Voter Size question: Jewish, Muslim US voters?

[Alpharetta]

Can someone point me to numbers for

# Jewish US voters
# Arab American or Muslim US voters

?

Yes I know those are uncertain classification terms. But still I want to know some general numbers.

I'm just curious what their comparative sizes are, compared to other groups such as Hispanic or Asian, etc., and what the trends are, whether either of the groups is growing faster than the other. etc.

Thanks!

[Ian David]

1. Only 16% of Jews vote Republican.

Compare that to the 24% of gays that voted for Bush in 2004.

[Lurking Dem]

2. Demographics

Jewish is about 3%. I don't know about Muslim but would guess considerably less than that. I know that about 1/3 of American Muslims are African American and largely vote Democratic.

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. There's 6,155,000 Jews in U.S. and 3.5 million Arabs. TWICE AS MANY JEWS.

and the Progressives are willing to toss 77% of them to the wind because of their HATRED of Israel The Dems in Congress KNOW they cannot afford to lose the Jewish vote and that's why they IGNORE the Progressives when they spew their Anti-Israel bullshit. Thank G-d they don't listen to the people on DU.

Here's some info:


What is the approximate Jewish population in the United States?


According to the Jewish Virtual Library, there were an estimated 6,155,000 Jewish people in the United States in 2001, which is more than there were in any other country. (Israel came in second.) This represents approximately 2.2% of the total U.S. population.



http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/uslaner/uslanerlichbachjewishvotingbehaviorsummary.pdf


<snip>
Our key findings echo the words of the two party chairs. Jews who were most strongly
concerned with the security of Israel were more likely than other Jews to vote for President
George W. Bush, who championed himself as a great friend of Israel. The larger number of Jews
who strongly disliked evangelical Christians voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry. Overall,
almost 80 percent of Jews voted for Kerry (compared to 46 percent of non-Jews), similar to the
2
share of Jews who voted for Al Gore in 2000. Some Jews who voted for Gore shifted to Bush,
mostly on concerns for Israel. Other Jews who voted for Bush in 2004 shifted to Kerry, largely
because of fear of evangelicals.<snip>




2004 Jewish Vote Figures Revised in Unprecedented Data Analysis

April 12, 2005

Washington, DC: A study performed by polling professionals and academics, released today by The Solomon Project, concludes that the best estimate of the two-party Jewish vote in 2004 -- based on the National Election Pool -- is that 78 percent of American Jews voted for Senator John Kerry, while 22 percent of Jews voted for President Bush. When factoring in other presidential candidates, the study determined that the best estimate of the overall Jewish vote on Election Day shows 77 percent of American Jews voting for Kerry, versus 22 percent for Bush.

The analysis -- drawing from data sets including the National Election Pool and surveys by Jewish organizations, academic institutions, and others -- concludes that the Jewish vote has remained "remarkably stable" over the last three presidential elections, with American Jews voting 28 percent more Democratic than the national average in 1996, 30 percent more Democratic in 2000, and 29 percent more Democratic in 2004.

The report finds that a large majority of American Jews (from 65 to 74 percent) identify as Democrats, while estimates of the percentage of Jews who identify as Republicans range from 11-21 percent. While there have been indications that Bush captured a majority of Orthodox Jewish voters and Russian Jewish voters, the study found that "sample sizes for both of these subgroups were either unavailable or too small in all surveys to make any definitive claims regarding their partisan attachments in 2004." The analysis also notes a correlation between synagogue attendance and voting behavior, with voters who attend synagogue at least weekly voting 47 percent for Bush in one of the data sets examined.

The study additionally drew correlations between voting behavior and the gender and age of American Jews. The report notes that one relatively strong Republican subgroup among Jews includes Jewish men under 30 years of age, who voted 35 percent for Bush in one survey. The report found that the strongest Democratic subgroups included Jewish women who were 60 years of age or older (who voted 90 percent for Kerry) and Jewish women under 30 years of age (who voted 88 percent for Kerry). The analysis also addresses what it termed "a significant gender gap among Jewish voters in November 2004" -- a gap between Jewish men who voted for Kerry 70-28 percent (a 42 percent margin), and Jewish women who voted for Kerry 82-16 percent (a 66 percent margin).<snip>

http://thesolomonproject.org/pop_details.php?id=485



<snip>
As part of the outreach plan, Democrats are putting together a small group of Members to chart a course for the party to get back on track with one of their key voting blocks.

