracula!
10.24.2008 2:16pm
Warmonger (mail):
"I think McCain has only one hope, which is that Bush invades Iran."

I would LOVE it if Bush invaded Iran...

Oh, you probably mean if Bush had hundreds of thousands of other Americans invade Iran...Yes. That would be bad. Bush going in on his own, though. Hell, I'd pay for the gun.
10.24.2008 2:20pm
Larry Fafarman (mail) (www):
Most Jews have no problem voting for a black candidate. Most of Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley's support came from black and Jewish voters.
10.24.2008 2:33pm
David Warner:
David Bernstein,

I think the explanation is clear: the Great Schlep worked. Not that very many young Jews actually Schlepped. They just made sure that word of the Schlep got to their Nana's and it guilted them into supporting Obama.

Turnabout is fair play.
10.24.2008 2:33pm
eyesay:
[Aside: Would the Volokhists in control here kindly permit <ul> tags?]

Observer:
I would take a third Bush term over either one of the two current candidates, but I do not understand under what set of policy preferences someone could prefer Bush to Gore but prefer Obama to McCain.
I would take four years strapped into a dentist’s chair, my teeth drilled without novocaine, over a third Bush term.

While I strongly preferred Bush to Gore in 2000, I can understand why a lot of voters might have been “taken in” by Bush in 2000, based on his promises to be “a uniter, not a divider” and his opposition to “nation-building,” which implied that he would avoid foreign entanglements. And one might have been “taken out” by Gore’s allegedly wooden personality, by Gore’s alleged tendency to exaggerate his own importance, and by Gore’s alleged condescending attitude toward his opponent and, by extension, his opponent’s supporters.

But that was 2000 and Bush v. Gore. In the past 7.66 years, George W. Bush
• ignored the warnings of Osama bin Laden’s upcoming attacks, leading to the deadliest attack on the United States since the 1862 Battle of Antietam
• abandoned the mission to pacify and democratize Afghanistan and capture Osama
• with no exit strategy, dragged our nation into a disastrous war based on lies about weapons of mass destruction and fairy tales about how quickly, easily, and cheaply we would win and get out
• ignored the warnings of weakness in the flood control system of New Orleans
• inadequately responded to the Gulf Coast disaster in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, both in the short and medium term
• presided over a mortgage crisis that led to a full-blown financial crisis that led to the greatest Wall Street collapse since the depression
• committed numerous other blunders that have resulted in approval ratings well below 30% and his becoming the Worst President Ever™

John McCain has
• voted with the Bush administration some 95% of the time
• said that we should stay in Iraq for up to 100 years
• moved from his past efforts to run a positive campaign on the issues to run a negative campaign based on innuendo, slur, and mudslinging
• selected as his running mate Sarah Palin, a selection that has scared away numerous thoughtful Republicans

So, Observer, it’s easy to see how someone who was “taken in” by George W. Bush in 2000 could be “taken out” by John McCain in 2008.
10.24.2008 3:01pm
eyesay:
Correcting my previous post: I meant “While I strongly preferred Gore to Bush in 2000, ...”
10.24.2008 3:04pm
Milhouse (www):
Just one example of JBG's dishonesty:

There's her accepting a blessing from the witch-hunter shortly after he spoke of "the wealth of the wicked," and about "the Israelites, that's how they work. And that's how they are, even today."
JBG clearly wants the reader to believe that Muthee was referring to the Israelites as "the wicked". But follow the link and you'll see that there's no connection between the two sentences, and that in fact Muthee was complimenting the Israelites, and calling on Christians to emulate them. What's antisemitic about that? Absolutely nothing. But you wouldn't know it if you just trusted JBG.
10.24.2008 3:39pm
Milhouse (www):
Out of eyesay's list of claims about Bush, almost all are false. I'm not about to go through the entire list, so my concentrating on the first lie is not an endorsement of the rest. I only have time or patience for one of these, so I'm going after the first item on the list:

ignored the warnings of Osama bin Laden's upcoming attacks, leading to the deadliest attack on the United States since the 1862 Battle of Antietam

