Once upon a time, the Jews were among the most strongly-fought and fiercely-sought “swing blocs” in U.S. electoral politics – a veritable treasure trove of undecided voters with no monolithic allegiance to one party or the other.
My, how things have changed … as this year’s presidential candidates are giving God’s chosen more lip service than legitimate voter cultivation.
Their perpetual success disqualifying them from the race of disenfranchised firsts, the Jews’ political gravitas has always hung not on the bough of electoral diversity but on the pendulum of conflicting positions.
Perched on that pendulum, the Jews swing to the left on social issues but quickly return to the right on foreign policy, situating them as that rare segment whose vote is legitimately up for grabs.
In a nation split almost cleanly in halves, the direction of the Jewish vote can inch elections just that smidgen that tips the balance.
Like a cake that’s been sliced and spliced and handed out save for a tiny sliver, the Jews get to decide into which plate to put that last piece – deciding, essentially, who will have his cake and eat it too.
And not surprisingly, hungry politicians once upon a time appealed for every crumb.
Once upon a time, indeed, but no longer.
Now that “real” minorities have made their cameo, politicians have abandoned their courtship of Jewish voters. What’s left is a confused Jewish electorate, stunned not to be at the center of fawning political ubiquity and ripe for the pickin’ by the first party to nod its way.
As up for grabs as its always been, the Jewish vote is even more so this time around: Reeling from abandonment and desperate for attention, the Jews might be the surest bet for whichever party remembers them first.
So why aren’t the candidates paying attention?
By WTF September 6, 2008 at 1:44 pm
“Their perpetual success disqualifying them from the race of disenfranchised firsts, the Jews’ political gravitas has always hung not on the bough of electoral diversity but on the pendulum of conflicting positions.”
Hoo boy. That is some really atrocious writing. I have no idea what it means.
By fitsnews September 6, 2008 at 1:56 pm
WTF-
We would expect no less from an arch-defender of this state’s failed public education system.
-FITSNews
By WTF September 6, 2008 at 2:32 pm
And a product of it. And, for all that, a much better writer than your Mande. But Will, how do you know I’m an arch-defender of our state’s public education system, since this is the first time I’ve posted under this name? I don’t care who knows what I believe, but isn’t it a little churlish of you to reveal what you know about a person’s identity, when the spirit and the glory of blogging is anonymity?
By fitsnews September 6, 2008 at 3:27 pm
WTF-
Churlish?
“Hoo boy. That is some really atrocious writing.”
“We have no idea what that means.”
-FITSNews
P.S. – You can enter whatever e-mail address you want in the comment field. Why don’t you do that the next time you’re inclined to moronisitude.
By Amazed September 6, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Back to the original point of the article……. This is one Jewish family that will be voting for McCain/Palin! So much for that liberal label everyone likes to hang on your average Jew.
By Mincing Words September 6, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Amazed,
I am glad to hear it! As a Jew, what appeals to you about McCain/Palin and what does not appeal to you about Obama/Biden?
By Steve Waylis September 6, 2008 at 9:35 pm
So why aren’t the candidates paying attention?
The overwhelming majority of the Jewish vote is squarely in the McCain-Palin camp and both sides know it.
The combinaton of McCain’s long time support for Israel and Obama’s intention to tax the wealthy has made that a slam-dunk for the GOP.
By Moron September 6, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Moronisitude? I think maybe moronisinitis…I think Tinactin will clear that up…John Madden pushes it, though, so I could be wrong…
By Deficient Dicky September 6, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Perhaps what does not appeal to Amazed is Obama’s Muslim background, his preacher’s hatred of all things not black and his general danger to the nation.
By baker September 7, 2008 at 12:44 am
Will, I’m not really invested in this argument over Mande’s writing (I think her adherence to facts and sound logic is often atrocious, but that’s another issue), and I respect your coming to her offense. I would say, however, that I would imagine you agree that large words and over-long sentences do not equate to great writing.
Just as a simple song is often stronger than one with tons of chord changes and mile-a-minute guitar playing, I’d argue that simple, direct writing usually works better than needlessly complex sentence structures with needlessly obscure vocabulary. In fact, reaching for fanciful terms and impressive phrases can land a writer in trouble…..I’d dispute the use of the word “gravitas” in the context Mande used it….but what do I know? I’m just a graduate of the SC public schools.
Beyond all that and more importantly, I guess I’m not sure what to make of some of Mande’s assertions in this column. What’s this about “real minorities” making a “cameo”? What does Mande mean by a “cameo”? Seems to me that African-Americans have been on the scene a while — not just making a cameo. Hispanics seem to be here to stay. To whom is Mande referring? Or, here again, was “cameo” a poor choice of words?
