Replies

Thanks for clarifying that. Finances do play a role but that goes for any group that is organized (and I think that is the key term). For instance, economic boycott of Georgia by black Americans "helped" change the state flag which some Americans of African ancestry found offensive.

In close races, any vote counts. GW won with about 500 votes total. That could have come from the Wiccans for all you know.

What I am saying is this: I agree that money and organized special interest groups play a role, but singling out the "Jewish vote" as something that will make or break an election is plain ridiculous. That only feeds into those right-wing claims that the Jews exert some magical control in the invisible background.

Another misconception is that all Jews think alike or have the same "agenda." Sen. Kerry is Catholic but he is also pro-abortion and there are many voices in the Catholic community calling on the Church to ban him from taking the Communion. Being Catholic doesn't mean he is pursuing a Catholic "agenda."

Besides, "Jewish vote" cannot possibly mean just that. Among Jewish Americans, just as anywhere else in the world, Jews vote liberal and conservative, some are radical, Orthodox, Ultraorthodox, you name it. To imply that there is some "monolithic" Jewish voting block is not supported by the political distribution of Jewish Americans in both major parties, who cannot agree any more than other members of those parties can, except when it comes to support of Israel -- and most American administrations and public are right there with them.

Four percent may help carry a state of great importance for the electoral college (such as New York) but that doesn't win elections unless the race is really close (actually within the margin of statistical error, and that's +/- 5%). I just think that the so-called "Jewish vote" has become another cliche phrase that the media and politicians use that gives a wrong impression and is not based in reality.