Bad news for Obama
You’ve probably heard the
news of a Sienna poll showing that McCain has closed to within five points of Obama in New York State, where Sen. Kerry beat President Bush by
18 points in 2005. But here’s something even more remarkable. According to the same poll,
[McCain] made up all but 2 percentage points (45-43) of his 12-point gap among women last month (48-36), suggesting previously undecided women are breaking for McCain.
He gained
ten points among women in one month? This would suggest that women, even Democratic women, just want to vote for a woman, even a conservative woman, which wouldn’t speak well for the political seriousness of women voters.
However, that argument is undermined by this:
Obama has had a reversal of fortunes among Jewish voters. His support has plummeted 35 points, from a lead of 50-37 to a 54-32 deficit in the new poll.
Are New York Jews mad for Sarah Palin? Why? What is going on here? In any case, it’s not just women shifting toward the Republican ticket, presumably in response to the nomination of a woman. It’s the most liberal-leaning non-black constituency in America doing that.
- end of initial entry -
David B. writes:
I just saw your post regarding McCain being within 5 points of Obama in New York State. This reminds me of some of the late primaries. Obama lost the West Virginia primary by FORTY points. This was after the MSM had announced that it was over. Around the same time, Obama barely broke into two digits in some rural Kentucky counties. I don’t think Obama will come within 12-14 points of McCain in Tennessee. I think Kerry ran 7-8 points behind Bush in Tennessee. Obama will probably run nationally 5-8 points behind Kerry’s 2004 percentage at the finish unless McCain commits some drastic error. I told you months ago that the candidate who carried Tennessee has lost the election only once (1960) in the last century. Obama may turn out to have been a liberal illusion.
David B. writes:
You wrote several times in 2004 that John Kerry was the most insufferable presidential candidate in history. Despite this, Obama with his supposedly dazzling charisma is running about a dozen points behind Kerry in New York.
Regarding the idea that an Obama loss will send liberals into a frenzy of hatred against America, I think something like this will happen. What do you think the post-election columns by liberals will say about white working and middle class people? On the other hand, it will confirm what liberals already felt.
LA replies:
But this is among liberal voters, liberal Jews, liberal Jewish women, in New York. Are liberals going to say that New York liberal Jews are racists?
How do you explain this sudden drastic loss of support?
David B. writes:
I would explain Obama’s “loss of support” by saying that it was never that high to begin with. As I wrote a few days ago, a Democrat should be over 20 points ahead. A white liberal who seemed at all “safe” would win this year by a healthy margin. For one thing gas prices have shot up higher than ever in recent days.
If Kerry was insufferable, Obama as President of the United States is simply bizarre. It is catching up with him. I saw somewhere that “Obama fatigue” has already set in.
Jonathan W. writes:
You write:
But this is among liberal voters, liberal Jews, liberal Jewish women, in New York. Are liberals going to say that New York liberal Jews are racists?
How do you explain this sudden drastic loss of support?
I think the answer lies in the fact that everyone has a point at which they are no longer willing to pay for liberal grandiose schemes. Obama is more of a socialist than Kerry was. I have spoken to many New York Jews who have voted Democratic their entire lives, but will not in this election because of his proposed tax rates (including removing the cap on the Social Security tax). Liberals, including liberal New York Jews, are willing to pay 39.6 percent (top tax rate under Clinton) versus 35 percent (current top tax rate) to support leftist programs, but are not willing to pay over 50 percent.
Further, I have also heard otherwise liberal New Yorkers admit that they are worried that an Obama victory will embolden the angry violent blacks and make the situation worse. At first, I was somewhat stunned to hear this from a non-traditionalist, but I am starting to think that this idea has always been at the back of many people’s minds, but they were too afraid to say it publicly.
LA replies:
I find David’s and Jonathan’s comments very interesting.
The irony is, if they are right, and there were these structural weaknesses in Obama’s campaign all along, then McCain didn’t need to choose Sarah Palin.
Jonathan W. writes:
Thanks. I think the answer to your reply is multi faceted.
First, I am skeptical that New York Jews are representative of liberal Democrat voters nationwide. New York Jews are much more likely to be wealthy and be in a position to be personally affected by Obama’s “Make the rich pay their fair share” propaganda. I still think that Palin was instrumental in gaining the support of white blue collar workers in middle America on whom Obama’s socialist philosophies would not have direct deleterious financial results. Many of these people are still personally offended by calls for massive wealth redistribution, even if it wouldn’t affect them directly in the short term.
Of course, the wealthy people to whom I referred who will not vote for Obama because of his tax proposals are engaging in an unprincipled exception. They all still support a national health care system and massive increases in funding for schools, not to mention keeping Social Security solvent. They just don’t support the tax increases needed to pay for all of it.
Lastly, I think some New York Jews have internalized what Obama’s racist, anti-white, anti-Jewish pastor really means. While white liberals, including Jews, are willing to overlook anti-white racism, Jews are not willing to overlook it if the animus extends to Jews themselves. If Jews see Jeremiah Wright (and Obama by extension) in the same light as Farrakhan and Sharpton, this might be enough of a dealbreaker to switch sides and support McCain.
Joseph Kay writes:
Regarding Jews and Obama, several points. First, over-time comparisons can be deceptive. The Jews of 2008 are not the same people as the Jews of, say, 1980. The most fervent Democratic element are the Roosevelt Dems, and these are dying off while many others are far too old to vote. If you first voted for Roosevelt in 1940 you are now 88. This inevitable passing of generations is good news for the GOP.
Second, the orthodox movement among Jews is growing and these folk are not as liberal as the Reform and non-observant Jews. The up-tick in GOP support might look different if one included the Jews who label themselves Buddhists, Ethical Culturalists, and atheists (all traditional Jewish labels). The NY Hasidic category grows larger by the day and they are politically conservative.
Third and least obvious though perhaps decisive: Israel. Support for Israel is becoming increasingly central in Jewish thinking given Iran and the more general upsurge in anti-Semitism. I suspect that most Jews do not trust Obama on Israel and rightly so. Millions of Jews are saying, “What’s good for Israel,” and McCain wins hands down. Obama arrives with lots of troubling baggage here and it cannot be explained away.
Jews are far more willing to trust Palin, and with her and McCain, Israel will have a dependable ally.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 16, 2008 02:43 PM | Send