Paul Krugman blogs:
Some of the attempts to predict future trends argue that over time Hispanics will become politically “white”, the way Irish and Italians did. Maybe, although somehow that hasn’t happened yet to my tribe.
By the way, a story that has gotten very little attention is that Romney did quite a bit better than McCain in the Jewish vote -- approaching 50% better. That's still not very good (30% in Edison up from 21% in 2008, 34% in Reuters). The numbers are tiny, of course, but everything about trends in Jewish opinion ought to be of interest, for the Sarah Silverman Reason.
Off the top of my head, I'd hypothesize that Romney's number isn't a fluke -- that's about what the Republicans would usually get from Jewish voters if they always nominated a Northeastern moderate who only talks about tax rates. McCain's low number in 2008 reflects the Jewish crush of that era on Obama that contributed to and was the result of Obamamania.
The best evidence for this was New Yorker editor David Remnick's vast quasi-biography of Obama, The Bridge. Since Obama has done so little in his life that's interesting to read about, Remnick's book was padded out with potted Civil Rights Struggle history. The "bridge" of the title refers to some victory in the civil rights years in the South, even though Obama was not actually there. (Indeed, according to David Maraniss's boring but less infatuated biography, Obama was at that point being enrolled in an upscale pre-school in an expensive Honolulu suburb with a highly diverse class and a Japanese-American teacher.) Plus, Remnick tossed in endless reminiscences from elite friends, heavily Jewish, of how the first time they met Obama they knew that here was going to be the black President they'd always dreamed of.
Subtly, though, the bloom was off the rose of Obama in 2012. The media, with its credibility on the line for promoting Obama so uncritically, so shamelessly, hunkered down instead to attack Romney and divert attention from Obama.
But, it will be interesting to see if the media shields erected around Obama erode during the second term.
Posts
57 comments:
Steve said: Off the top of my head, I'd hypothesize that Romney's number isn't a fluke -- that's about what the Republicans would usually get from Jewish voters if they always nominated a Northeastern moderate who only talks about tax rates.
Hunsdon replied: Bwa ha ha. Bwa. Ha. Ha.
That whole "not one inch of daylight" between Israel and the US thing? A chimera, an illusion, a . . . what's the word or phrase I'm looking for? Ah yes, a base canard! Jews are famously all about the tax rates, which is why they earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans, who, being Hispanic, are natural Republicans.
I think it's the Mormon thing. Romney may look uber-WASPish but he is a member of a persecuted religious minority, and Jews relate to that. On the other hand, Obama is from an even more persecuted minority. I wonder what Romney's share of the Jewish vote might've been if it were Romney vs. a regular white Democrat like Gore or Kerry.
"But, it will be interesting to see if the media shields erected around Obama erode during the second term."
I've thought about that, too. After Bush's re-election, the next 10 months were a quick string of embarrassments, scandals, and failures. First, things got much worse in Iraq, then the Terri Schiavo deal pissed off a lot of people, then Hurricane Katrina (I'm talking about these as "scandals" in the sense that media people would use that as the narrative, not whether I personally think Bush did anything wrong with respect to Hurricane Katrina). By late 2005, it was clear his goose was cooked. People were pissed off, and anything he said just made things worse. Every time he opened his mouth, his critics got louder and his supporters got less numerous.
Now, with Obama's support in the media, and the scorn and threats that would come down on anyone who might criticize him an a personal level, you couldn't expect this pattern to repeat itself entirely. Nonetheless, there are a lot of very valid arguments against him to make - perhaps once the dam breaks, they can start to flow all at once.
The Petraeus thing could be the start of it.
I also think an interesting comparison would be the percentage of white voters who supported Obama (a minority, but not by much) compared against the percentage of white voters who support affirmative action. From what I understand, despite constant brain-washing and white shaming from academia and the media, only very small numbers of white people support affirmative action. And practically none of them are suburbanite swing voters.
I wonder whether it would be valuable to (for instance) try to gin up a national conversation about affirmative action around the time when Obama's next SC nominee faces confirmation. Something along the lines of, "well, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc, that's what you voted for."
People go to some lengths to persuade themselves that they didn't make a mistake in their voting. Once they are finally convinced, though, the backlash can be devastating and long-lasting.
I've said this somewhere before, but I wonder if any past presidential election has ever been so focused on the challenger, instead of the guy in office with four years of actual governance on record to argue pro or con.
