Republicans Respond: The Jewish Vote

I got a nice email from the Communications Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition in response to my recent diary discussing the Jewish Vote in this election. I want to say I appreciate her response. She claims that the exit polls showing the overwhelming Democratic Jewish vote I mention in the above diary on are inacurate and that Jews are now voting 26% Republican according to exit polls done by her organization rather than the 12% indicated by the media-run polls cited by the National Jewish Democratic Council that I mention in my previous diary.

I am happy to pass along her comment, but I should say that I believe the NJDC numbers to be reasonable and to correspond with my experiences. Both NJDC and RJC are partisan and their numbers should be taken with grains of salt. However the RJC poll is partisan, while the NJDC is citing a non-partisan poll conducted by the media. Doesn't necessarily make the NJDC data better, but the partisanship of the polls must be taken into account.

The Philadelphia Jewish Voice has an interesting and relavent article showing that there are very few Jewish Republicans in office or running for office. When one looks at who is running, there is still a sharp preference for the Democratic Party.

Republicans have boasted in recent years that Jewish Americans, who traditionally vote for and contribute money to Democrats, are supporting the GOP in greater numbers both financially and at the polls.

But the Republican Party has made little if any headway recruiting Jewish candidates to run for office under the party’s banner.

There are 20 Jewish Democratic challengers running for House and Senate seats this fall but only two Jewish Republican challengers, according to data compiled by the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC)...

The lack of Jewish Republican candidates may suggest that the party’s strong stance in support of Israel, particularly since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, may not have been as effective as the hierarchy hoped...

The 22 Jewish House Democrats and three Jewish Democratic senators are not only running in major cities where historically Jews have had a disproportionate influence on politics, some like Gary Trauner, Gabby Giffords and John Yarmuth, are challenging GOP incumbents in Wyoming, Arizona and Kentucky, respectively.

Even in the most Republican of states, there are few Jewish Republicans. In the Alaska state legislature, for example, there are five Jewish lawmakers, four Democrats and one Republican.

Republicans are strongly pro-Israel. But so are the Democrats. We always have been. And Jews are practical. They do not like the way Republicans are cozying up to the Saudis, supported al-Qaeda and the Taliban precursor groups in the past, and destabilize the whole region making it more dangerous for Israel. Only during Democratic Administrations do peace initiatives progress between Israel and its neighbors. The historic Camp David Agreement between Israel and Egypt was brokered by Carter and Mondale. Clinton had taken the Palestinians and Israelis a long way towards peace, efforts that were neglected once Bush took office. No significant progress has been made under Republican administrations. Jews are well aware of that and they prefer peace to war. Stability and peace are what Israel needs for its economy to be strong.

I think one thing is very clear, though. Jews remain overwhelmingly Democratic, even if you take the RJC numbers. Given that even Ariel Sharon preferred Kerry over Bush, I think the Republican attempts to woo the Jewish vote will seldom get further than they already have.


mole333's picture

| |

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may link to webpages through the weblinks registry
  • Web and e-mail addresses are automatically converted into links.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Easily link to terms in various wikis. For help, see interwiki.
  • Images can be added to this post.
More information about formatting options

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Who's online

There are currently 3 users and 1175 guests online.

Online users

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

I of all people should know better. The civil rights movement in the U.S. told women to stop talking about gender issues because first the fight against racism had to be won. The feminist movement frowned at women of colour raising their issues, insisting that first the fight against the patriarchy had to be won. The nationalist movements in Africa insisted that feminism was a corrupt and decadent western import, and that first we had to capture our earthly kingdoms, and achieve our panAfricanist Nirvana, before we started looking at "side issues". And those of us who are interested in our contemporary political dynamics have fallen into the same pit of not tackling the prickly, the uncomfortable questions now: we are waiting to win the larger battle before we clean our house. There is always another battle or another issue, and the matters that matter to the foot soldiers are postponed for yet another day. Yet, these issues ARE the battle. We fight for freedom --and do not imagine we are doing anything less--because it is the freedom to live our lives the way we want, from the jobs we choose to the people we fall in love with. If we cannot tackle them, then we are not equipped to tackle anything. What are the lines of difference we draw? For what do we engage, argue, participate and in some heroes' cases, take awful risks? For what?


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify