It's an article of faith on the right that Barack Obama has irreversibly alienated Jewish voters by
Obama also has wreaked havoc in the the Democratic Party.... He's alienated Jewish voters.
"He's alienated Jewish voters"! Period! All of them, presumably!
Has he? Let's go to the Gallup videotape:
Mormon registered voters overwhelmingly support the candidacy of the first major-party presidential candidate of the Mormon faith, with 84% saying they would vote for Mitt Romney, compared with 13% who prefer Barack Obama. Obama, meanwhile, enjoys solid support from Jewish voters, 64% to 29%.
So he's supported by only twice as many Jews as Romney! See, it's true! Jews hate the dirty Democratic anti-Semite!
Now, admittedly, this is a merely overwhelming margin in Obama's favor. In 2008, according to the exit polls his margin among Jewish voters was mind-boggling -- Obama 78%, McCain 21%.
So Obama's lost 14 percentage points. That's gonna hurt, right? Well, let's do the math. Jews make up 2% of the electorate. 14% of 2% is ... um, a little than three-tenths of 1% of the vote.
Wow! Three-tenths of 1%! How can Obama possibly survive that loss?
4 comments:
Well, but, if Obama has alienated three or four of the "truly important" Jewish people with whom Rubin does lunch - why, each one of those counts for like 10 percentage points, on account of they're truly important and all.
Obama must have really pissed-off her Rabbi!
And, he's got to be good for a few dozen votes moving from Obama to Romney!
She and McArdle (now at the Daily B-yeeeeesh!) are the female versions of the 'K Brothers' - Kristol and Krauthammer.
Only they're insipid and always wrong with breasts and vagina's - ok, maybe just vagina's, since I'm not wholly convinced that neither Kristol nor Krauthammer have man-tit's.
Rubin isn't a journalist in any meaningful sense; she's an overtly biased (neo)conservative columnist and doesn't belong anywhere near WaPo nor indeed on the staff of any credible "Beltway" media outlet. Fuck Fred Hiatt.
I'd say the same thing about an overtly biased liberal columnist, or, indeed, any "centrist," were they as guilty of distorting facts as Rubin. But of course facts are irrelevant to public political dialogue.
"So Obama's lost 14 percentage points [among Jews polled]."
OK. US religious demographics:
Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4% (2007 est.)
So it appears that Mormons comprise the same % of the US as Jews. But of course that comparison is silly: Mormons don't have several powerful media outlets and lobbying groups at their disposal.
Also, this:
"On October 18, [Elliot] Abrams wrote a blog post celebrating the return of Gilad Shalit. However, rather than simply express joy and relief at the release of the Israeli soldier, she published a call for genocide against Palestinians. Read it.
Then, to make sure that the post would be seen well beyond the readers of one blog, Jennifer Rubin, a Washington Post columnist, tweeted it. It is no surprise that Rubin, a former Commentary writer, has no problem with Abrams' call for genocide. But shouldn't the Washington Post have a problem with Rubin?
And on October 25, a Beirut newspaper headlined the story of Abrams' blog and Rubin's endorsement of it. The headline reads: "Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin promotes call for Palestinian genocide." This story will have legs and its legacy will be an ugly one.
To put it simply, these neocons are bad for everyone - but especially for Jews. It is almost as if reinforcing the ugliest and most libelous stereotypes about Jews is their goal.
To its credit, J Street has condemned Abrams and called on the ECI to kick her off their board. But I would not go that far simply because I think that Rachel Decter Abrams and her call for genocide fits in well with ECI. She belongs there, along with Kristol and Bauer.
As for Jennifer Rubin and the Post, they represent a different kettle of fish. One thing is certain: If the great Katherine Graham, publisher of the paper when it brought down Richard Nixon by exposing Watergate, were still around, Jennifer Rubin wouldn't be. Does she really belong at the once-great Washington Post?
No, she doesn't. She belongs back at Commentary."
Jennifer Rubin is simply Pam Geller, mainstreamed for public consumption. Again, fuck Fred Hiatt.
Correction:
"On October 18, [Elliot] Abrams wrote a blog post celebrating the return of Gilad Shalit."
Rachel Abrams, not Elliot. Elliot's wife.
Apologies for the error. I would not want to malign Elliot's good works.
Post a Comment