'But, it will be interesting to see if the media shields erected around Obama erode during the second term.'
Keep dreaming.
Somewhat off topic, but just yesterday I was sitting having lunch with three female colleagues--two black and one white--and the discussion leaned into race. I can't remember the exact contact, but the white woman who was with us informed one of the black women who was with us, "I'm not white." I knew where this was heading. The black woman asked, "What you mean you ain't white?" I chuckled to myself. But before I could say, "Holly's Jewish." Holly herself announced, "I'm Jewish and we don't consider ourselves white." Just like Mike Wallace and Hitler, I thought to myself.
"I think it's the Mormon thing. Romney may look uber-WASPish but he is a member of a persecuted religious minority, and Jews relate to that."
That's a good one.
"I think it's the Mormon thing. Romney may look uber-WASPish but he is a member of a persecuted religious minority, and Jews relate to that."
So why don't Hindus?
The easy answer is that BO defied Bibi on Iran. If you're looking for silver linings in this election I suggest: Israel has been successfully defied. Remarkably, I haven't seen this addressed anywhere, but I'm willing to bet it's been discussed with some consternation in private.
I felt proud voting for Romney -- here was a candidate who could speak intelligently in debates or in interviews, had a strong track record of achievement, and could even pronounce "nuclear". He was a lot of things W. wasn't. I'm sure some other iSteve readers felt the same way.
But in hindsight, a W. type might have done better this year. Imagine Rick Perry if he had W.'s mediocre debating skills instead of Rick Perry's abysmal debating skills: he would have done worse than Romney among swing voters and independents, but he might have driven a lot more turnout among the core GOP electorate.
jews are the classic counter example to the effectiveness of minority pandering. the republicans have been sucking up to them in the most hardcore, extreme way (seriously, mainstream conservatives are abormally, creepily philosemitic and if you've had any time with them you'd know) and in spite of this jews won't give them the time of day. republicans should get the message that the same approac won't work and doesn't work with hispanics either.
"But, it will be interesting to see if the media shields erected around Obama erode during the second term."
They're partisan, but not so partisan they'll pass up a chance to sell stories. As the economy melts down and the US rapidly recedes into Turd World status, the media will be there to document Obama's fuck ups, knowing there's nothing we can really do to unelect him. If he manages to commit some impeachable offense they might even cover that somewhat honestly, too - because everyone loves a good impeachment.
i like the idea that "bush wrecked the economy with expensive wars!" when in reality obama has wasted 50% more money in 4 years than GW bush did in 8 years. so those "expensive" wars cost WAY LESS than what obama has spent. and, oh yeah, obama keeps getting americans killed every day. he didn't even end afghanistan. another thing they never talk about. so the shouting and screaming about bush getting americans killed dropped to zero, and total silence, once the kenyan in chief took the white house. so we can also put the kibosh on the idea that liberals care about americans getting killed in wars. their fake concern for red state white guys getting taken out in far away lands ended the moment bush left office.
this is why i don't get why they're so concerned about a war with iran. not that i think it's a good idea either, but...they personally won't be fighting it, so no risk to them. red state white guys will do all the dying, so no risk to them nor do they even care, as we can see, they don't care about that kind of thing when obama is president. and, the war won't even cost as much as the other stuff obama spends money on. they aren't concerned about obama spending at triple the rate of bush, so why would they care about "expensive wars!" which are less expensive than anything obama spends money on.
One thing this election hopefully dispelled...
whoring out to Israel doesn't win over the Jewish vote.
but I suppose there's still a lot of Jewish money that GOP relies on, and that prevents the GOP from taking on Jewish power like Jews once took on Wasp power.
Really... GOP is a dead party. It's caught between a rock and hard place on everything.
Nonetheless, there are a lot of very valid arguments against him to make - perhaps once the dam breaks, they can start to flow all at once.
The media will never, EVER, walk back on Obama. They are in like Flynn, completely committed to the Dream Weaver and his plans to crush white prole America under his totalitarian boot heel and waves of black and brown immigration.
It's over. Whites lose, vibrants and Jews win. The party hasn't even started yet.
"The Petraeus thing could be the start of it."
No, the media will waterdam it. Watergate was about breaking the dam of secrecy in the Nixon white house.
But media are so invested in the 'hope and hype' of the Obama presidency that it will waterdam any scandal and limit the fallout only to the small fish while the king is protected.