This is, of course, a barefaced lie. What warning did Bush ignore? I've no doubt that eyesay is referring to the famous 6-Aug-2001 briefing, in which Bush was told that the CIA had recently learned that several years earlier al Qaeda had decided to hit targets in the USA. They still had no idea which targets might be hit, or when, or how, or even whether the plan was still operative, but thought the President ought to know. And they guessed that the plan might be to hijack planes to trade for hostages, or possibly an attack on a federal building somewhere. How does eyesay deduce that Bush ignored this memo? What does eyesay think he should have done about it, that would demonstrate that he wasn't ignoring it? What would eyesay have done about it, had he been president?
10.24.2008 3:47pm
Jameson (mail):

So it turns out, at least based on this poll, that things are exactly as past elections would have predicted. Older Jews are more liberal than are younger Jews, so they vote in greater numbers for the more liberal candidate.


Actually, I don't think that's true. From the Gallup article: "However, ideology does not appear to explain the gap between middle-aged and older Jewish voters. Whereas those 35 to 54 are more likely to support McCain, they are no more likely than older Jewish voters to describe their political views as conservative."

I would guess that national security arguments are making a bigger difference with younger voters than older. The MOE is 4% for the poll; therefore, the difference between younger and older voters is likely real, but not hugely significant.
10.24.2008 3:56pm
Hoosier:
Sarcastro

Baracula!

Finally, something rewarding for Jefferson Twilight to do.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Triad
10.24.2008 3:58pm
Hoosier:
Joey Plummer

...and once I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's

How was his hair?
10.24.2008 4:00pm
Hoosier:
jbg: When you challenge me to give an example of your M.O., when you presented us with an example in the previous post, I start wondering whose side you are actually on.
10.24.2008 4:06pm
Fury:
jukeboxgrad writes:

If you can present a single material example of me using "the most dubious of sources," that would be helpful. Of course you won't, because you can't"

Certainly, items have been posted to VC that contain information which is inaccurate.

The first instance was when you made a post that included two links to a story about Joe the Plumber. One of the articles stated that Joe was apparently related (emphasis added) to Robert Wurzelbacher, the son-on-law of Charles. Another stated that Joe the Plumber was a "close relative", without providing any substantive evidence for that assertion.

Yet you wrote that:

"And of course it's just a coincidence that the guy is related to Charles Keating."

even though neither one of the links you provided made that definitive an assertion.

The second instance was when you posted a link to a YouTube video on Sarah Palin and the AIP. You wrote:

"A nice video on that subject is here."

The very first representation the video asserts as fact has never been proven, as noted here. As noted, when time permits, I'll review the rest of the video.

At the very least, by the common definition of dubious, I'd say you have used dubious sources, as noted above. Whether they are the "most dubious" is open to discussion.
10.24.2008 4:18pm
MarkField (mail):

But follow the link and you'll see that there's no connection between the two sentences, and that in fact Muthee was complimenting the Israelites, and calling on Christians to emulate them.


I know it's kinda funny, but lots of Jews don't really appreciate it when someone congratulates "Israelites" on their financial acumen. They're just so ungrateful.
10.24.2008 4:43pm
Milhouse (www):

I know it's kinda funny, but lots of Jews don't really appreciate it when someone congratulates "Israelites" on their financial acumen. They're just so ungrateful.

Lots of Jews take offense at all sorts of strange things. I suppose when there are so many real antisemites out there, one logical reaction is to see them everywhere. Except, in some cases, where they actually are. A reference to Jewish financial acumen can be meant in a negative way, just as any compliment can be back-handed; but to claim that any particular example of such a reference is meant in such a way requires examining it and its context. Such references are certainly not antisemitic by definition. The fact is that for centuries Jews have been heavily involved in the financial industry, and have mostly done well by it; it should not therefore be surprising that others would admire this success and hope to emulate it.

