Obama's Israel policy seen as factor that cost him House seat

[Scurrilous]

Bob Turner, who repeatedly criticized Obama on Israel, defeats Democrat David Weprin in district that is 40% Jewish

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4122057,00.html

<snip>

"The Republicans have scored an upset victory in a House race that started as a contest to replace New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, who was forced to step down following a sex-texting scandal, but became a referendum on US President Barack Obama's policies.

Retired media executive and political novice Bob Turner defeated Democratic state Assemblyman David Weprin on Tuesday in the special election to fill the seat vacated by Weiner, a seven-term Democrat who resigned in June.

According to the New York Times, Turner took advantage of the discontent among the Jewish community with Obama’s policy toward Israel and his conduct pertaining to the Middle East peace process."

<snip>

"A number of voters who spoke to the New York Times said that the Israel issue played a major role in their decision to support Turner, who was repeatedly critical of Obama on the subject of his policy towards Israel.

Turner, a 70-year-old Catholic, vowed to push back on Obama's policies if elected. He received help from prominent Republicans including former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, whose much-praised stewardship of the city after the September 11 terror attacks was recalled during their 10th anniversary, last weekend."

[shaayecanaan]

1. There was a good article about this on Salon....

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/09/13/lessons_turner_weprin/index.html

[Scurrilous]

3. That was pretty good.

Thanks. :thumbsup:

[oberliner]

4. The Salon article is total BS and part of the problem

Not surprising that Alex Pareene (and others) are trying to put this spin on the election.

The article shows a serious bias and desire to see things through a particular lens.

If you look at the actual poll results taken a week before the election, you will find that Israel had much less to do with the results than Alex Pareene and others would have you believe.

To wit:

One-third of voters, including nearly half of Turner supporters, say that the candidate’s position on economic recovery was the single most important factor in choosing which candidate to support.

Twenty-eight percent, including nearly half of Weprin’s supporters, said the candidate’s position on federal entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare, was the most important factor.

The candidate’s party was identified by 18 percent of voters as the most important factor followed by endorsement of the candidate by a trusted source at eight percent, and the candidate’s position on Israel, at only seven percent.

Source: Siena Poll

[azurnoir]

6. well thank you here is the poll in PDF form from September 9

http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/Parents_and_Community/Community_Page/SRI/SNY_Poll/CD90911%20Crosstabs.pdf

the break down of voters and issues is on page 3 and it is done by demographics such as age education income and religion it shows that indeed 7% of all voters felt Israel was the issue by which their choice was made but when broken down by demographics for Jewish voter (which is the subject of the OP) it was 16% when it came to Israel not a huge number but depending on close the race was perhaps enough to tip the scales

[oberliner]

7. Non-Orthodox Jewish voters in the district voted overwhelmingly for Weprin

Turner won the vast majority of Orthodox Jewish voters in the district, which makes sense because they are predominately Republican - the majority voted for McCain over Obama in the last election.

The Catholic vote is what put Turner over the top. And that vote was primarily based on economic concerns (as was most of the Jewish vote).

[shira]

8. The catholic vote put Turner in? Come on, it's about the Israel firster Jooooooz! n/t

[azurnoir]

22. well I guess Catholic's haven't voted since the 1920's ?

or are you saying that Catholics vote for Catholic candidates, because that flies in the face of both Weiner and Schumer both liberals winning elections in the district so something has obviously changed

[shaayecanaan]

11. Actually, I think you're right...

Free Republic (and a number of other blogs) have excerpted a purported survey result stating that 37% of Jews in the district considered Israel "very important":-

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2777724/posts

however that section does not actually appear in the Magellan Strategies press release. It only appears in right wing blogs:-

http://www.magellanstrategies.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Magellan-BR-NY-CD09-Survey-Press-Release-090611.pdf

Catholics favoured Turner, as he is Catholic. Orthodox Jews favoured Turner. Israel does seem to be a consideration here as well as gay marriage - Turner is opposed.

But non-Orthodox Jews, as you say, remained staunchly in favour of Weprin, to the tune of 76%.

Anthony Weiner always worked pretty hard (bad choice of words there) shoring up support amongst ethnic whites. Perhaps Weprin did not have the same goodwill. Or perhaps Weiner's ignominious departure from the seat created a headwind for his successor that he couldnt get past.

Either way, its a huge blood nose for the Dems. If they can lose in New York's ninth, they could lose anywhere.

[shaayecanaan]

12. Having said that, something like 90+% of non-Orthodox Jews voted for Weiner last time...

so a figure of 76% this time around still represents slippage. Weprin himself has said that he thinks Israel was part of it, although it is probably the case that the economy plated a bigger part.

[oberliner]

13. What percent of the Catholic vote did he get last time?

Was there a dramatic shift in those numbers over to Turner or did Weprin pull in similar numbers to what Weiner got in 2010?