The media, with its credibility on the line for promoting Obama so uncritically...
On the line from whom?
Someone in the Krugman comments made a good point, that it is retarded to expect Hispanics to become "white" in 50 years, when whites will make up 35% of the country. It's much more likely that the white bloc will fragment. It already has begun to, with people claiming their irish or italian heritage for oppression cred, or emphasizing their remote Native american ancestor. Having a black ancestor used to be something to hide, but who can honestly say they'd be dismayed about it now?
Actually I suspect that jewish republican vote is going to steadily increase over next few cycles as orthodox jews birth rate dominance begins to take effect. More than 50% of jewish children in ny metro area are orthodox. It is likely that within 10-20 years GOP will win majority of jewish vote in ny metro. Florida due to elderly skew will not swing as dramatically
How weird. Steve asks why Jews moved GOP in one post and answers himself in the very next:
'Also, a lot of ultra-Orthodox Jews now live in this area (there were zero when I was a kid)...'
Don't believe he's ever done that before.
for the Sarah Silverman Reason.
What? Is this an inside joke I'm not getting?
I read the whole thing and don't see the relevance. Apart from learning that Sara Silverman isn't the least bit funny (to gauge by the jokes quoted), the only relevance I can see is the reference to Jewish influence in the media. If so, this allusion is pretty opaque.
Either you're too clever by half or I'm too stupid by half.
Could be both, I suppose.
anonymous:"Somewhat off topic, but just yesterday I was sitting having lunch with three female colleagues--two black and one white--and the discussion leaned into race. I can't remember the exact contact, but the white woman who was with us informed one of the black women who was with us, "I'm not white." I knew where this was heading. The black woman asked, "What you mean you ain't white?" I chuckled to myself. But before I could say, "Holly's Jewish." Holly herself announced, "I'm Jewish and we don't consider ourselves white." Just like Mike Wallace and Hitler, I thought to myself."
A classmate of mine tried the SWPL "I'm Jewish, therefore I'm not White" schtick during a post-colonial studies seminar (don't ask). The teacher practically jumped down the guy's throat, excoriating him for daring to appropriate the oppressed status of People of Color, etc.
Syon
Krugman:"Some of the attempts to predict future trends argue that over time Hispanics will become politically “white”, the way Irish and Italians did. Maybe, although somehow that hasn’t happened yet to my tribe."
Krugman's use of "white" (gotta love the obligatory scare quotes)is interesting. Guess he's bought into Ignatiev's HOW THE IRISH BECAME WHITE bunk.
Of course, given the fact that Krugman's wife (Robin Wells) is herself a blue-eyed, pseudo-Black woman, his belief in the "socially constructed" nature of racial identity is quite understandable.
Syon
Via THE DAILY CALLER:"By increasing legal immigration, Republicans will dilute the level of anti-Republican resentment among the immigrant community and its descendants so long as the Republican Party embraces the new immigrants as Americans.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/09/the-you-cant-outflank-democrats-on-immigration-fallacy/#ixzz2CA39hCoo"
Joshua Culling has the answer folks.It's all about volume!
Syon
Hmmm
Of course the libs tend to ignore the things most blatantly obvious to their eyes. Leaving aside the more abstract ideas that Hispanics have had a wider divergence in culture, intelligence, etc. from the Anglo-Saxon Americans than have Italians or the Irish, the fact that they are in fact usually NOT WHITE and Italians and Irish usually ARE WHITE might have something to do with it.
Browns may hate blacks, but what do they get by hating blacks? Nothing.
What do they get by hating whites? Amnesty and welfare.
I say Israel should take in more Muslims because they make natural Jews. I mean they don't eat pork either.
By the way, shouldn't Jews make natural Republicans since they are so rich and privileged?
So, if that ain't working out, how is this Mexican-turn-into-Republican turn out?
Okay, how about we make a deal with liberal Jews. Since they are rich and privileged, if they all come over to the GOP, we'll support amnesty for the Mexers. We expect rich republican Jewish friends to use their media/academia muscle to turn hispanics into patriotic americans who love white folks.
Now, that is pretty fair-sounding deal.
"Some of the attempts to predict future trends argue that over time Hispanics will become politically “white”, the way Irish and Italians did. Maybe, although somehow that hasn’t happened yet to my tribe."
