All US Presidents have been Protestants of one persuasion or another mostly of the very conservative kind (two Quakers were the exception one of whom was Nixon, rather depressingly) except Kennedy whose Catholicism negatively impacted his campaign.
Joe Lieberman was the first Jewish VicePresident candidate in 2000 and Bernie Sanders as far as I can ascertain is the first Presidential Candidate. So although it is not much discussed in the press atm in a country where religion is often centre stage in politicsāand where historically the key to the White House is held in highly religious (if not bigotedly) Southern Statesāsomeone who is not a Christian will have a hurdle to jump, independent of any overt or latent antisemitism. He is not a Christian and in the US historically that matters.
Similarly, in the UK Miliband Jewishness played a roleānot loudly or overtly, but latently and quietlyāLike Sanders he is the son of Jewish Refugees whose politics are routed in Central European Jewish Socialismāwhich is at least as scary to the voting public as Irish Catholicism was in 60s. The pundits are not so blatant as to be outspokenly anti-semitic, most people are more sussed these days, but Sanders does represent a foreign, unfamiliar element in American politics, and I would state that his Central European Jewish routes is a big part of that and it will be cause for attack. In Milibandās case they honed in on his fatherās politics and Miliband practically had to distance himself from his dead father, because said father was a Jewish Socialist.
Jews are pretty good at assimilation but Sanders seems to have chosen the backwaters of Vermont over political assimilation so he is far more explicitly culturally Jewish in his political outlook than many of the Jewish politicians you are probably thinking of.
But, anything is possible, who would have thought that America would have a Black President and here we are he had two terms.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy, not evidence of anything. I am quite willing to agree that a Jewish candidate would likely not have won the election in 1960. Actual, tangible, real evidence of election habits from recent elections in the United States is that it is not a factor.
[quote=ānojaboja, post:152, topic:76540ā]
Similarly, in the UK Miliband Jewishness played a role[/quote]
You have some reason (other than speculation) to believe that he would have won otherwise? I think his inability to eat a sandwich without grimacing likely had a lot more to do with it.
I wouldnāt say the losing is unreasonable, Sanders is still an unknown commodity for the most part; his success so far is what is unexpected. You canāt fault any group for voting for someone that they see as their friend over someone they donāt know enough about to have firm confidence in their friendship.
Seriously, though, Iām having trouble understanding what you are saying: there is some visible indicator that progressives are not listening to disenfranchised groups? Can you give an example of a thing that these groups are saying that the progressive community is not hearing? (I mean something other than āI like Hillaryā, which I think is being heard.)
It seems to me the problem is rather that Sanders supporters havenāt been able to make his case to some communities as quickly as they would like. Some of this is inevitable, given Sanders being new to the national stage. It would help if people who support Sandersā policies over Clintonās - people apparently like Tom Hayden - would stick to their principles and (respectfully!) share information with their friends in these communities, rather than just shrug and change allegiances as if the candidates were interchangeable.
I think youāre right on about the noise on the wires inhibiting communication for communities who might otherwise communicate their priorities to dem socialists more clearly.
Iām saying I think the job of dem socialists or any representative is to listen first to what communities want and then deliver. Itās harder to listen if thereās too much emphasis on selling a program.
I think we could do better, as you point out above, with a more reliable communication network.
We also need to listen more so that our putative constituents are satisfied that we understand and that we are credible representatives to deliver what is desired.
No, but it is pretty much how we humans learn and live our lives. Evidence is after the fact. Atm all we have is conjecture and more or less intelligent guesses. We donāt know what will happen. All we know is that Trump is a front runner and there was no evidence that that could happen and that Sanders is a front runner and there was no evidence that that could happen either. So evidence has very little to say in all this. Which is why the race is so exciting. The Miliband campaign is after the fact and thus we can actually look at how his jewish background was discussed.