[shaayecanaan]

16. Dunno, but Im guessing the Democratic leadership is regretting making Weiner resign

over those cock pictures. I was never a great fan of the man, but there you go.

[oberliner]

17. I don't disagree

Although I would argue that the Democratic leadership also did a piss poor job of putting up a strong candidate who could hold the seat - and giving that candidate the support he or she would need.

It seems the whole thing was badly handled all around.

Bob Turner was very beatable even in these challenging circumstances.

[shaayecanaan]

28. They are doing a piss poor job all round these days

and I have to say it will have to get worse before it will get better.

There is a very revealing graph at page 6 of the following paper:-

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2006prel.pdf

showing the changes in income inequality in the US and in particular the share of national income received by the top 10% of earners. Currently, the top decile is earning 50% of national income, a level not seen since the start of the great depression.

It took until the Second World War for this to addressed by high taxes on the rich, and higher wages as a result of the war effort and post war expansion. It will probably require an equally long time for the Democrats to come to their senses, but hopefully it won't require a fourth world war.

[holdencaufield]

2. Jewish Solidarity?

I'm immediately suspicious of any article (written by anyone) who take the "all Jews vote for ________" line. Casting Jews as a monolithic block of same-thinking, same-acting automatons has never worked out well for us.

Anyone who thinks that Jews do ANYTHING in unison has never met one.

[oberliner]

5. A very minor factor

The vast majority of Turner voters cited his position on the economy or federal entitlement programs as the most important factors in their decision.

The candidates position on Israel was way down the list - at only 7 percent.

The economy and federal entitlement programs topped the list at 33 and 28 percent respectively.

Turner, incidentally had much greater support from the 60 percent of the district that was not Jewish than from the 40 percent that was.

For instance, over 70 percent of Catholics in the district voted for Turner.

[holdencaufield]

9. ...over 70 percent of Catholics in the district voted for Turner.

Anti-Papist conspiracy theories. There is nothing to the rumours that Catholics control the world's media and banking system.

[Jefferson23]

10. Another opinion and I am still amazed that anyone could consider Obama not pro=Israel enough

Obama, visit Israel!
.
By JPOST EDITORIAL
09/15/2011 22:43


AJC surveys in past four years show that Israel has consistently ranked no more than fifth on American Jewish voters’ priority list.


Does Democrat David Weprin’s surprising loss Tuesday in New York’s heavily Jewish and Democratic 9th Congressional District signal a shift of the Jewish vote away from US President Barack Obama? If you believe Democratic National Committee chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the NY-9 vote is unrepresentative of American Jewry.

The disproportionately high level of Orthodox Jews living in the district, which spans Brooklyn and the Queens, means that deep down this is a traditional-minded constituency very different from the primarily non-Orthodox – and Democratic – majority of US Jews.

Indeed, a cogent argument can be made that Jewish voters in NY-9 – one-third of whose total voters are Jewish, with one-third of that third Orthodox, according to Weprin’s calculations – tend to be more conservative than the Jewish communities in Ohio and Pennsylvania, pivotal states crucial to an Obama victory in 2012. And there might be idiosyncrasies in this special election called to replace the disgraced former Democratic congressman Anthony Weiner that make it a bad litmus test for Obama’s popularity among all American Jews.

For instance, Weprin’s principled stand for legalizing gay marriages might have also turned against him the Orthodox or traditional-minded vote in NY-9.


Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Bob Turner’s margin was wide enough that it cannot be explained solely by pointing to the Orthodox vote. And former New York mayor Ed Koch’s appeal to vote Republican was not directed at Orthodox Jews, but to a still more sizable population of non-Orthodox Jews in old-line Queens neighborhoods such as Forest Hills. Those older, heritage-proud non-Orthodox Jews are comparable to the Jews of South Florida, another pivotal state crucial to an Obama victory next year.

So NY-9 might very well be an indication that Obama is in trouble with significant segments of US Jewry. However, it is a bit more difficult to determine whether it is the Obama administration’s Israel policies that have distanced American Jews from the Democrats.

American Jewish Committee surveys in the past four years have shown that Israel has consistently ranked no more than fifth on American Jewish voters’ priority list. Ranking higher are domestic worries such as unemployment, housing prices, healthcare, and conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq where US soldiers’ lives are endangered.

Still, Turner’s attack on Obama’s policies vis-à-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict featured prominently in the campaigning. Weprin, in an interview with the Washington Jewish Week shortly after Tuesday’s election, specifically mentioned Obama’s Israel policy. Asked “what happened,” Weprin replied: “The media, my opponent somewhat successfully made it a referendum on Obama. I don’t know if it was just Israel, but Israel certainly was a major part of it.”

We believe there has been a change for the worse in US policies toward Israel under the Obama administration.

True, the US remains Israel’s single most important ally – the promised veto of the Palestinian statehood bid in the Security Council is just the latest example – and the American president remains unshakably committed to Israel’s security.

