Georgetown/On Faith

Will New Yorkers Split Jewish Vote in '08?

Pandering to a religious constituency in a presidential election has its ups and downs.

The ups: The fundraisers where the hosts invite all of their fabulous, deep-pocketed co-religionists: The clergy singing your praises (without specifically intoning your name) from the pulpit: Church photo-ops where old women in wheelchairs roll up to you (or are launched in your direction by shameless staffers) and clutch your hand at precisely the moment that the guy from AP is snapping pictures.

And then there are the votes. Oh the votes! For it sometimes happens that a religious group votes in a block.

Professor Berlinerblau's Law: it is worthwhile to pander to a religious constituency when the constituency in question will give you over 75% of its ballot.

Corollary to Professor Berlinerblau's Law: the religious constituency in question had better be large enough to merit your attention, so Shakers are definitely out.

But Jews are in. Even though they comprise only 2.2 percent of the U.S. population (roughly 6.5 million Americans), Jews are concentrated in states of great electoral relevance (New York, California, Florida). Too, they have demonstrated the aforementioned unanimity in presidential contests. In 2004, 76% voted for John Kerry. In 2000, 79% for Gore. In 1996, 78% for Clinton. In 1992, 80 percent for the same candidate.

It stands to reason that if Hillary Clinton wins her party's nomination in 2008 she should fare swimmingly among Jewish voters. Democrats always do. Save a little slip up involving Suha Arafat in 1999--these things happen--the senator from New York has enthusiastic support from this group.

Yup. Hillary should do just fine among Jews. Just fine. Unless, of course, her opponent is named Rudy. This is, after all, a politician who took 75% of the Jewish vote in the 1997 mayoral race while running against a Jewish candidate, Ruth Messinger.

Giuliani's popularity among this group is not difficult to comprehend. As far as many are Jews are concerned, he is a Democrat--a Democrat with an edge. Like most Democrats, he is moderate on abortion and gay rights. Like most Democrats (with the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich) he is an unwavering supporter of Israel.

But this brings us to the edge: little in Giuliani's past indicates that he would be reluctant to either respond to, or preempt, any threat posed by rogue states, Iran in particular. (That the American Center is unsettled by Ahmadinejad's regime is clearly something that the Clinton campaign has picked up on as well).

It is this combination of mainstream views on social issues and a hawkish foreign policy that will impel Jewish voters to give Giuliani a much closer look than any Republican presidential nominee since Reagan. In was in the 1980 election, incidentally, that Jews gave 39% of their vote to The Great Communicator (and 45% to Carter and 14% to Anderson).

The Jewish block was politically fractured. And as we shall see in the next discussion, a fractured religious constituency is the dreaded downside of faith-based pandering.

By Jacques Berlinerblau |  November 8, 2007; 11:34 AM ET

 | Category:  The God Vote Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: In Praise of Jewish Atheism | Next: The Rise of Devalued Voters

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



Candida:

What? I think Jews are just as likely to "buy sub prime" as anyone else. In fact, isn't Robert Ruben Jewish? I really don't know. Ruben sounds Jewish to me but I make lots of bad guesses.

Financial genius, Robert, (not Bob, too informal) Ruben is the brains behind sub prime lending at Citibank? That's a question like what is the breakdown by group of those that "bought" sub prime lending? Robert was way too smart for the piddly job of Secretary of Treasury.

Seems to me some really smart people got in on the sub prime ground floor. You are paying attention? Judging from the look on Bernanke's face the whole banking system may be "under water."

What? Me worry? No way. The hit is big but not that big. Case in point:

Citibank has 400 billion outstanding. Assets less than 800 billion. 400 is more than half. But it's not a total loss. Only half will default. That pears it down to 200 billion. Only 40% of the 200 billion is a loss, it's secured by real estate that historically drops 40% at times like this. So the total loss is likely 80 billion. How much money is that? Chicken feed for the Bush gang. They spill more than that buying $22 each meals for soldiers in Iraq that aren't even there.

Candida, you aren't screaming are you? Something get fractured? Cheer up. Things will get a lot worse before they get better. And I never judge a group by the actions of any one member or even small sub group. That's Jacques Berlinerblau job, I think. He has some interesting stats and I wondered if other somewhat interesting stats even existed.

Posted by: BGone | November 9, 2007 2:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Begone:

OH...do start sneering some more about how jews are superior...too smart to buy subprime loans...which are only for Evangalicals.

More, more. Go ahead. Sarkozy won't save you.
The French detest him, mostly because of his little Jewish turn here this week which has so emboldened some of you.

So, sneer some more. Do. Worked so well in times past...

Posted by: Candida | November 9, 2007 1:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Begone:

OH...do start sneering some more about how jews are superior...to smart to buy subprime loans...which are only for Evangalicals.

More, more. Go ahead. Sarkozy won't save you.
The French detest him, mostly because of his little Jewish turn here this week which has so emboldened some of you.

So, sneer some more. Do.

