Obama and the Jewish Vote

An AJC poll shows 65 percent of Jews nationwide support Obama, 24 percent support Romney, and 10 percent are undecided. (I assume a rounding error accounts for the missing one percent.)

The poll, conducted Sept. 6-17 among 1,040 Jewish voters nationwide, found Obama doing better than Romney among Jews of all religious backgrounds with the exception of the Orthodox, who favored the Republican nominee. Taking into account the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points, the poll's overall finding regarding the state of the Jewish vote is similar to other recent polling from Gallup and elsewhere. Another recent poll by the AJC of registered Jewish voters in Florida found 69 percent supporting Obama and 25 percent for Romney.

 These statistics matter in Florida, a must-win highly Jewish state. I doubt whether Obama polls at 69 percent in Florida now, after his highly-watched trouncing October 3rd. Still, he will win the majority of the Jewish vote. What I find most fascinating is how his Jewish support has changed since Obama's first term. Here is the Jewish voting record for 88 years of U.S. presidential elections ( from the Jewish Virtual Library, link here):

Election Year	Candidates	Jewish Vote*	Total Vote*		Election Year	Candidates	Jewish Vote*	Total Vote*
2008	McCain (R)	22	46		1960	Nixon (R)	18	50
	Obama (D)	78	52			Kennedy (D)	82	50
2004	Bush (R)	24	51		1956	Eisenhower (R)	40	57
	Kerry (D)	76	48			Stevenson (D)	60	42
2000	Bush (R)	19	48		1952	Eisenhower (R)	36	55
	Gore (D)	79	48			Stevenson (D)	64	44
1996	Dole (R)	16	41		1948	Dewey (R)	10	45
	Clinton (D)	78	49			Truman (D)	75	50
	Perot (I)	3	8			Wallace (Progressive)	15	2
1992	Bush (R)	11	37		1944	Dewey (R)	10	46
	Clinton (D)	80	43			Roosevelt (D)	90	53
1988	Bush (R)	35	53		1940	Wilkie (R)	10	45
	Dukakis (D)	64	46			Roosevelt (D)	90	55
1984	Reagan (R)	31	59		1936	Landon (R)	15	37
	Mondale (D)	67	41			Roosevelt (D)	85	61
1980	Reagan (R)	39	51		1932	Hoover (R)	18	40
	Carter (D)	45	41			Roosevelt (D)	82	57
1976	Ford (R)	27	48		1928	Hoover (R)	28	58
	Carter (D)	71	50			Smith (D)	72	41
1972	Nixon (R)	35	61		1924	Coolidge (R)	27	54
	McGovern (D)	65	38			Davis (D)	51	29
1968	Nixon (R)	17	43		1920	Harding (R)	43	60
	Humphrey (D)	81	43			Cox (D)	19	34
	Wallace (I)	2	14			Debs (Socialist)	38	3
1964	Goldwater (R)	10	38
	Johnson (D)	90	61

Jews have voted heavily Democratic for generations. As much as 80 to 90 percent of the Jewish vote goes to popular Democratic candidates. However, Obama is probably not going to win the 78 percent of the Jewish vote that went for him in the 2008 election. Most likely he will win about 72 percent of the Jewish vote, a significant decline. (I am taking the AJC poll numbers and giving Obama seven percent out of the ten percent currently undecided.) One must go back 34 years, to the days of the Reagan juggernaut to find Jewish voters supporting the Democratic candidate so weakly. Why?

An increasingly high number of Jews are voting against Obama for the same reason that roughly half the electorate is voting against Obama--the bad economy. Most Jews like his unfailingly liberal views on health care, energy and social policies. The high unemployment rate and low level of GDP growth trumps those issues. The magic of the 2008 election is gone, and negative campaigning is back.

Secondly, Obama's support of Israel seems more tenuous than it really is, mostly because of his poor relations with Israeli premier, Benjamin Netanyahu. (See my previous comments on that here.)

At this point Obama can't do much to heal the economy, but if he loses Florida in the election, he may wish that he met in late September with Netanyahu instead of snubbing him.

Update October 8, 2012: Mitt Romney, in a foreign policy speech, keyed in on the Obama-Netanyahu split. He said, "The relationship between the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel, for example -- our closest ally in the region -- has suffered great strains. The president explicitly stated that his goal was to put "daylight" between the United States and Israel, and he succeeded. This is a dangerous situation that has set back the hope of peace in the Middle East and emboldened our mutual adversaries, especially Iran."

Moderate and conservative Jews may agree.