Yeah, and I see blacks turning Jewish in about 50 yrs. Whole lot of black Einsteins for the future.
And then I woke up.
PS: I must say it seems all white folks are turning 'gay'.
A classmate of mine tried the SWPL "I'm Jewish, therefore I'm not White" schtick during a post-colonial studies seminar (don't ask). The teacher practically jumped down the guy's throat, excoriating him for daring to appropriate the oppressed status of People of Color, etc.
Ironic ... "post-colonial studies" are practically a Jewish invention. And did the cover liberated Eastern Europe in the 1990s? And was the teacher white, Jewish, or other? IME, liberal whites are far more hysterial about this stuff than so-called People of Colour themselves.
As it turns out Blacks in the US determine who is White. Since blacks tried to lynch George Zimmerman, I think Blacks recognize him and Hispanics as white. And after centuries of oppression they must know.
White people for the last 20 years have been turning into themselves. The world is doomed!
If hispanics are natural Republicans, then how come they don't, you know ............. vote Republican. The definition of a "natural Republican" now seems to be: "someone who does not actually vote for the GOP".
I say Israel should take in more Muslims because they make natural Jews. I mean they don't eat pork either.
CG baby CG
Jews aren't white. lollzzz. What chutzpah!
anonymous:"ironic ... "post-colonial studies" are practically a Jewish invention."
Are they? Most of the post colonial studies people that I have personally met (I'm an academic) are People of Color. the field is something of an affirmative action set aside for them.
Anonymous;'And did the cover liberated Eastern Europe in the 1990s?"
No. White people don't count. The only exception was Ireland, which is viewed as the first victim of "White Anglo" imperialism.
anonymous:"And was the teacher white, Jewish, or other? IME, liberal whites are far more hysterial about this stuff than so-called People of Colour themselves."
MMM. Since Ashkenazi Jews are White, I assume that want to know if the teacher was a White Jewish guy or a White Gentile guy or a Person of color? The teacher was a Black guy from Jamaica.
Syon
"I'm Jewish and we don't consider ourselves white."
Tell it to the flash mob.
I really hate Paul Krugman. He is the maximum debt pimp. You can find out Paul Krugman's position on the national debt by asking the average liberal the dollar amount by which he wants to increase the national debt, then doubling it. By advocating absurd increases to the public debt, Krugman provides cover to other debt pimps and makes them seem reasonable by comparison.
My version of American history in a nutshell is this: Mechanization of agriculture led to migration to the cities where unemployment became the central problem in 1929 and has been the central problem ever since. But rather than coping with it by encouraging religious organizations to help (as the Mormons and Amish do today) or by encouraging private mutual aid societies to form, Americans allowed bankers to make money off it by peddling government debt. Bankers advocated and continue to advocate deficit spending that lines their own pockets while sinking the nation ever deeper into debt slavery. The combination of those super-wealthy bankers plus those who feed off government is the Obama majority.
The debt pimps' hall of shame includes J.M. Keynes, FDR, LBJ, G.W. Bush, and Obama. But my choice as poster boy for Debt Pimp of the Decade is Paul Krugman.
Some basic facts to bring people up to speed on immigration. According to a Pat Buchanan book, in which he quotes the JFK immigration book written in 1958, in the 350 years from 1607 (Jamesstown Colony) to 1958, we took in 42 million,mostly European immigrants.
In the 47 years since the 1965 Immigration Act, we have taken in some 50 million, mostly third world immigrants.
OK, with that in mind, I am seeing republicans and democrats pushing for reform. No one is talking about legal immigration and curtailing that number. The point is third worlders have already gotten more of their people here than we Europeans have. The only reason Europeans have more people here is because our immigrant ancestors had kids, who had kids, who had kids, etc. for 400 years.
So I say the third worlders have had their due. Why continue to take in more? Our population is now over 310 million and will hit 400 million. Do we want that? How many people do they want to live here?
"Some of the attempts to predict future trends argue that over time Hispanics will become politically “white”, the way Irish and Italians did. Maybe, although somehow that hasn’t happened yet to my tribe."
Um, maybe because your tribe invented anti-white politics, and has been fabulously successful at the practice of it. Maybe that's it.
And what incentives might Hispanics have at this point to become "politically white"? Do they think their kids get into college too easily? Might they worry that might get some favortism in the workplace? Do they aspire to the warm feelings, positive opinions and general good will directed towards white people by the larger culture?