Democrats say both privately and publicly they have little concern that Republicans will be able to draw large numbers of Jewish voters or donors, but they remain worried the GOP will make enough gains to hurt them. By cutting into their support even slightly, Democrats acknowledge, the GOP can further cement its hold on the House majority.

Republicans have in recent months gone to great lengths to show strong support for Israel and made their presence felt at events for and on issues of importance to Jewish Americans.<snip>


http://democraticwhip.house.gov/media/articles.cfm?pressReleaseID=1144



Arabs:

Arab Americans in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida
voted 2 to 1 for Democratic candidate Senator John Kerry.
Overall Democrat Republican Independent
Bush 28.5 9 68.5 15
Kerry 63 86.5 25 71
Nader 2.5 0 3 7.5
US
Born Immigrant
Roman
Catholic Orthodox Muslim
Bush 30 23 33.5 47.5 6
Kerry 62 66.5 55 46.5 83
Nader 2.5 2.5 5 0 3.5

When we asked Arab American voters what kind of progress
they expected on specific issues, we received the following
response:
Iraq Economy
Civil
Liberties
War on Terror/
National
Security
Israel-
Palestine
US Image in
the Arab world
Substantially/
Somewhat Better 29.5 41.5 27 32 22 19
Substantially/
Somewhat Worse 55.5 40 42 43 48.5 60
No Difference 12 15 25.5 15.5 25 15


3.5 million Arabs and twice as many Jews still makes my point an IMPORTANT one.


Arab American Demographics

At least 3.5 million* Americans are of Arab descent. Arab Americans live in all 50 states, but two thirds reside in 10 states; one third of the total live in California, New York, and Michigan. About 94% live in metropolitan areas. Los Angeles, Detroit, New York/NJ, Chicago and Washington, D.C., are the top five metro areas of Arab American concentration.

Lebanese Americans constitute a greater part of the total number of Arab Americans residing in most states, except New Jersey, where Egyptian Americans are the largest Arab group. Americans of Syrian decent make up the majority of Arab Americans in Rhode Island, while the largest Palestinian population is in Illinois, and the Iraqi and Assyrian/Chaldean communities are concentrated in Illinois, Michigan, and California.

Source: http://www.aaiusa.org/arab-americans/22/demographics

According to that site, the majority of Arab Americans are Christian (only 24 percent identify as Muslim).

The site also states that Arab Americans in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida voted 2-1 for John Kerry.

Source: http://aai.bluestatedigital.com/page/file/45b1baa47f3c8

[Alpharetta]

4. Thanks, in_cog_ni_to. Good info n/t

[Lurking Dem]

5. Just a FYI

Israel recently surpassed the U.S. in Jewish population.

[msmcghee]

6. Since the question concerns voter segment size . .

. . I assume the topic is voter block strength of various ethnic groups.

This is important - however, both the Jewish and smaller Arab/American blocks are not as large as the number of voters outside both those groups who would vote Republican in a NY minute if they thought that Dems as a whole, would seriously support ME terrorists such as Hizbollah or Hamas or Islamic Jihad against Israel - as many here at DU seem to.

I am not one to encourage anyone to vote against (or edit) their beliefs in order to win a political majority - which is one reason why I'd never make a good politican.

But, I would hope that any anti-Israeli DU members here think carefully about their beliefs. They have sided with people who have pledged to kill Israelis and destroy the state of Israel - and against Israel's defenses of those repeated attacks. You can rationalize your beliefs all you want - in order to justify your hatred of (Bush, Republicans, Likud, Olmert, Jews, whatever).

But in so doing you are violating one of the most sacred liberal principles - especially the one that says we don't start wars but we'll gladly finish them for you if you want to start one with us or with our allies.