Oh, and is "Israelite" on some secret list of banned words, that a Kenyan preacher ought to have consulted?
10.24.2008 5:03pm
Milhouse (www):
PS to the above: More generally, it's invalid to characterise a statement as offensive merely because someone happens to take offense at it, just as it's invalid to define sexual harassment as any sexual offer that the other person finds unwelcome. That gives unlimited power to the "victim" of the alleged offense, and gives anyone a veto over everyone else's speech. "Niggard" is not an offensive word no matter how many people take offence at it. Even thought crimes depend on the actual thoughts of the accused, not on what other people think.
10.24.2008 5:19pm
genob:
• voted with the Bush administration some 95% of the time

I have wondered where this statistic comes from....And how Obama and Biden stack up on the same standard. Who wants to bet that they vote with (or at least vote Present in Obama's case) the Bush administration the majority of the time too.
10.24.2008 6:05pm
MarkField (mail):

I have wondered where this statistic comes from....


During the primaries, McCain bragged that he had voted with Bush "over 90% of the time". Obama has actually used the video in his ads.
10.24.2008 8:19pm
Sarah (mail) (www):
I'm inclined to believe that older Jewish voters (over 65) are more liberal than younger Jewish voters (under 30), or at the very least more liberal than the general population. My grandfather (born 1912) was a Socialist who went to fight Franco in Spain with many other young Jewish Americans, my father is a die-hard Democrat who works for city government and dislikes Rush Limbaugh while opposing strip clubs on moral grounds, and I'm a libertarian who splits her ballot amongst various parties and wants to vote against a gambling measure this year because it grants one corporation a monopoly. At this rate, by the time my hypothetical future grandchildren are my age, they'll probably be straight-ticket Constitution Party voters.

Admittedly, Grandpa married a Catholic (he was a VERY liberal Jew,) so my dad and I have been voted off the island, but this pattern holds with the (secular, but Jewish enough for Israel) rest of the extended family -- Grandpa had a lot of brothers and they all married nice Jewish girls, and all of their grandkids are moderate, even when considered outside their NYC context. The one outlier is my cousin who lives in a commune near Santa Cruz, but that's a far cry from membership in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.

BTW, if I were an elderly Jewish lady in West Palm Beach, I hope that I'd be coherent and crotchety enough to vote for McCain on the grounds that the Great Schlep is both condescending and downright insulting. I also voted for Bush in 2004 in part because of those British idiots who tried to guilt Ohioans into voting for Kerry. Take care of your own darned ballot and let me make up my own mind.
10.24.2008 9:05pm
Oren:


BTW, if I were an elderly Jewish lady in West Palm Beach, I hope that I'd be coherent and crotchety enough to vote for McCain on the grounds that the Great Schlep is both condescending and downright insulting.

Isn't that argumentum ad logicam in the extreme? I mean, the Schlep is very stupid but surely that isn't a reason not to vote Obama?
10.24.2008 9:55pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
milhouse:

JBG clearly wants the reader to believe that Muthee was referring to the Israelites as "the wicked". But follow the link and you'll see that there's no connection between the two sentences, and that in fact Muthee was complimenting the Israelites, and calling on Christians to emulate them. What's antisemitic about that? Absolutely nothing. But you wouldn't know it if you just trusted JBG.


The text is here:

The second area whereby God wants us, wants to penetrate in our society is in the economic area. The Bible says that the wealth of the wicked is stored up for the righteous. It's high time that we have top Christian businessmen, businesswomen, bankers, you know, who are men and women of integrity running the economics of our nations. That's what we are waiting for. That's part and parcel of transformation. If you look at the -- you know -- if you look at the Israelites, that's how they work. And that's how they are, even today.


How exactly is he "complimenting the Israelites?" By saying that they are "running the economics of our nations?" And that "it's high time that we have top Christian businessmen" doing it instead of them?

He's clearly saying that "Christian businessmen" are not currently "running the economics of our nations." Then who is? And who are "the wicked" he's talking about when he references "the wealth of the wicked?"