But it is disheartening that the Obama administration has refused to reaffirm former president George Bush’s 2004 letter – endorsed in overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress – that rejects the notion that any Israeli-Palestinian agreement would include a full return to the 1949 armistice lines.

The Obama administration’s demand, never made by previous US administrations, that Israel impose a complete construction freeze not only in Judea and Samaria but even in consensus Jerusalem neighborhoods as a condition for negotiations is another example of a change for the worse. Even after the Obama administration backtracked, the Palestinians continued to demand a freeze, using it as an excuse to indefinitely delay direct talks.

With 14 months left before the US presidential election, there is still time for improvement. For starters, we would recommend that Obama reach out to the Israeli people, and indirectly to American Jewry, by making a move long overdue. The time has come for Obama to visit Israel.

The NY-9 vote might be a sign that Jewish support for Obama has slipped significantly below the 78 percent he enjoyed in the 2008 election. And that fall in Jewish support might very well be tied in some way to Washington’s policies vis-à-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Making an outreach trip to Israel would be a positive first step toward improving perceptions – and realities – in American-Israeli relations.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=238158

on edit for spelling error.

[shira]

14. Do you find Obama to be more pro-Palestinian than any recent POTUS? n/t

[Jefferson23]

15. One needs to look at what Obama attempted to do, which GW Bush

also had asked before he caved too...before the alleged "facts on the ground" changed the US position.

Obama asked nothing radical of Israel, Israel's government's reaction was riddled with paranoia, and blatant
misrepresentation used to warn him for the US to back off. The Democrats in the Congress did nothing as whole to support Obama either.

George Mitchell tried too, to no avail..Hillary Clinton included. One could ask the question and it would be a fair one,
could the Obama administration take on Bibi and spend the political capital it would take to force the settlement freeze?

I think the answer is yes, but better to ask, why would he, or any other US president..what would he have gained compared to what he
would have lost here at home?

The price to him for this in the ME is he will take a deep hit, but he knows this.

The idea that Obama is not pro-Israel enough is absurd.

[pelsar]

18. its not so much a matter or pro or con...

its a matter of he has even a lesser understanding than bush of the politics and motivations out here.....hes has gained "no points" in the arab world and nothing in the israeli world either.......

[Jefferson23]

20. He has a lesser understanding than Bush, how so? I can't speak

for Obama, but I believe he knows very well why he has lost credibility in the arab world.

[pelsar]

23. bush knew enough.....

to actually make things change (elections in gaza being the example)...unfortunately he didn't know enough, as the election is what brought into hamas in power. Obama doesn't know enough to even make things change in the IP conflict....just a bunch of "bla bla" with nothing to back it up with.

[bemildred]

24. A bull in a China shop makes things change.

The question is what sort of change? Are you really pleased with how things have gone these last ten years? I hope so, because there is more coming.

[Jefferson23]

25. Bush was a terrible president on unprecedented levels..welcome Hamas to the table for one.

Civil liberties here in the US have taken a hit that may take decades to recover from..Islamaphobia is rampant..torture is okey dokey,
thank you GW Bush.

Iraq..ah, what a great success! Bush's judgment about Israel was that he asked the same of Israel as Obama, but he was then "persuaded" to
back off too. The alleged facts on the ground and all that nonsense.

Obama doesn't even make changes in the I/P conflict? I'm not sure what you mean he had nothing to back up his blah blah blah..please
define it as you recall it.

What is clear is that Obama did not have a partner in Israel who had ANY intention of ending the occupation. I already explained
previously why I believe he would have had to use a tremendous amount of political capital to strong arm Netanyahu.

[pelsar]

26. its just a comparison...its not a judgement

bush caused things to change, as i explained his lack of understanding made things worse. Obama in terms of the IP conflict as near as i can tell caused nothing to change....

..well except for the PA's attempt to have a state. (i have noticed no changes at all in terms of the I/P conflict)

_____

as far as obama not having a partner...I'm afraid you can't sell me on a president of the United States being Impotent ...just incompetent

[Jefferson23]

27. I see, incompetent is he? So would it be fair to suggest that you would

have supported Obama pushing Netanyahu? Is the I/P conflict the prime responsibility of the US or does your leadership
hold any?

[bemildred]

21. Yeah, Bush was a Genius, how can anyone not know?

:sarcasm:

[shira]

19. So at the other end of the spectrum, you don't believe he's any more pro-Palestinian...

...than any other recent POTUS.

Thanks.

[Scurrilous]

29. Netanyahu planning end-zone dance in Brooklyn’s new Republican district

<snip>

"The Guardian has a piece on the Israel lobby pressuring Obama. Ends like this:

Netanyahu will be in New York next week for the opening of the UN general assembly and to try to mobilise opposition to a Palestinian state. He plans to take a side trip to congratulate the Republican winner of the election in the congressional district where Obama's Israel policy cost the Democrats dearly.

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/09/netanyahu-planning-end-zone-dance-in-brooklyns-new-republican-district.html