No. White people don't count. The only exception was Ireland, which is viewed as the first victim of "White Anglo" imperialism.
Not Wales and Scotland, in that order?
It's interesting whether Hispanics will become politically white, but I'm more interested in the question of whether they'll become racially white. (To spell out the obvious: I'm not talking about biological race here.) Or if not "pure" Hispanics, then children of intermarriage. I'm always surprised that some of the more inquisitive people on the race realist right - that is, Steve Sailer - haven't really considered that question. One question is, Will that happen? Another question is, Would that be a good thing?
On The Jews, I don't think the Republican Party has been pandering to Jews. Certainly not on Israel: there, Republicans have clearly been taking positions that American Jews tend to oppose. It's the Democrats that match Jews on Israel. The Republicans are pandering to evangelical Zionists like the CUFI people. They're much more right-wing (by Israeli standards) than are American Jews.
somehow that hasn’t happened yet to my tribe.
Funnily enough, that always seems to be the case wherever Krugman's tribe goes...
Re: No. White people don't count. The only exception was Ireland, which is viewed as the first victim of "White Anglo" imperialism.
& Re: Not Wales and Scotland, in that order?
British history 101: It was the Normans who conquered Wales and Ireland, after they conquered Anglo-Saxon England.
Technically Scotland entered the union voluntarily in 1707....
Glad to have cleared that up.
anonymous:"ironic ... "post-colonial studies" are practically a Jewish invention."
Are they? Most of the post colonial studies people that I have personally met (I'm an academic) are People of Color. the field is something of an affirmative action set aside for them.
So you're sayimg that someone else "set aside" these positions for "People of Color". How is that supposed to refute the claim that someone else invented "post-colonial studies"?
It's interesting whether Hispanics will become politically white, but I'm more interested in the question of whether they'll become racially white. (To spell out the obvious: I'm not talking about biological race here.) Or if not "pure" Hispanics, then children of intermarriage. I'm always surprised that some of the more inquisitive people on the race realist right - that is, Steve Sailer - haven't really considered that question. One question is, Will that happen? Another question is, Would that be a good thing?
We consider it a good thing in the same way that you consider it a good thing when your wife has another man's child. Go read your Pentateuch, and note all the wonderful things it has to say about adultery.
A Jewish reader writes to point out that McCain's running mate Sarah Palin drove Jews crazy.
I think the results are a little fluky. Especially when you consider that Romney is a Mormon - which should have been a turnoff to Jewish voters. The GOP did pretty well with the Jewish vote all things considered. Certainly propaganda from Israel didn't hurt. But older New York Jews seem to really detest Obama, more than you would expect. They try to come up with political reasons, which mostly sound bogus coming from traditional Democrats. The truth is Obama is a Schwarzer, and a lot of New York Jews don't want a Schwarzer in charge. After the Dinkins experience, who can blame them?
I wonder what might have been if average iq of anglo-americans were 130, higher than that of Jews. I see most Jews just assimilating.
Jews wouldnt bother showing up in the US in that case.
Savitri Devi said: Not Wales and Scotland, in that order?
Hunsdon (how appropriate!) said: In the Halls of Greivance, historical truth must play second fiddle to the narrative.
Steve recounted: Sarah Palin drove Jews crazy.
Hunsdon observed: Yes, her virulent anti-semitism and hatred for the State of Israel put us all off our feed, just a little.
Dennis Dale summed up: The easy answer is that BO defied Bibi on Iran.
Hunsdon commented: Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. But no one notices, or at least, no one says anything about it.
x said: jews are the classic counter example to the effectiveness of minority pandering.
Hunsdon gets hip with: X, we so live in the age of the double down. If you do something that doesn't work, well, you just need to do more of it.
The Republicans are pandering to evangelical Zionists like the CUFI people. They're much more right-wing (by Israeli standards) than are American Jews.
CUFI has very close ties to AIPAC:
http://www.jewsonfirst.org/07a/hagee_aipac.html
Political Christian Zionism was a creation of the Likudniks:
http://www.theocracywatch.org/christian_zionism.htm#Likud
(...)
Government support of settlement building accelerated dramatically in 1977 when Menachem Begin became Prime Minister. Begin's ultranationalist notions had made him a figure on the fringe for the first three decades of Israel's existence, but his Likud Party had finally come to power.