He's talking about two groups: the wicked and the righteous. He's also talking about Israelites and Christians. So which is which?
10.24.2008 10:43pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
milhouse:

How does eyesay deduce that Bush ignored this memo?


How did Bush respond to that memo? By spending most of August clearing brush.

What does eyesay think he should have done about it, that would demonstrate that he wasn't ignoring it? What would eyesay have done about it, had he been president?


There is a long list of of very obvious things that could have and should have been done. Example: notify airports and airlines that there was a heightened risk of hijackings, and that they should increase security. This was not done. Why? Because Bush was busy clearing brush.

And don't forget what Bush said to the CIA briefer who showed him the PDB:

All right. You've covered your ass, now.
10.24.2008 10:43pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
hoosier:

When you challenge me to give an example of your M.O., when you presented us with an example in the previous post, I start wondering whose side you are actually on.


You're being even more incoherent than usual. I addressed you here, and pointed out that you were making a phony accusation. My previous post is here. I said nothing in that post that is relevant to the accusation you made.

This is your cue to make a silly joke intended to deflect this second request for you to substantiate the claim you made.
10.24.2008 10:43pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
fury:

Certainly, items have been posted to VC that contain information which is inaccurate.


Nice try, but those examples are trivial. You're finding minor instances where a minor fact is not substantiated to your satisfaction. That's a long way from supporting the claim that my "schtick is to provide links to the most dubious of sources." And it's a pretty ironic accusation, since most commenters here (including the commenter who made the accusation) provide links to this many sources: none.

But speaking of "dubious" sources, some good examples can be found via here. In those examples, the falsehoods are obvious and glaring. It's not just a question of saying something without proving it. It's a question of saying something that's demonstrably false. And in the NR and PL examples, the source refused to run a correction even after they were notified of the falsehood.
10.24.2008 10:43pm
Moose (mail):
I didn't know that older jews are sexists :-).
For a group that is well educated and blends into the American scene ,I am always amazed at how homogeneous the Jewish vote is. You never hear that aboutItalians,Germans,Scandinavians in America.Why is that?
10.24.2008 11:27pm
Al Maviva:
Me: "JBG, in spite of being utterly in the tank for Obama, you're a wonderful kind of guy. And an original thinker."

JBG: "Another example of hateful partisan libel of Obama."

Me: "Cut me some slack. I'm voting for Obama. I've had it with second rate Republicans espousing something I don't recognize as conservatism. Time to teach them a lesson."

JBG: "See? There you go again with your Republican slime."

Me: "Huh? I said I'm voting for Obama. And your mother wears Army boots. Not in a good way either."

JBG: "Those are all racist code words. Answer me this. Obama is going to bring hope and change. Huh? Huh? You can't answer that question, can you?"

Me: "Um, no, I can't answer that. It's not even in the form of a question."

JBG: "'Kind... Tank... Thinker...' See? KKK. That proves it. You're not voting for Obama because you're some kind of racist hater. Or maybe it's Muslims you hate.

Me: "I'm starting to think you're a some kind of blog comment spambot or something. No evidence of conscious, independent though, just talking points. If a conservative said the sky is blue you'd feel a need to rebut it, just because."

JBG: "That's a personal attack! And you all saw it! Typical Republican tactic! You're dumber than Palin, crazier than McCain!"

Me: "$%*&you. I'm outta here."

JBG: Look! He only has a two word vocabulary. He's unintelligent! He...
10.25.2008 12:00am
texpat (www):
Al Maviva

My thoughts exactly.

Oren


BTW, if I were an elderly Jewish lady in West Palm Beach, I hope that I'd be coherent and crotchety enough to vote for McCain on the grounds that the Great Schlep is both condescending and downright insulting.


The above reason is no less fallacious than most of the reasons I hear to vote for Barack Obama.

JBG


Naturally. That's why we see this:


the Anti-Defamation League says it has no evidence of any anti-Semitism by Mr. Wright.


