^ Semi: The security of Israel is the number one Middle East priority of the US regardless of which party occupies the white house. Once the security of Israel is assured, you move to the next level. There will still be very tough choices and negotiations over borders, settlements, right of return, etc. once we get past the existence of Israel as a fait accompli. As between a Democratic President who is dependant upon the American Jewish vote for retaining power and a Republican one who doesn't get and therefore doesn't need to cater to that vote, just who do you think is more likely to push Israel harder to make concessions?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
^ Semi: The security of Israel is the number one Middle East priority of the US regardless of which party occupies the white house. Once the security of Israel is assured, you move to the next level. There will still be very tough choices and negotiations over borders, settlements, right of return, etc. once we get past the existence of Israel as a fait accompli. As between a Democratic President who is dependant upon the American Jewish vote for retaining power and a Republican one who doesn't get and therefore doesn't need to cater to that vote, just who do you think is more likely to push Israel harder to make concessions?
[/QUOTE]
What historical facts do you have to back up your statement that Republicans don't cater to American Jewish vote? And that Democratic Presidents are dependent on Jewish vote to retain power?
CIA World factbook state 2% of U.S. follow Judism. How could Dem's be dependent on Jewish vote?
What have republican leaders accomplished in the middle east in comparison to democratic leaders?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
^ Semi: The security of Israel is the number one Middle East priority of the US regardless of which party occupies the white house. Once the security of Israel is assured, you move to the next level. There will still be very tough choices and negotiations over borders, settlements, right of return, etc. once we get past the existence of Israel as a fait accompli. As between a Democratic President who is dependant upon the American Jewish vote for retaining power and a Republican one who doesn't get and therefore doesn't need to cater to that vote, just who do you think is more likely to push Israel harder to make concessions?
[/QUOTE]
The Israelis have sacrificed human rights and dignity for decades to assure their security and are still miles from it. I think the republicans push harder for bomb now, negotiate later in its Israeli policy just as it does in the rest of its foreign policy. And I don't think the Dems need the Jewish vote to win the white house any more than they need the Muslim vote. What concessions have the current (or previous) republican adminstration pushed on Israel? I'm with AAG here, what has any republican done to advance peace in the ME?
.
No. It’s because of the Intifada and the stupid, ignorant, misguided, misconceived Palestinian strategies that are being employed.
It’s certainly not a reward for the Jewish vote GWB received in the last election (Gore got 79%). Nor is it a reward for the 11% of the Jewish vote Bush I received in 1992. Anyone remember who is reported to have said, “F*ck the Jews. They don’t vote for us anyway.” Answer: Bush friend and confidant James Baker. Not since Warren Harding in 1920 (??) has a Republican Presidential candidate received the majority of the Jewish vote. The highest since then was Reagan getting 39% in 1980.
In a state such as Florida, where three-quarters of a million Jews reside and the 2000 election was decided by fewer than 1,000 votes, a 5 percentage-point pickup or loss in Jewish support could swing an election.
The fact is that there are two voting blocks that must vote 85-90% Democratic for the Democratic candidate to win the Presidency. i.e. blacks and jews.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
No. It's because of the Intifada and the stupid, ignorant, misguided, misconceived Palestinian strategies that are being employed.
It's certainly not a reward for the Jewish vote GWB received in the last election (Gore got 79%). Nor is it a reward for the 11% of the Jewish vote Bush I received in 1992. Anyone remember who is reported to have said, "F*ck the Jews. They don't vote for us anyway." Answer: Bush friend and confidant James Baker. Not since Warren Harding in 1920 (??) has a Republican Presidential candidate received the majority of the Jewish vote. The highest since then was Reagan getting 39% in 1980.
In a state such as Florida, where three-quarters of a million Jews reside and the 2000 election was decided by fewer than 1,000 votes, a 5 percentage-point pickup or loss in Jewish support could swing an election.
The fact is that there are two voting blocks that must vote 85-90% Democratic for the Democratic candidate to win the Presidency. i.e. blacks and jews.
[/QUOTE]
So its your opinion that 750,000 votes by retired Jews living in Florida control the next election?