Those are the principles that my father and millions more from his generation sacrificed for in WWII. The world is a vastly better place today because of what they did. This liberal would gladly see Republicans in power for many more years before I would support a party who took the side of terrorists and killers against a democratic free state that recognizes the civil rights of its people - i.e. Israel - a state that has no violent intentions against any of its neighbors except when required to defend its borders and the lives of its citizens.

Since I have a strong and abiding dislike of anything Republican - you can imagine how those not so strongly anti-Republican as I am might feel come election day.

Again, I would not suggest that you change your position to help the Democratic Party, although that would be one result. But, I suggest that you do it because it's the liberal and moral thing to do.

[MrPrax]

8. So your a Republican?

This liberal would gladly see Republicans in power for many more years before I would support a party who took the side of terrorists and killers

So why do you support democrats when your clearly a 'single-issue' voter whose party preference would change if they don't agree with you?

But answer something...when exactly did liberals or even the Left ever support RW militarist governments in coalition with rabid religious fanatics and run by a guy wanted for war crimes questioning at the Hague?

You don't really find a lot of the traditional Left or 'liberals' signing up to support any other regime like this including virtually all of the ME?

Why use a cheap GOP tactic to mischaracterize opposition to Israel's foreign policies? The GOP constantly mischaracterizes the 'support our troops' slogan by insinuating that opponents don't support the troops, when they QUITE CLEARLY, are against what is being done with the troops by elected representatives?

[msmcghee]

9. Your post is almost incomprehensible.

But I'll try to figure out what you are trying to say / ask.

So why do you support democrats when your clearly a 'single-issue' voter whose party preference would change if they don't agree with you?

I support Democrats because no major Dem has adopted a position similar to - or even anything remotely like yours - unless maybe you think that Al Sharpton is a main-stream Dem. I'm not a single issue voter - because the support for Israel is not under serious debate by any major Dem in the party. Thank God they don't listen to people like you here at DU. BTW it has nothing to do with the Jewish lobby. They believe that Israel deserves our support. It's the right, liberal, American thing to do.

But answer something...when exactly did liberals or even the Left ever support RW militarist governments in coalition with rabid religious fanatics and run by a guy wanted for war crimes questioning at the Hague?

I do not consider a democratically elected government that respects the civil rights of its citizens who can vote to change that government - and which does not attack its neighbors except when defending its borders or its people's lives, a RW government. Just as our government under Truman was not a RW government. Today, our's is more a RW government than Israel - because we fabricated a reason to attack Iraq - something that Israel has never done to her enemies.

Any government in Israel's position must have a large emphasis on its military in order to survive. That doesn't make it RW. Likud is Israel's RW party. They are not in power.

You don't really find a lot of the traditional Left or 'liberals' signing up to support any other regime like this including virtually all of the ME?

That's not exactly a question but I think you are asking why. It's because there are no other democratically elected governments like Israel that are under constant threat from its neighbors who have vowed to destroy it. If there were other democratically elected governments in a similar situation - I think that a lot of the traditional Left or 'liberals' would be signing up to support it - because that's what liberals do. (Support democracies against theocratic and / or totalitarian regimes, like we did in WWII.)

Why use a cheap GOP tactic to mischaracterize opposition to Israel's foreign policies? The GOP constantly mischaracterizes the 'support our troops' slogan by insinuating that opponents don't support the troops, when they QUITE CLEARLY, are against what is being done with the troops by elected representatives?

This paragraph makes almost no sense. I don't know from "cheap GOP tactics" because I'm not a Republican, much less a Republican operative. My statements are what I believe. What does my support for US troops (or not) have to do with Israel?

The title of your post, "So your a Republican?" - is equivalent to me responding with a title like, "So you're a terrorist?". Note that I didn't do that because that's an ad hominem attack. Note also that it's you're - not your.

[MrPrax]

10. But...but...YOU said it n/t

This liberal would gladly see Republicans in power for many more years before I would support a party...

There are only TWO parties and you stated: "that Dems as a whole, would seriously support ME terrorists such as Hizbollah or Hamas or Islamic Jihad against Israel"

This is preposterous to say the least...so you have invented a 'democratic party' stand that NO ONE would even dream of and then state bluntly that IF the Democrats took this invented stand, you as a liberal would have NO problem voting for Republicans...

