According to a poll released by the American Jewish Committee last week, President Barack Obama is leading former Governor Mitt Romney 61 percent-28 percent among Jewish voters. Obama's support is 17 percent below the 78 percent he scored in 2008 while Romney's is 6 percent above John McCain's 22 percent.
Asked by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency what the numbers mean for Obama, Executive Director of the AJC, David Harris, said (addressing Obama):
"The concerning news is that you dropped about 17 points from where you were in 2008 and if it's going to be a close election, especially in key swing states."
"You're going to have to do more to recoup," Harris said. "You will have to spend more time emphasizing the national security, pro-Israel aspects of your record."
That conclusion is no surprise coming from Harris, who is extremely hawkish on all matters related to Israel. But the findings of the poll do not support his conclusion.
Yes, Obama's numbers are down among Jewish voters. But why wouldn't they be?
Obama's numbers have dropped among Americans in general which is why not even the most optimistic Democrat is predicting anything like the Obama landslide of 2008. The reason for that decline is the weak economy. It was the economic collapse under President George W. Bush that produced Obama's big 2008 win and it will be the continuing weakness of the economy that will be the main factor in Obama's narrow win this November. Or his narrow defeat.
Every poll shows that. Why would Jewish Americans, who live in this country and are as affected by its economy as much their fellow Americans be any different?
As for Harris's implication that Obama is perceived as week on "national security," the polls simply don't back that up. Killing Osama Bin Laden and his aggressiveness in Pakistan more than shored up Obama's standing in that area.
Of course, Harris was not really referring to the "national security, pro-Israel aspects" of Obama's record. He was talking about the "pro-Israel aspects" exclusively, using the "national security" phrase as a cover, so as not to appear too parochial.
But the AJC's own poll shows that very few Jewish voters vote on the basis of a presidential candidate's stance on Israel. According to the poll, the #1 deciding factor for Jews when voting for president is the U.S. economy. Among the 11 choices offered by the AJC pollster, 29 percent choose the economy. Next is health care with 20 percent. U.S.-Israel relations is chosen by 6 percent. The remaining 50 percent pick one of the other issues that Americans in general, and not specifically Jews, are concerned with.
So 6 percent of Jewish voters make their choice based on Israel.
And yet Harris concludes that to remedy a 17 percent slip among Jews, Obama must "spend more time emphasizing the national security, pro-Israel aspects of your record."
But another finding by AJC is that of the 6 percent who vote for president based on Israel 45 percent would vote for Romney and 42 percent would vote for Obama.
So, on that issue alone, the one Harris chooses to emphasize, Obama's deficit is just 3 percent. And of that number -- those preferring Romney over Obama because of Israel -- what percentage are Republicans in any case? Given that about 25 percent of Jews call themselves Republicans, it is safe to assume that the number who are swinging to Romney because of Israel is considerably less than 3 percent.
I won't do the calculation because we are now approaching a figure that is close to meaningless. The bottom line is this: Obama's ratings are down with Jews but not because of Israel.
So what's the president's problem? It's the economy and the health care issue as the poll makes clear.
But -- and here is where Jews differ from the general population -- it is likely that Jewish voters object to Obama's economic and health care policies not because they perceive that he spent too much money on economic stimulus and pursued a radical health care agenda, but because they believe his approach was too conservative.
That too is obvious from the AJC poll. Only 19 percent of Jews label themselves "conservative" or "lean conservative" while 46 percent label themselves "liberal" or "lean liberal" with another 35 percent opting for "moderate, middle of the road."
Additionally, on the two issues of most concern to Jewish voters, the economy and health care, Jews are decidedly liberal as evidenced by the fact that of those choosing the economy as their #1 issue, 62 percent say they prefer the Democrats' approach. On health care, 66 percent prefer the Democrats.
The bottom line is that a not insignificant percentage of Jews are, at least as of May, disillusioned with Obama's presidency. If these numbers hold, it could cause problems for the president.