So the declarations of Abe Foxman are infallible. Jeremiah Wright has left truckloads of irrefutable evidence throughout his career confirming his adamant and profound anti-Semitism. Foxman can't see anti-Semitism in his own neighborhood or backyard, but can find it in places it never existed. He qualifies as the Mr. Magoo of the Anti-Defamation Leaguers.
10.25.2008 2:35am
Asher (mail):
Surely someone's already said it above, DB, but aren't those crosstabs within the margin of error? 7 point difference here between two crosstabs and you did a post about it. Actually, let's look at this. The age data is based on September + October results. They're saying there's a 5-point MOE on the October data and a 4-point on the September. So maybe a 2-2.5 point margin of error on the two combined. But those age crosstabs are each a third of the sample, so now we're back up to 6, 7 point margins of error. Which means a 7-point difference between the two is meaningless.
10.25.2008 4:51am
Eric R. (mail):
To inject a (Mark) Steynian angle to this, you forget the demographic component here.

Given the low birth rates and high rates of intermarriage among secular Jews, combined with the high birthrates and non-existent intermarriage among the Orthodox and Hasidic Jews, a greater percentage of young Jews are from the religious portions of the community than older Jews.

And religious Jews are politically more conservative.

In the next 25 years, American Judaism will become "fewer and Jewer", then the high birthrates among the religious will cause the Jewish population to actually grow, after a bottoming out. This will also mean that a generation from now, Jews will likely be mostly Republican.
10.25.2008 8:42am
vigilant (mail):
To Palin commentators:
Question: What is America's first line of missile
interceptor defense that protects the entire United States?
Answer: 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National
Guard.
Question: What is the only National Guard unit on
permanent active duty?
Answer: 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National
Guard
Question: Who is Commander in Chief of the 49th Missile
Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard?
Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska
Question: What U.S. governor is routinely briefed on
highly classified military issues, homeland security, and
counter terrorism?
Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska
Question: What U.S. governor has a higher classified
security rating than either candidate of the Democrat Party?
Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska

She is responsible for nearly a 7 billion dollar annual budget, has vetoed wasteful projects, managed the energy business of Alaska quite well, and rose through political ranks by VOTERS choosing her over opponents, not by the media.

Why is it OK to be prejudiced against Christians, but not OK to be prejudiced against race or other religions?
10.25.2008 9:25am
Hoosier:
jbg: "This is your cue to make a silly joke intended to deflect this second request for you to substantiate the claim you made."

Really? Well ok.

ROBOTS ARE STEALING MY LUGGAGE!!!!


(Silly enough?)
10.25.2008 9:26am
No-To-Socialism:
As Democrats and leftists have embraced and encouraged despots, theocracies, and institutions that are anti-Semitic and anti-Israel, and then combine that with a U.S. MugabeLite administration, it really does not bode well for those of Jewish heritage, domestically or globally. Yet I'm sure the majority of the Jewish vote will go towards Obama.

Simply amazing. The way things are headed, I won't be surprised in the least if the center/moderate right also totally abandons the Jews and Israel during the Obama administration. Many will go with the flow: why fight the anti-Semitic left momentum when even Jews, old or young, won't? Unfortunately, all of us will become Pat Buchanans. (You can just hear Obama's mentors and close associates whispering, "buh-bye, Israel.")
10.25.2008 9:57am
Fury:
jukeboxgrad writes:

Nice try, but those examples are trivial. You're finding minor instances where a minor fact is not substantiated to your satisfaction. That's a long way from supporting the claim that my "schtick is to provide links to the most dubious of sources." And it's a pretty ironic accusation, since most commenters here (including the commenter who made the accusation) provide links to this many sources: none.

You may argue the examples I cited are minor instances, but the examples of your posts were relatively central to your assertions at the time concerning Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin. In the instance of Joe the Plumber being related to Charles Keating, you pointed it out in a rather un-minor like manner:

"And of course it's just a coincidence that the guy is related to Charles Keating."

You pointed VC readers to sources essentially represented by you as reliable, something that neither of the sources demonstrated by any reasonable measure for the issue at hand.