And why is “real” set aside by quotes in referring to minorities? More weird stuff from Mande about black people? Something else?
And she asserts that Jews are “reeling,” “desperate,” and “confused.” “Stunned,” even.
Really?
Is that true?
I know that this is an opinion column — not traditional reporting. Nonetheless, these are strong claims that leave me wondering what evidence Mande has. Maybe there’s plenty — I certainly don’t know. But I guess I didn’t realize that Jews were, as a voting segment, desperate or reeling or stunned….
By ScooterLiddy September 7, 2008 at 1:56 am
The new site design is pretty hard to digest. Liked the old one better.
By tammy September 7, 2008 at 2:33 am
I used to work for the Anti-Defamation League in Los Angeles and learned lots from that experience. One thing I learned was that Jewish people aren’t a ‘vote’ up for a grab. They’re just like the rest of us…Americans concerned about issues affecting this county…plenty of conservative and liberal to go around just like anywhere else.
And the candidates are paying attention to them. On that you can rest assured.
By BIN News Editorial Staff September 7, 2008 at 3:33 am
sic(k) willie, look up the work “churlish” in the dictionary. You will find your picture. “Churlish” is an excellent word that describes this entire site.
WTF, Mande is a little like sic(k) willie. She likes to hear herself talk even when she make little or no sense. Mande would be better off spending her time preparing to take the bar exam, again. Maybe she can pass it this time.
Until she gets a job you can expect her to be filler for sic(k) willie’s churlish web site.
BIN News Editorial Staff
By BIN News Editorial Staff September 7, 2008 at 3:35 am
“makes”
By atc September 7, 2008 at 9:41 am
The writing is truly bad. Truly bad. Simple is better. You make a point by making it directly and succintly.
By Mincing Words September 7, 2008 at 9:47 am
Goodness but you are a nasty bitch, BIN. By the way, since your posts are time dated, we know that you are such a loser you have nothing to do but stalk your idol, Will Folks, at 3:30 in the morning. Do you sneak out of your pastel pink room in your mom’s house after she’s put you in bed (at 9:30 pm, I am sure) and tiptoe to family computer in the den with the shag carpet so that you can engage in your journalistic fantasies while Ma, Pa, John-Boy and the rest of the sibs are sleeping peacefully?
By Mande Wilkes September 7, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Baker – Since you’re so into being succinct, you could have summed up all that commentary about my writing with one word: Effusive.
Of course, that is a *big word* and all, but I trust you can find your way around a dictionary.
By FWFIV September 7, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Mande-
If you are going to make snide comments about Baker’s criticism, please answer all of his objections to the article. You completely ignored the larger issue he raised which questioned the factual basis of your post.
By Mande Wilkes September 7, 2008 at 7:01 pm
FWFIV – I think Baker addressed his own objections when he correctly classified the article as an opinion piece.
Now, if you’ve got your own objections, then by all means state them…
By Nope September 7, 2008 at 8:34 pm
“Effusive” is not the word you’re looking for. “Pretentious” or “affected.” Those would do it.
By baker September 7, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Here are a couple definitions of “effusive.”
ef·fu·sive (-fysv)
adj.
1. Unrestrained or excessive in emotional expression; gushy: an effusive manner.
2. Profuse; overflowing: effusive praise.
——————————————————————————–
No, Mande, I don’t think “effusive” is the word at all for your writing.
“Verbose” is a better word. It also strikes me as “pretentious,” though I don’t know you well enough to feel particularly comfortable with that accusation.
Speaking of opinions and accusations and the like, most opinion columns still have some grounding in basic evidence — some data, a collection of quotes, patterns of behavior….something. Just throwing around words like “desperate” and “stunned” with nothing to back it up is assuming an awful lot, in my opinion.
I’m still confused about the bit on “‘real’ minorities” making a “cameo.”
By Red Bank Bar September 7, 2008 at 9:28 pm
There’s no confusion here. Mande is a stupid b#tch. Reality bites, but that’s the case with her. There is no other explanation.
Tell us again about the 13th Amendment, Mande, I still snicker at that bit of ignorant non-legal reasoning.
By Mande Wilkes September 7, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Pretentious? Me? Hardly…Daddy always said an ounce of pretention is like a pound of manure.
By BIN News September 8, 2008 at 1:18 am
Mandeee,
You’re cute. But makeup would help your pic with the shine on your forehead and your puffy cheeks. Red Bank Bar is crass (subtract the “cr”), but that does not change the fact that you’re full of tension, pretension, pretention and manure.
Spend more time preparing to take the bar exam, again. You’re wasting time on this blog. sic(k) willie is using you like a bar of soap on a rope.