No idea why you think I argued that Ed Miliband would have won anything had he not been Jewish-- I wrote no such thing, just look at the written evidence. What I did write was, that his dead Fatherās believes were vehemently and viciously attacked by the UK press so that Miliband felt the need to publicly distance himself from Miliband Senior, whose political convictions were in line with his origins as a Central European Jewish refugeeāas I read the attacks they were attacks on a certain kind of Jewish Intellectual.
Seriously, you are equating the backwaters of Vermont with the backwaters of South Caroline and Arkansa? Have you ever been in Vermont?
I said nothing about anti-Semites I tried to point out that not being a card carrying Protestant and preferably an Evangelic Christian as a National Politician is an issue in the US, a hinderance that has to be overcome. But miracles and disasters have happened in Presidential election through the years so really the evidence is that we should be open to all possibilities.
Listening more is something we should always do, and I agree that one measure of whether weāve listened enough is whether the group one is supposed to be listening to is satisfied that their message has been heard. In this regard I suppose Sanders hasnāt yet listened enough to the African-American community, as a considerable fraction still answer āunsureā instead of āyesā on approval polls.
I just wish that in this particular case I had a better idea of what if anything it is that Sanders and his supporters are supposed not to have heard. BLM was giving some indication of an answer to this early on, but they have signed off as being satisfied and generally in support of Sanders.
No, this is not correct. At this moment we have actual evidence that people will vote for Jewish candidates, and not just in the North. Even in places like Alabama (Mobile and Montgomery have each had 2 Jewish mayors), Tennessee (the sitting mayor of Chattanooga), and you mention Arkansas (Little Rock has had 2 Jewish mayors) and South Carolina (Columbia has had 4 Jewish mayors). Kentucky and Tennessee each have a sitting Jewish congressman, and Oklahoma and Alabama have had them in recent years. This is not intelligent guessing, this is what has actually happened in real elections.
Polls show that Americans are 3 times as likely to hold being Mormon against a candidate than being Jewish. Moreover, the cohort that would not vote for Sanders because he is Jewish is probably dominated by people who would not vote for him anyway because he is a Democrat.
You know," said Arthur, āitās at times like this, when Iām trapped in a Vogon airlock with a man from Betelgeuse, and about to die of asphyxiation in deep space that I really wish Iād listened to what my mother told me when I was young.ā
āWhy, what did she tell you?ā
"I donāt know, I didnāt listen.
Apologies, but your definition of evidence is really selective. It really bugs me that often those blowing the evidence trump the loudest are the most careless and selective when it comes to drawing conclusions of said āevidenceā.
US Presidential Elections are fundamentally different from any other electionāand I would venture to say far more unpredictable (e.g. 2000).
For a start there has been exactly 44 Presidents in the history of the worldāand many of these were very close calls, that few (or no one) foresaw. There are huge national population trends (e.g. post WW2 shift from East Coast to West Coast / internal - external migration) that combined with the historical idiosyncrasies of the process (e.g. Electoral College) make Presidential elections unique. It is not just another Mayoral / Congressional / Governor election.
So, no, just because there are thousands of Jewish Mayors / Governors / Congresspeople and even Senators it doesnāt equate to evidence that being an unknown Jewish Presidential candidate (from a state with the tiniest of populations, i.e. a nationally unknown Jewish entity) is not / will not be an issue when it comes to voting day. There just arenāt the numbers in re to Presidential elections to draw clear inferences.
Sorry but sample size too small and / or unrepresentative.
Not sure if there has been a single notable political figure in recent decades in the Western Hemisphere who profess to be Jewishādepressing but probably true.
Peru has had three Jewish PMs since 1990 - doesnāt seem to be a liability there at least.
And it really bugs me that people who donāt like evidence which is contrary to their speculation (climate change deniers, young earthers, homeopaths) like to say that the evidence doesnāt apply to their exceptional situation because it is so special, and conclude that their evidence-free speculation is therefore more plausible.
And I also donāt like your assertion that Iāve blown a Trump.