However, the way to solve his problems is not by doing more for Binyamin Netanyahu (what more could he possibly do?) but by moving left and offering a solid progressive agenda for America. Jews remain FDR Democrats. If Obama wants to approach FDR's support among Jews (an average of 87 percent), he needs to start governing more like FDR and less like a generic moderate. He also needs to stop buying into the myth that American Jews put Israel first.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
So let me just say that this is yet another wonderful piece of scholarship from MJ, and it is in NO WAY comically hypocritical.
BTW - here is the link to the JTA article.
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/04/30/3094201/ajc-poll-shows-obamas-jewish-support-holding-steady-at-61-percent
“Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should guarantee Israel’s security in a formal treaty, protecting her with armed forces if necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the borders of 1967.
The UN Security Council would guarantee this arrangement, and thereby bring the Soviet Union — then a supplier of arms and political aid to the Arabs — into compliance¬.
As Israeli troops were withdrawn from the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank they would be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force.
Israel would agree to accept a certain number of Palestinians and the rest would be settled in a Palestinian state outside Israel.
“The plan drew favorable editorial support in the United States.
The proposal, however, was flatly rejected by Israel.
‘The whole affair disgusted Fulbright,’ writes [his biographer Randall] Woods.
‘The Israelis were not even willing to act in their own self-interest.’” Allan Brownfield in “Issues of the American Council for Judaism.” Fall 1997
Everyone can see that the Zionists are not interested in peace at all.
Should they get destroyed, they want to take down Europe and the US with them to hell.”
If you read through some of the comments in detail on Israel-Palestine issue you would agree with my deviation
"FDR Democrats"? talk about misplaced loyalty.
Jewish people can vote for whomever they wish, but if it weren't for Pearl Harbor, the 6 million might have been a much larger figure. Until that tragic day, the man was doing zilch to save those persecuted in Nazi-occupied Europe
usa didnt bomb the trains to Auscwitz using the excuse being that destroying the germans was the priotary - while they were bombing trains in italy to prevent horses being stolen
usa kept survivors for 2 years in camps after the war (didnt want the microbes to spread again!)
usa boycotted israel at the most perilous time 48 - 68 (we stole planes from the usa to add to our 4 piper cubs)
usa (kissenger) comanded us to allow the egyptians to cross the canal and enter the sinai - causing a lot of the 2.500 dead soldiers
usa forbade us to manucture our own planes while were not selling their. Changed mind when we built them.
usa now playing with all our lives not making the iranian bomb factory dissappear - or allowing us at least to do it.
BTW 500,000 Jews fought with the USA army in ww2 ( an amazing per capita figure) ( they also fought with Grant until he through us out the army)
personally I am not disappointed by the usa. as we say in hebrew. im ein li mi li (if i am not for myself who is)
I love the U.S., but you're absolutely right--America's history with Israel has been uneven. For example, while I admire Eisenhower for helping liberate the camps, his presidency was marked by some unfair treatment toward the Jewish state.
May Hashem protect you and all of Israel. (And on a lighter note, I hope the trees I ordered recently are doing well)
A Congressional Special Investigator must be appointed to investigate this and punish the transgressors!
Such recent revelations come as a shock, and expose Stein’s conflicted attitudes toward her own Jewishness. The “elements” to be removed were, foremost, her fellow Jews. This acclaimed literary icon, who flourished in Paris during the pre-and post-World War I years, was herself a Jew, having been born into a wealthy German-Jewish family. Was Stein, raised comfortably in the United States, denying her own background, or simply reaching for shock effect? Her own avant garde prose constantly strove to turn conventional wisdoms upsidedown. Was this posture more of the same? In any event, her views must have paid off, for she was allowed to remain in Paris all through the years of Nazi occupation.
and 'us'.
Re Stein, the Rabbis here say we are forbidden to judge survivors of the holocaust.
"I say that Hitler ought to have the peace prize, because he is removing all the elements of contest and of struggle from Germany. By driving out the Jews and the democratic and Left element, he is driving out everything that conduces to activity. That means peace ... By suppressing Jews ... he was ending struggle in Germany."