BIN News Editorial Staff
Flair and Balanced
By Agnes September 8, 2008 at 6:19 am
Criminy Girl! You must be doing something right — or these people wouldn’t be so bent on dissecting your every syllable, swatting down your every thought!
I think the seasoned Jewish ladies are still planning on some sort of revolt — and don’t like either candidate. And yes, I *love* to paint huge populaces with my opinions :)
By candace bergen-belsen September 8, 2008 at 9:00 am
I am sorry I read this article.
By sid September 8, 2008 at 4:16 pm
baker,
Why are you so eager to point out you have poor reading and comprehension skills? Or do you just not understand politics? I believe the point Mande made, which you failed to comprehend, was that, while “African-Americans have been on the scene a while,” the perception is that they do not actually go out and vote in large numbers. That appears to have changed this cycle, thus, the “cameo” was likely in reference to the belief that they will show up at the polls in greater numbers this November than in the past. Or is that too complex for you to understand? As for Hispanics, perhaps the same reasoning, although I am not familiar with their voting numbers this cycle, either anticipated or realized. So, she’s not talking about them being here, literally, but “here” as in here making a true political impact.
As for the other stuff, as you said, it’s an opinion piece. This isn’t a research paper that requires documentation. Some opinion pieces go into greater detail to support a stated position, while some offer less. At least, that’s my opinion, so if you want documentation, you’re out of luck.
By Anonymous September 8, 2008 at 4:21 pm
CBB,
I’m sorry you did too. Your name sounded so familiar I had to google it, thinking you were a movie star! Alas, your name is linked to a porno-site.
Now I am ***really*** going to get in trouble at work!
By baker September 8, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Ah, Sid. Maybe you’re right. Thank you so much for the explanation.
I suppose I disagree with the premise. Sure, black voters have been out in greater-than-normal force in 2008….but the black voter population has been a pretty significant group for a while. Certainly, African-Americans have had an important political role to play for quite some time. And I still wonder about the intent of “‘real’ minorities.”
Meanwhile, I’ve read plenty of opinion pieces….opinion statements with no background evidence or substantiated rationale….well, I don’t generally think it’s the way to go.
But, anyway, thanks again, Sid.
By Agnes September 9, 2008 at 8:55 am
Here’s some rationale on this election:
We would like another choice besides chocolate or vanilla.
What Would Baskin Robbins Do???
By sid September 9, 2008 at 11:10 am
baker,
You can drop the “Ah, Sid.” It’s just sid. See what I did there? I took your attempt at being funny and made it even funnier. I’m so clever.
Anyway, you can disagree with the premise, but if you are going to do so, you need to supply some actual reasoning. Or is Mande the only one who needs to back up her opinions?
The fact is that the black vote has, for the most part, been going to Democrats since the ’60s. Perhaps longer. But name me one Presidential election since 1964 where the outcome was said to be determined by the black vote. Lately it’s been soccer moms and NASCAR dads. There were the Reagan Democrats. There’s always talk about the Rust Belt and the Bible Belt. And, of course, the union vote. But rarely (if ever) do you hear talk about the black vote, other than in the Democratic Primary. This year, it’s different.
The general concept is, if you get 80% of the vote of a particular block of voters, but only 20% of those eligible to vote go to the polls, then the role played by that block is far less significant than if 50%+ go to the polls. Get it? These numbers are not actual stats, but used just for the sake of example. I’m sure if you wanted to do a little research you could find real numbers to prove/disprove the concept.
As for your views on the quality of the work in question, I think your opinion is better summed up by saying, “I don’t like Mande, and will pick every nit I can find.” If her work is so bad, surely everyone else will see that and ignore it. I don’t think anyone needs your guidance as to what to accept and what to reject. You just don’t impress me that much as someone whose opinion carries any real weight. But that’s just my opinion.
By baker September 9, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I doubt my opinion does carry much weight, Sid.
I didn’t “back up my opinion” about the influence of blacks politically because I figured it was accepted fact. You seem to dispute that notion, and that’s fine. I understand your reasoning and you make some good points.
Nonetheless, whether or not black voters cast the deciding swing vote in many elections, politicians from both parties address black organizations such as the NAACP…it’s part of the political process. Certainly, the black vote has probably decisive for Democrats a number of times. I don’t have the math in front of me, but would Bill Clinton have won in 1992 without gaining a huge majority of the black vote?
And within the Democratic Party, gaining the upper hand on the African-American vote is seen as a key. That block of voters is pretty vital. It’s certainly more pronounced this year, and, yes, I think that in the general election black voter turnout could be a huge factor.