The Fascinating Political Comeback of Alcee Hastings

There have been 17 impeachment trials held in the Senate. Most of the time, when the accused was convicted, the public ignominy led to the end of his career. Federal judge Alcee Hastings was found guilty of bribery and perjury and removed from office in 1989. Yet, in "1992 Hastings was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida (source: Ritchie, Donald A. and JusticeLearning.org, Our Constitution, Oxford, 2006, P.81). More specifically, the local South Florida newspaper, the Sun Sentinel reported

in 1983, Hastings was acquitted of conspiracy to solicit a $150,000 bribe while a federal judge; six years later, Congress took up the issue, concluded he lied in his trial, and impeached him [and convicted him, using the lesser standard of "clear and convincing evidence"] after 10 years on the bench.

So let me make sure I understand this state of affairs. Representative Hastings was convicted by the Congress of the United States for lying and taking bribes. Three years later the people of a Florida congressional district elected him to represent them in that very same Congress that impeached and convicted him a short time earlier. Then they reelected him an additional nine times.

How could the people of Florida's 23rd District find this candidate attractive?

If you examine Hasting's general record of public service, it looks quite strong if you overlook the impeachment and conviction. Unsurprisingly, Hasting's posted official biography does not mention the reasons he was forced to leave the bench.

Known to many as “Judge,” Alcee Hastings has distinguished himself as an attorney, civil rights activist, judge, and now Member of Congress.  Appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, he became the first African-American Federal Judge in the State of Florida, and served in that position for 10 years.  Since his election to Congress as the first African-American from Florida since the post-Civil War period, Congressman Hastings has been an outspoken advocate for Floridians and our nation as a whole.

Hastings represents a poor liberal district. Constituents seem to care more about bringing home the pork than his record as a judge 30 years ago. Even local Republicans don't care about Hasting's past. The Sun Sentinel (link above) reported:

"Alcee is a good, patriotic American, and he's a capable guy, and he's a friend of mine," said U.S. Rep. Clay Shaw, R-Fort Lauderdale. "Alcee could certainly do the job." Shane Strum, chairman of the Broward Republican Party, said local party members don't devote much energy to rehashing events of the 1980s, though it might help fire up the Republican base elsewhere."It's something from long ago," Strum said. "I don't think that's going to play here locally."

Most of the 23rd District is not Republican, but rather, very poor, liberal, and Democratic.It's a perfect fit. The Sun Sentinel states that Hastings is a liberal (and opponents say very liberal) advocate for civil rights and oppressed Haitians in one of Florida's most desperate districts, "where one in five residents live in poverty." He has won all his reelection contests easily.

Yet, Hastings' career may be winding down. He is 75 years old. The Sun (link above) insinuates that he may have to work harder to be reelected.

During nearly two decades in office, Hastings has never faced a serious challenge at election time, a safe position that could be shaken when Florida's districts are redrawn next year.

 Publicly, Hastings says that redistricting wouldn't affect him.

"There is no geographic territory in South Florida they can draw where I don't start with high name recognition and having impacted the lives of the individuals who live there," he said.
"I am satisfied with what I'm doing," he said. "I believe I do it well. And I will continue to do it at least three or four more terms."

Hastings has survived impeachment and conviction, old age, and may be reelected despite redistricting. But can he survive another scandal?

As reported by Politico:

The House Ethics Committee announced on Monday [November 28, 2011] that it will take another 45 days to determine whether to launch full-scale investigations into allegations against Reps. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) and Don Young (R-Alaska)....Winsome Packer, a former staffer on the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which Hastings chaired, claims that she was the victim of “unwelcome sexual advances” and “unwelcome touching” by the congressman. Packer has filed a lawsuit against Hastings asserting that he retaliated against her when she objected to his behavior. Packer has been aided by the conservative group Judicial Watch in her lawsuit against Hastings.

Update: Well, the House Ethics Committee declined to pursue the full-scale investigation. See "Alcee Hastings escapes House Ethics Committee judgment" here. 

The House Ethics Committee has voted not to conduct a full-scale investigation into allegations that Rep. Alcee Hastings sexually harassed a former aide and retaliated against her when she complained about his actions, but a federal civil lawsuit over the case is still pending.

The above Politico article makes a strong case for Hastings, and the lawsuit may be without merit. (In a May 16, 2012 update) Judicial Watch dropped Hastings' accuser. Still, I think Hastings will retire or lose a primary battle. His district will be competitive and the scent of scandal means the vultures will be circling around him, drawing in young ambitious Democratic challengers. Additionally, younger voters would probably like to see somebody closer to their generation representing them. And the television crews aren't showing up. Is the media already bored with him or just his causes?

A less positive media attention has emerged in early June, 2012 showing links to Hastings from for-profit colleges and donations from those colleges to Hastings (here). While there is nothing unethical about that, the relationship does raise eyebrows since Hastings promotes liberal causes, and these colleges' practices often seem predatory.

To be continued...