And please see my post, where I indicated whether or not your sources are the "most dubious" is open to discussion.
10.25.2008 9:59am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
hoosier:

Silly enough?


Not silly enough to serve the intended purpose.
10.25.2008 10:42am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
taxpat:

So the declarations of Abe Foxman are infallible.


Hmm, let's see. I can trust "the declarations" of Abe Foxman, a Holocaust survivor who has been working for ADL since 1965, and who has won international awards for that work, and who has met with the Pope (multiple times), seven presidents, and at least nine other heads of state, or I can trust "the declarations" of some guy on a blog named taxpat, who makes a sweeping claim while presenting no evidence whatsoever, and who describes Foxman as "Mr. Magoo."

Tough choice. The only mystery is why those dumb Jews are letting Foxman run ADL, instead of hiring taxpat to do the job.
10.25.2008 10:42am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
vigilant:

Who is Commander in Chief of the 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard?


Your statements are a bit misleading. See here:

the governor has no command authority overseas -- or anywhere in the United States other than Alaska, says Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, the service commander of the Alaska National Guard.


And here:

the role of the governor is to use the Guard to help the citizens of a state, as opposed to declaring war on a neighboring state.


The governor's role with the National Guard is mainly to deal with natural distasters. But they haven't had any. And she has "some oversight" of the Fort Greely staff, but "no launch authority."

But she can see Russia from her porch! Keep hope alive, even though "Perceptions of Palin Grow Increasingly Negative."

Why is it OK to be prejudiced against Christians


I think government officials should keep religion and politics separate, should generally avoid accepting anti-witch blessings from anti-Semitic witch-hunters, and should be able to construct a coherent sentence. There are other expectations, but those are some of the basics. None of those things mean I'm "prejudiced against Christians." Unless you define 'Christian' as 'someone who uses their job to promote Christianity, even if their job is to be an elected official.' In that case, I am indeed "prejudiced against Christians."
10.25.2008 10:42am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
fury:

sources essentially represented by you as reliable, something that neither of the sources demonstrated by any reasonable measure for the issue at hand.


The one who isn't being "reasonable" is you. Let's take the video. You're focusing on one statement in it, that Palin attended the 1994 AIP convention. As you've said yourself, "there's a dispute if Sarah Palin attended the 1994 AIP Convention." So what? "There's a dispute" about lots of things. No one has proven the statement is false.

More importantly, this one statement is a very minor part of the video. There are many other important connections between Palin and AIP, connections that are much more recent, and completely undisputed. For example, she addressed their convention (via video) in 2008. So it's utterly bizarre that you've sunk your teeth into one very minor statement that was flashed on the screen for about five seconds and that is not at all essential to the main point being made by the video.

And you're still saying that "when time permits, I'll review the rest of the video." You first said that two weeks ago. The video is less than two minutes long. That ratio is kind of startling. I have a suggestion: watch the rest of the video. The important claims in it are easily verified. Video of Palin addressing the 2008 AIP convention is here. That video has been viewed over 600,000 times.
10.25.2008 10:42am
David Warner:
BTW, there's a bizarre truther radio ad getting significant play in this battleground radio market denouncing "Bill Kristol's Jewish NeoCon conspiracy" and warning of another 9/11 to justify war with Iran. I think Jews might be looking for the wrong droids.
10.25.2008 12:16pm
Fury:
jukeboxgrad writes:

The one who isn't being "reasonable" is you. Let's take the video. You're focusing on one statement in it, that Palin attended the 1994 AIP convention. As you've said yourself, "there's a dispute if Sarah Palin attended the 1994 AIP Convention." So what? "There's a dispute" about lots of things. No one has proven the statement is false.

The statement you and I are speaking of is being represented as fact in the video, when that is not known.

As far as viewing the video, yes it is around two minutes long, but doing research on the assertions takes longer. As noted previously, I'll continue that research on my schedule, not yours.
10.25.2008 1:53pm
Stash:
Professor Bernstein, regarding:


"Obama is doing far better in this regard than could have been predicted in the Spring."