IMHO if they are retired and are using medicare...smart idea to not vote for Bush.
I wonder if the Black and Jewish vote was concidered by the Sinclair Group when it pre-empted Nightline programing in St. Louis, Missouri.
AAG:
Actually, Presidential politics because of the Electoral College system is susceptible to some fairly detailed pre-election analysis that helps candidates develop strategy.
Based upon historical voting trends, except in Presidential landslides, a great number of states are simply not in play. For instance (assuming this is a close election), Bush will not win Massachussets or New York. Kerry will not win Texas and some other Southern States. After conducting an analysis, you come up with what are referred to as key "battleground states." You might have ten states that you believe could go either way depending upon what percentage of a particular voting block you can attract. You focus your resources on those key voting blocks.
Florida is considered a key battleground state in the coming election. Essentially, it was a tie last election. It was tied even though Gore got 80% of the Jewish vote (approximately 600,000 votes). If Kerry only gets 70% of the Jewish vote in Florida in the next election, he will essentially lose 75,000 votes in a state that was decided by 1,000 votes last election. If Kerry gets 90% of the Jewish vote, he gains 75,000 votes in that battleground state. Now, you tell me in what other voting block either candidate can make such significant inroads to offset the loss of 75,000 votes. I'll answer for you. Maybe the Latino/Hispanic vote. If you don't believe the outcome in Florida in the next election is likely to turn on a few percentage point gains or losses in these two key voting blocks, you don't know much about the history and mechanics of elections.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
AAG:
Actually, Presidential politics because of the Electoral College system is susceptible to some fairly detailed pre-election analysis that helps candidates develop strategy.
Based upon historical voting trends, except in Presidential landslides, a great number of states are simply not in play. For instance (assuming this is a close election), Bush will not win Massachussets or New York. Kerry will not win Texas and some other Southern States. After conducting an analysis, you come up with what are referred to as key "battleground states." You might have ten states that you believe could go either way depending upon what percentage of a particular voting block you can attract. You focus your resources on those key voting blocks.
Florida is considered a key battleground state in the coming election. Essentially, it was a tie last election. It was tied even though Gore got 80% of the Jewish vote (approximately 600,000 votes). If Kerry only gets 70% of the Jewish vote in Florida in the next election, he will essentially lose 75,000 votes in a state that was decided by 1,000 votes last election. If Kerry gets 90% of the Jewish vote, he gains 75,000 votes in that battleground state. Now, you tell me in what other voting block either candidate can make such significant inroads to offset the loss of 75,000 votes. I'll answer for you. Maybe the Latino/Hispanic vote. If you don't believe the outcome in Florida in the next election is likely to turn on a few percentage point gains or losses in these two key voting blocks, you don't know much about the history and mechanics of elections.
[/QUOTE]
Well you have a point there M.V.
And all the chad was "Dade and Collier county" I think? And I could be wrong.
The point I'm making is that Jewish 2% of U.S. population.
Hispanic is also concidered minority. Why is it that minority vote is deciding election outcome? ... though hispanic population growing...
perhaps reason for Bush government recent politics in regards to illegals... if so...ploy for votes... rather than some credible moral ideal.
I wonder how many snowbirds designate Florida as home base? And how many of the snowbirds actually own property in other states?
Is Flordia still a state with no state income tax?
My Q. is.. What has the republican party done for the average citizens of the U.S. lately? Recently?
What has the republican party done to protect rights of working class people?
What have they done to alleviate poverty?
So news reports say the economy has improved.....Where are the jobs? And has the percieved economic improvement kept up with the price of milk? or oil?
Claim is that democrats..tax and spend...
Claim that republicans lower taxes...less government...how many scandals sinse utilities went to private sector rather then public?
And these guys want to transfer social security to the private sector...you trust em?
My mom got a book an inch thick about medicare the other day..... Almost need to hire a professional to understand it.....
How much less government is there today?
How come republican congress historically for decreasing farm subs?. little farms drowned ....now we pay a buck more for a gal. of milk.
What of a family with 3 kids? Gasoline and dairy prices likely hit those wallets at least equal to any percieved tax advantages for some families...
Education? No child left behind? So how well is that being funded?