Posted by: Candida | November 9, 2007 1:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Begone:

OH...do start sneering some more about how jews are superior...to smart to buy subprime loans...which are only for Evangalicals.

More, more. Go ahead. Sarkozy won't save you.
The French detest him, mostly because of his little Jewish turn here this week which has so emboldened some of you.

So, sneer some more. Do.

Posted by: Candida | November 9, 2007 1:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Begone:

OH...do start sneering some more about how jews are superior...to smart to buy subprime loans...which are only for Evangalicals.

More, more. Go ahead. Sarkozy won't save you.
The French detest him, mostly because of his little Jewish turn here this week which has so emboldened some of you.

So, sneer some more. Do.

Posted by: Candida | November 9, 2007 1:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"The Jewish block was politically fractured. And as we shall see in the next discussion, a fractured religious constituency is the dreaded downside of faith-based pandering."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I take it Jews aren't classified as evangelicals.

Let the fracturing begin. http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul gets nothing close to "Swift Boat Veterans" free publicity but folks are hearing about it over the grape vine. How many fractures is unknown but the screams are very audible.

The "sub prime" loan game isn't doing Republicans a lot of good and especially when half the foreclosures are defaulting conforming loans. I wonder how Jews stack up in that pile. Evangelicals? Anyone think to break that down along religious/ethnic/racial lines? Devil is loose somewhere all the time and seems to be looking for a cheap home at the moment. Wholesale maybe?

Posted by: BGone | November 9, 2007 1:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Yea David above!!!
It's about time someone began to say out loud, very loudly in fact, what everyone is thinking.
Today on CNBC we heard some jerk talking about how "everything is okay" with the economy in the us because the rich women in New York can't find expensive boots in their size.
Boots that cost enough for a half year of tuition in the midwest.
Think that's not a problem? The ARROGANCE!

Posted by: Francine | November 9, 2007 12:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

David: So Dave,how do you know these folks are traitors ? Huh, Dave? How do you know these folks have a greater loyalty to Israel than this USA ? How many ? Huh, Davie ? What policy interests differ Dave ? Why should should the USA give up on Israel, huh Dave ? Is it oil,dates, camels, shared values with Iran,Syria ? These "traitors" need your help, as well as the Turkish, Armenian,Irish, Italian,UK lobbies. OK Davie, my bro ?

Posted by: Hondo | November 9, 2007 12:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr Berlinerblau must certainly be making a joke. No poll anywhere suggests that American Jews are anywhere but solidly in the blue camp for this one. You'll notice even in his stats that the majority of Jews have been voting for the left-most candidate in every election since 1850. You'll notice a correlation between percentage of Jews in a state and its likelihood of voting for the leftern candidate. And you'll not neglect to mention that the Reagan 1980 election was a gigantic landslide, determined not by the Jewish vote but by the American public's overwhelming irritation at Jimmy Carter.

Now, I wouldn't suggest Reagan was better, but even in that stat. the Jewish vote would still have put him back in office.

I resent that Norman Crackpot Pothoretz has become the spokesman for my group. More to the point: the neocons may be heavily Jewish, but the Jews are not heavily neocon.

And we, our votes and our money, will bear our desire for social justice, not for tribalism (of any stripe) (nevermind idiotically imagined manipulation -- where's my check anyway?) once again in the 2008 election.

Vote Obama!

Bill

Posted by: Bill | November 8, 2007 10:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous:

Isreal is a question. Israel is _________

Posted by: Anonymous2oo | November 8, 2007 7:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

These foreign policy geniuses might want to learn how to spell Israel correctly.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 8, 2007 7:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Why is it pandering you ask? Because pandering in this case suggests denying the best interests of AMERICA in order to gain monetary support from American - traitors who have greater loyalty to Isreal. American foreign policy interests dont coincide with those of Isreal no matter how much money is thrown into the equation by pro - isreali lobbys.

Posted by: david | November 8, 2007 7:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Why is it pandering you ask? Because pandering in this case suggests denying the best interests of AMERICA in order to gain monetary support from American - traitors who have greater loyalty to Isreal. American foreign policy interests dont coincide with those of Isreal no matter how much money is thrown into the equation by pro - isreali lobbys.

Posted by: david | November 8, 2007 7:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

If you like Bush, you'll love Rudy. Especially the Isreali lobby.

Posted by: arlan | November 8, 2007 6:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It doesn't matter. Haven't you heard the news. God has spoken. Rudy Giuliani won the 2008 election.

Pride of the Marines, Lt Pat Robertson, the only Marine in the history of the Corps to suffer combat fatigue days before the battle began, Inchon, Korea, 1950, has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president.

"A noun, a verb and 9-11."

We can all get a good nights sleep tonight.

Posted by: BGone | November 8, 2007 5:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

A question for Mr. Berlinerblau:

Why is it "pandering" to speak to religious groups and just plain listening to concerns with other groups?

Posted by: Robert B. | November 8, 2007 12:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company