Actually, you acknowledged the potential validity of my comment back then (February):

"I think DB leaves out one important aspect of the question, and, that is, Obama will aggressively, and, I think, effectively campaign for Jewish votes. He has overcome supposed demographic barriers before."

So, you do yourself some disservice in suggesting that you had ruled out the possibility.

He has been extremely aggressive in seeking Jewish support, and it seems that the campaign has been effective.

Other comments:

1. So much for Joe Lieberman. When you have the pro-war Dershowitz, Peretz and Bush-endorsing Koch on your side, fears on Israel will be assuaged. I think Lieberman is too close to McCain to be seen as someone making a fair assessment of the issue. Kerry had no particular Israel problem, so a return these levels means that the issue has been substantially neutralized.

2. Palin's strength is supposed to be, in part, that she appeals to a demographic that identifies with her. Jews are not part of that demographic. Not small town. Not anti-elitist. They are more comfortable with someone who is more...cosmopolitan. So I cannot say that this is due entirely to Obama's campaign. Whatever the Palin factor is in the general population, I think you are correct that it has been a negative among Jews.

3. From my own circle, I have the impression you are correct about underperformance in the Jewish "swing vote" which you defined as about 35% of the population. Still, it seems Obama picked up more than half--about 20 points, while McCain picks up about 15. So Obama picks up about 57% of the independents/swing voters. Isn't that comparable or a little bit better than he is doing among independents in the general population? (Given the larger dem registration, doesn't he only need to split the independent vote to come up with a popular majority?) I thought he was only leading in the low 50s among independents.
10.25.2008 4:13pm
Hoosier:
jukeboxgrad

hoosier:

Silly enough?

Not silly enough to serve the intended purpose.


Do you have a link to some evidence? Because I think you're wrong about this.
10.25.2008 7:40pm
Yankev (mail):

Why is it OK to be prejudiced against Christians, but not OK to be prejudiced against race or other religions?

Vigilant, it is considered perfectly acceptable in most circles to be prejudiced against Orthodox Jews. In a few circles, you must add the prefix "ultra", but you are still permitted to make slurs that apply to all Orthodox Jews, whether "ultra" or not.

Feel better?
And yes, I agree with you about Governor Palin.
10.25.2008 10:41pm
Oren:

Question: What is America's first line of missile
interceptor defense that protects the entire United States?

Answer: We have no working defense against ballistic missiles (unless the enemy is nice enough to put a transponder on them and give us a few chances).
10.26.2008 10:46am
Mark in Texas (mail):
The fact that 67% of younger Jewish voters support Obama seems to indicate overwhelming support even though that number is lower than the even more overwhelming 77% among older Jewish voters.

I wish that I could summon some schadenfreude at the likely result of Jews helping to put the most antisemitic part of the American political spectrum into power but I don't bear that much ill will against Jewish Americans despite their foolish support for people who hate them.
10.26.2008 1:06pm
Mark in Texas (mail):
Oren: We have no working defense against ballistic missiles (unless the enemy is nice enough to put a transponder on them and give us a few chances).

That statement would have been true ten years ago but it is out of date today. You can be forgiven for not knowing about developments in missile defense capabilities since the media seem to report only failures and ignore successful tests. That is why there has not been much about missile defense in the news for the last few years. It is kind of like reporting on Iraq -- good news is no news.
10.26.2008 1:11pm
Hoosier:
Question: What is America's first line of missile
interceptor defense that protects the entire United States?


Cheap Russian vodka.
10.26.2008 9:18pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
fury:

The statement you and I are speaking of is being represented as fact in the video, when that is not known.


If you are going to review every statement in every article everyone here ever links to, and then yell eureka every time you locate a statement that is disputed, or that isn't easily verifiable, you're going to be a very busy person.