Ironically, Begin won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1978, along with President Anwar Sadat of Egypt, for signing the Camp David Accords. Thanks to skillfully managed negotiations on the part of U.S. President Jimmy Carter, Begin agreed to return the Sinai desert to Egypt, but refused to discuss the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. And this is where our story begins - the same year that the Camp David Accords were signed.
That year, 1978, Begin invited The Reverend Jerry Falwell for his first official visit to Israel, and the following year, 1979, his government gave Falwell a gift -- a Lear Jet.
Begin's timing was perfect. He began working seriously with Christian Zionists at the precise moment that Christian fundamentalists in America were discovering their political voice.
The same year that Falwell received his Lear Jet, 1979, he formed the Moral Majority, an organization that changed the political landscape in the United States.
(...)
It's interesting whether Hispanics will become politically white, but I'm more interested in the question of whether they'll become racially white. (To spell out the obvious: I'm not talking about biological race here.) Or if not "pure" Hispanics, then children of intermarriage. I'm always surprised that some of the more inquisitive people on the race realist right - that is, Steve Sailer - haven't really considered that question. One question is, Will that happen? Another question is, Would that be a good thing?
As Rev. Right pointed out upthread, there are more advantages to being Hispanic. That means whites will become "Hispanic" rather than the other way around. Economics may be largely BS, but hardly anyone disputes the assertion that when you subsidize something you get more of it.
A lot of Obama's worst behavior is the sort of stuff that is usually supported by the media, even to the point of not reporting much on it. Murdering and mistreating foreigners when you meaningfully mutter the words "national security" and "terrorism" gets a huge amount of deference from the MSM. Beyond that, most of the really scary stuff (kill lists, NDAA, massive domestic spying) are bipartisan consensus policies, so neither Democratic nor Republican hacks and shils have much reason to talk about them. Similarly, Obama's AA policies, like Bush's, are supported by the consensus of the powerful in the US, and so get little MSM criticism. Our acts of war against Iran (if they funded a terrorist group that assassinated US nuclear scientists and injected a computer virus that wrecked important US military faciiities, we would have no trouble calling it a war) under Obama get a pass for the same reasons.
So, what's left to attack him on? Big deficits during a recession? Yeah, you can see from the unified front of most everyone powerful talking about how we must avoid the fiscal cliff what kind of actual criticism is likely there. Libya? Only wasting a billion dollars and losing three people is a bargain compared to our routine screwign around with other countries that usually doesn't even seem important enough to influence anyone's vote. Bailouts for politically important industries? Impunity for the powerful and hammering those who annoy them? Yeah, that's an issue that gets the MSM interested, and that the GOP is likely to push back on. What a joke!
fnn said..."As Rev. Right pointed out upthread, there are more advantages to being Hispanic. That means whites will become "Hispanic" rather than the other way around...."
I have a friend (blond-haired blue-eyed FL native, likely of French descent judging by the last name, played big time college football) whose wife is native Chilean. Racially speaking she seems to be about evenly divided between Spanish, Italian, and some German - as far as I can tell there is no native American blood. I tease her that her grandfather likely moved there in late 1945 under cover of darkness using a false name. They have both their daughters use her last name. Both of the daughters (blue eyed) will check off "hispanic" on college applications, etc. Following the thread of illogic that is affirmative action, will it eventually be like the lottery - a tax on dumb people? Maybe one day the only whites suffering from affirmative action will be ones that haven't the foresight to change their names to Carlos Rodriguez or La'Dondre Washington.
"A Jewish reader writes to point out that McCain's running mate Sarah Palin drove Jews crazy."
White woman with white kids. Volkess.
Actually I suspect that jewish republican vote is going to steadily increase over next few cycles as orthodox jews birth rate dominance begins to take effect. More than 50% of jewish children in ny metro area are orthodox. It is likely that within 10-20 years GOP will win majority of jewish vote in ny metro. Florida due to elderly skew will not swing as dramatically
Insofar as this is true, the Jewish vote will cease to mean anything, since it's currently just a euphemism for "Jewish money," and Orthodox Jews don't have any.
Svigor wrote "Insofar as this is true, the Jewish vote will cease to mean anything, since it's currently just a euphemism for "Jewish money," and Orthodox Jews don't have any"
Not entirely true that they don't have any, but they certainly don't spend it on political campaigns.
Post a Comment