Maybe, but not necessarily for the Democrats.
Republicans are touting a poll by a firm that works closely with the GOP — McLaughlin & Associates — and that they say shows "a plurality" of Jews would prefer not voting for President Obama if elections were held today. Here’s the McLaughlin page touting the results and here’s the whole poll (pdf), and here’s the question:
Would you vote to re-elect Barack Obama as President or would you consider voting for someone else?
Re-Elect 42
Someone Else 46
Don’t Know/Refused 12
A couple of points:
* The poll has a plus/minus margin of error of 4 percentage points. That makes 46-42 a tie, not a "plurality." McLaughlin headlines its release, "A plurality of Jewish voters would consider someone else for President."
* Still, it’s not good news for Obama — and it gibes with the dipping approval rates we highlighted in our AJC poll story earlier this week.
But here’s the thing: We don’t know if the voters would prefer another Democrat — McLaughlin doesn’t ask.
Ted Deutch, a Florida Democrat, just handily won Robert Wexler’s old seat in what Democrats says is the most Jewish district in the country (encompassing Broward and Palm counties) — with 62 percent, and this was after his opponent hammered him on Obama’s perceived coolness to Israel.
Michael Barone, a conservative, has a smart analysis in the Washington Examiner (h.t Eric Fingerhut) of that race and another 19 "Jewish" districts around the country — and says Jews are still solidly with the Democrats:
There’s likely to be very little falloff in Democratic percentages among Jewish voters. But this will not be a major factor in the large majority of seriously contested Senate and House races.
* The whole poll is so skewed as to be otherwise useless. Respondents were asked these questions, for instance:
Do you approve or disapprove of the Obama Administration supporting a plan to recognize a Palestinian state within 2-years regardless of whether or not Israel agrees?
Should Jerusalem remain the undivided capital of Israel or should the United States force Israel to give parts of Jerusalem, including Christian and Jewish holy sites, to the Palestinians?
As I pointed out yesterday, analyzing World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder’s letter to Obama, there is no U.S. plan to "recognize a Palestinian state within two years," much less "whether or not Israel agrees." The Palestinians have a plan to declare such a state (but not with established borders); the United States opposes unilateral actions.
And there is no plan to "force" Israel to give up any part of Jerusalem — It’s hard to know where this even comes from. U.S. policy is to leave the fate of the city to the negotiating parties. And the parameters promoted by President Clinton in 2000 — in consultation with Israeli and Palestinian negotiators — leave the Jewish Quarter in Israeli hands. Obama has not even come near this issue.
What I’d like to know is: When did they ask the "Obama or another candidate" question — before or after they depicted the fantasy Obama-Kong who’s busy scooping up the Western Wall and plopping it down at the Muqata? The placement of questions can skew answers.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