What is someone suppose to conclude?

You wrote it?

:shrug:

Since when is siding with international law? anti-Israel? or pro-terrorist? or whatever...like I was pointing out, however inelegantly, that your tactic is similar to the tactics used by the GOP, which regularly mischaracterizes democratic positions on issues, set them up as a strawman, and then proceeds to argue the 'strawman' and NOT the issues or the position...

I understand your frustration, but I don't think you will win many supporters to your point of view, if you go and trash their party and say the democrats support terrorism which is what you implied -- Cheney was just doing the same thing last week if I recall...so I think it is a fair question to ask.

Apologizes if I actually read what people post here...jeez

[msmcghee]

11. Look, I could care less . .

. . what you think about my future voting practices.

My point was that your position is a losing position for Dems generally - since many undecided voters would not stand with Dems against Israel and for terrorists - if Dems generally supported your position. (They don't.)

And that your's is a losing position morally and ethically - which is the more important reason for you to rethink it - assuming that you thunk it to start with - which doesn't seem too likely, right now.

. . but I don't think you will win many supporters to your point of view, if you go and trash their party and say the democrats support terrorism which is what you implied . .

a) Winning supporters would be nice but I have no expectations of that here.

b) I never said that Dems (generally) support terrorism. I said the opposite - that they did not.

I still can't understand what point you are trying to make. Let's just drop it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. But there is an offer for Peace between Arabs and Israelis

It was unanimously affirmed by the Arab League and immediately endorsed by the Palestinian leadership in March 2002. However, more or less the same plan has been offered by the Arab League and enthusiastically endorsed by the Palestinian leadership going back much, much longer. I would mention that even Hamas has endorsed the plan. (BTW: I do not have any sympathy whatsover with Hamas) I will post the full statement below along with an excellent article by Seth Ackerman of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting regarding the offer presented by Israel to the Palestinian leadership at the Camp David 2000 talks.

But first I feel I must say that just as it is deplorable, wrong and immoral to appeal to anti-Semitism as a tactic in this discussion. It is also deplorable wrong and immoral to appeal to anti-Arab fear and hatred as well. I sincerely hope you give that some thought. This does not help secure peace and security for Israel or anyone else.

Regarding your statement, " democratic free state that recognizes the civil rights of its people - i.e. Israel - a state that has no violent intentions against any of its neighbors except when required to defend its borders and the lives of its citizens" . I would humbly suggest that the leading Israeli human rights organizations do not hold such a view of the current situation and the most prominent and credible Israeli/Zionist historian do not necessarily hold such a lofty picture of the past. I must say that it is to the credit of Israeli society that they have passionate human rights advocates and and critical thinking historians. Unfortunately the same standard of human rights simply does not apply to nearly half the population who live in area encompassing Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

link:

B'tselem - the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories

http://www.btselem.org/english/About_BTselem/Index.asp

Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions:

http://www.icahd.org/eng/

The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel

http://www.stoptorture.org.il/eng/background.asp?menu=3&submenu=3
http://www.icahd.org/eng/

Physicians for Human Rights - Israel

http://www.phrusa.org/healthrights/phr_israel.html

-----------------

Regarding the historical Narrative you presented please allow me to quote former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, From Scars of War Wounds of Peace: The Arab/Israeli Tragedy, page 188 " A popular prejudice in Israel about the Arabs is that 'they only understand the language of force. But this can be said as well of the Israelis and some of the other parties in the conflict. " And this quote from page 42. "" It was that an Arab community in a state of terror facing a ruthless Israeli army whose path to victory was paved not only by its exploits against the regular Arab armies, but also by the intimidation, and at times atrocities and massacres, it perpetuated against the civilian Arab community. A panic-stricken Arab community was uprooted under the impact of massacres that would be carved into the Arabs monument of grief and hatred" - - Former Israeli Foreign Minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami from Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy, If I may say so this is a worthwhile book to read by a man who though he has given his entire live to the cause of Israel and Zionism, I believe he makes an honest attempt to understand the Arab and specifically Palestinian people even if I don't completely agree with everything he says. I believe he is sincere and reasonable. Amazon link for Scars of War/Wounds of Peace: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195181581/sr=1-1/qid=1153546420/ref=sr_1_1/104-2240026-0639147?ie=UTF8&s=books

If you check my signature line there is a link to an excellent debate he participated in with Professor Norman Finkelstein the famous or infamous -depending on ones point of view - non-Zionist Jewish scholar.