I think it helps a lot if you narrow things down by focusing on major statements, rather than minor statements. I also think it helps a lot if you focus on outright, demonstrable falsehoods, rather than just statements that are subject to dispute. I have shown that places like Power Line and NR have no shortage of the former.

I've posted links here hundreds of times. If that statement about Palin and AIP is the biggest blemish you can find, I think that means my batting average is very competitive.

I'll continue that research on my schedule, not yours


I think Palin will be back in the news about three years from now, which coordinates very nicely with the schedule you seem to have set for yourself.
10.26.2008 9:34pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
hoosier:

Do you have a link to some evidence?


I think you know all the evidence is in this thread. Would you like me to give you a link to this thread? I aim to please.
10.26.2008 9:34pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
mark:

I don't bear that much ill will against Jewish Americans despite their foolish support for people who hate them.


Jews have a lot of experience recognizing the difference between their friends and their enemies. They might be better at it than you think.

I also think they're not inclined to take advice from people who see them as "foolish."

Have you considered working for the GOP as a Jewish outreach consultant? I would encourage them to put you in charge.
10.26.2008 9:35pm
Fury:
jukeboxgrad writes:

"If you are going to review every statement in every article everyone here ever links to, and then yell eureka every time you locate a statement that is disputed, or that isn't easily verifiable, you're going to be a very busy person."

No, I don't have any intention of doing this, believe me.

I think it helps a lot if you narrow things down by focusing on major statements, rather than minor statements. I also think it helps a lot if you focus on outright, demonstrable falsehoods, rather than just statements that are subject to dispute. I have shown that places like Power Line and NR have no shortage of the former.

We'll disagree on if the items I pointed out are major or minor statements, but that is one of the things I like about VC; as long as discussion is polite, many views are heard.
10.27.2008 9:45am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
No, I don't have any intention of doing this, believe me.


Then it's hard to understand why you went out of your way to single out one minor claim in one source I cited.

We'll disagree on if the items I pointed out are major or minor statements


The concept of "major or minor" is usually relative. You're focusing lots of attention on a disputed claim with regard to whether or not Palin attended the AIP conference in 1994, while completely ignoring the completely undisputed fact that she happily addressed their conference in 2008. You have a peculiar notion of what's "major" and what's "minor."
10.27.2008 12:31pm
Fury:
jukeboxgrad writes:

"The concept of "major or minor" is usually relative. You're focusing lots of attention on a disputed claim with regard to whether or not Palin attended the AIP conference in 1994, while completely ignoring the completely undisputed fact that she happily addressed their conference in 2008. You have a peculiar notion of what's "major" and what's "minor."

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. I said I would view the rest of the video on my schedule - not yours. If you want to construe that as "completely ignoring" other points being made in teh video - Ok...
10.27.2008 12:50pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
I said I would view the rest of the video on my schedule - not yours. If you want to construe that as "completely ignoring" other points being made in teh video - Ok...


The whole video is 1:45. The statement that became the object of your obsession appears at 0:33. Self-verifying video proof of Palin addressing the 2008 AIP convention appears exactly 20 seconds later.

I think you've spent a lot more than 20 seconds explaining how you don't have 20 seconds to watch the part of the video that's much more important than the part you've been making a fuss about.
10.27.2008 1:34pm
Yankev (mail):

Jews have a lot of experience recognizing the difference between their friends and their enemies. They might be better at it than you think.
Some are, some aren't. Ehud Olmert, among others, certainly hasn't proven adept.
10.27.2008 1:38pm
Fury:
jukeboxgrad writes:

"I think you've spent a lot more than 20 seconds explaining how you don't have 20 seconds to watch the part of the video that's much more important than the part you've been making a fuss about."

I will get to it soon..
10.27.2008 7:00pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
I will get to it soon.


There's no need to rush on my account. I already know how the video ends. And it's also pretty clear how this election will end.
10.27.2008 7:29pm
Hoosier:
I also think they're not inclined to take advice from people who see them as "foolish."

I'd only add that this is also the reason why the influence of university faculties upon the "average" American is null.
10.27.2008 10:22pm