But in no way would agree that African-American influence in elections is anything new. After all, some have alleged that the GOP tried to keep black voters in Florida from voting in 2000, paving the way for George W. Bush’s Presidency…..not sure I agree with the voter suppression argument, but point is that people have discussed intensely the role black voters (or non-voters) played in that historic election.
By sid September 9, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Actually, Clinton got 83% of the black vote in ’92. That’s about par for Dems. Gore, on the other hand, got 90%, and Kerry got 88%. Both lost. Clinton won, mostly, because of Perot, plus some misguided Republicans.
As for courting the black vote, nobody said candidates don’t try. The question is whether or not they represent a decisive block. Again, name me a presidential election where people claim the black vote was one of the deciding factors. Clinton in ’92 simply doesn’t work.
The Democratic Party fight for the black vote in primaries is understood, and I already mentioned that. But it’s nice to see you do concede the crux of Mande’s point you originally tried to question. I agree with you when you say “in the general election black voter turnout could be a huge factor.” Again, that was the point of the “cameo” comment. Historically, not as big a factor in the general. This year, perhaps they will make an appearance to turn the election in Obama’s favor.
But don’t misread what Mande (I presume) and I are saying. People can discuss the role black voters play in the elections all they want. That’s not the debate. But discussing the role doesn’t mean that it is any greater than it actually is when the votes are all counted. Historically, that is. This year could very well be different. If that 80%+ holds, coupled with turnout higher than normal (which is the projection), Obama could very well win, and point to the black vote as one of the blocks that delivered him the White House. Again, that was the point of the “cameo” comment.
By baker September 9, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Sid, I guess I need to just defer to you, because you obviously have a clue in to Mande’s writing that I don’t. You may just be smarter than I am.
Still, you say “this year COULD be…” and “if that 80% holds…” Sounds to me that you’re talking in the future tense. Mande stated that “‘real’ minorities” (still not sure what ‘real’ means in this context) have already made their cameo — past tense. So, I guess I’m still not clear.
By sid September 10, 2008 at 10:43 am
Yes, the nits continue to be picked. Use of present tense v. future tense is a rather weak argument, but since you don’t seem to get it, I’ll try to elaborate, once more. The use of “cameo” is still appropriate, as the net effect of the black vote in this year’s D primary is obvious. The black vote tends to go 80% for Ds in the general, but in this year’s primary, one D got even higher support from that voting block. And the black vote was dramatically higher than ever before. So, increased turnout and voting overwhelmingly for one candidate is a “cameo.” Whether or not that translates to the general is speculation, but even if it does, it merely amounts to the same “cameo” for the single election cycle. If the numbers remain high for the next cycle, then you may argue it was not a “cameo,” but a dramatic, sustained shift.
One other aspect regarding the minority reference from Mande that I missed (and feel stupid about having done so) is the vote of women. I have yet to read her newer piece, but it seems that she may have been referring to the female “minority” in this piece we are discussing. If so, then the quotation marks were certainly appropriate. And perhaps our discussion, while fun, was simply missing the real point.
In all likelihood, however, I am “smarter” than you, at least by the conventional measuring standards. Then again, I’ve always tested very well. But I’ve also shown your positions to be false, which required a very small amount of research. So maybe I’m not actually “smarter” than you, but more willing to do a little research before making statements that can be easily refuted.
By Mincing Words September 10, 2008 at 10:44 am
Baker,
“REAL” minorities. As in the only minorities present in high enough numbers to affect elections, i.e., African Americans. As opposed to minorities-who-don’t-have-their-own-caucuses-in-Congress minorities, like Jewish Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders, Wiccans, etc. As in any other group whose voting block is too small (even if every last one of them showed up to vote),that no major candidate spends any amount of time courting.
It’s very simple, really.
By Nope September 10, 2008 at 9:37 pm
If the reasoning were better explicated, and the writing clearer, there wouldn’t be eleventy kabillion responses to this post trying to parse out what Mande really meant. My point has been made.
By baker September 11, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Yep, Nope.
By sid September 15, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Nope, Nope and baker. A couple of fits/Mande bashers are just looking for any argument, no matter how weak, to keep promoting their personal agendas. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is amusing, however, that in this case, in order to promote their views, they must acknowledge they have very weak skills when it comes to reading comprehension and political analysis. While people like baker may prefer authors keep writing simple so they can better understand the discussion, others clearly don’t mind a little mental exercise.
Advertising should be dumbed down for the widest possible understanding. The same standard should not be demanded of editorials, political discussions, or anything else that is actually designed to make people think. Personally, I’m far more turned off by simplistic, spoon-feeding of opinions. But that’s just my opinion.
Pingback: Veepin’ It Up - LIVE :: FITSNews