If by any chance you might be interested in the historical view from a non-Zionist Jewish Israeli Scholar - Here is a link to an article by Professor Ilan Pappe of Haifa University: What Really Happened Fifty Years Ago? link: http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=35&aid=427&pg=1
He is author of A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples
Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521683157/104-2240026-0639147?v=glance&n=283155
___________

Now here are the details regarding the Peace offer endorsed unanimously by the Arab League and supported by the Palestinian leadership (including Hamas) followed by some details about what was really offered to the Palestinians at Camp David in 2000:

link:

http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm

"The Arab Peace Initiative
(translation by Reuters).

The Council of Arab States at the Summit Level at its 14th Ordinary Session, reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries, to be achieved in accordance with international legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli government.

Having listened to the statement made by his royal highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, crown prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in which his highness presented his initiative calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land-for-peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel.

Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council:

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighborliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organizations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union."
___________

And this is the offer Israel made at Camp David in 2000:

link:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

"The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel"

snip:"In April 2002, the countries of the Arab League--from moderate Jordan to hardline Iraq--unanimously agreed on a Saudi peace plan centering around full peace, recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as well as a "just resolution" to the refugee issue. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha'ath declared himself "delighted" with the plan. "The proposal constitutes the best terms of reference for our political struggle," he told the Jordan Times (3/28/02)."

read full article:

The Myth of the Generous Offer
Distorting the Camp David negotiations

By Seth Ackerman

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

[MrPrax]

7. Well I will offer my two cents...

From the NJPS 2000-01 Report:
National Jewish Population Survey 2000-01: Strength, Challenge and Diversity in the American Jewish Population

Home Page

NJPS Executive Summary

Demography

The Jewish population in the U.S. totals 5.2 million people, consisting of an estimated 4.1 million adults and 1 million children in households and 100,000 Jews in institutional settings. Jews reside in 2.9 million households with a total of 6.7 million people, both Jews and non-Jews.

The median age of the Jewish population is older than it was ten years ago and older than the median age of the total U.S. population now. Twenty percent of the Jewish population is under the age of 18, and 19% is over the age of 65.

Relative to the total U.S. population, Jews tend to marry at later ages.

Jewish women have somewhat lower fertility rates than all U.S. women, and Jewish fertility rates are below population replacement levels.

More Jews live in the Northeast than any other region, but many native-born Jews have migrated to the South and West over the course of their lifetimes.

Relative to the total U.S. population, Jews are more highly educated, have more prestigious jobs and earn higher household incomes.

UJC

Geography: Regional Residence and Mobility

The U.S. Census divides the country into four major regions: the Northeast, Midwest, South and West. Traditionally, the Northeast has been home to the largest proportion of American Jews, and more Jews continue to live in the Northeast than in any other region (see Table 6). However, migration over the years to the South and West has resulted in the regional distribution of the Jewish population -- especially the native-born population -- shifting slowly to the Sunbelt, a pattern which mirrors the U.S. population generally.

...

Just over four in ten Jewish adults currently reside in the Northeast, more than a tenth live in the Midwest , and slightly less than a quarter reside in both the South and West. The distribution of Jewish children is skewed more toward the Northeast and away from the South and West, while very similar to adults in the Midwest. Higher rates of in-marriage and raising children as Jews in the Northeast contribute to the relative concentration of Jewish children in that region. The regional distribution of Jewish households is similar to that of Jewish adults.

Relative to the total U.S. population, the Jewish population -- adults and children combined -- remains over-represented in the Northeast (43% for Jews and 19% for the total U.S. population), proportionally represented in the West (22% vs. 23%) and under-represented in both the Midwest (13% vs. 23%) and South (23% vs. 35%).

Geography Breakdown from the report.