Why do Jews and Asians favor Democrats?

1. 78

   Credence2posted 8 years ago

   I guess we all know that Blacks supported Obama and the democrats because of the offer of a free cell phone? Conservatives always say that Blacks and Hispanic provide allegiance to the Democrats because the transfer of wealth in the form of social spending is to their benefit.
   
   Yeah, right, but what about Jews and Asians?
   
   Inspite of the Democrats position of not giving the Isreali Government a carte blanche in its regional altercation with its neighbors, as contrasted with the GOP, Jewish Americans  remains a strong Democratic party voting block. They are doing well from an economic standpoint, so that can't be the explanation. So would my conservative friends tell me what is the explanation?
   
   How about the Asians, (AKA, the sucessful minority)? They also lean heavily Democratic in their voting preferences. Their male workers exceed anglos in their income attainment. So there is no economic issue here. Why do they vote for the Democrats?
   
   Has anyone from either side of the ideological pole pondered this and can offer an response?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Onusonusposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Jews typically vote leftist because they are the one group in America that is the least religious. And the polls show it. The fact is, people who actually practice Judaism vote to the right two to one.
      
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5IqH7oJ9h4

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

         So, strong religious adherence is one of the qualities of a GOP voter. Must be something to it as this religious advocacy supercedes even the reality of economics.  Religious hypocrisy and dogma= GOP is not a positive thing
         
         That right leaning video gives a interesting explanation, but I don't buy it. What about the Asians?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Onusonusposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I wasn't talking about the Asians, I was talking about the Jews. When you speak of a religious group like Jews why would discussing their religion be off the table?
            
            The fact is most of them prefer to identify as Jew to avoid being labeled white. For the leftist mindset they get the privileged of being part of a special interest group without having to be bothered with adhering to the actual culture.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, you are right, religious affilliation seems to correlate with support of political parties and ideology.
               
               In this society,  physically most Jews are indistinguishable from whites. They distinguish themselves through their adherence to their religious faith, self acknowledgement, etc. It is only from the right wing mindset, folks like the Nazis and Aryan Nations, where Jews become a race rather than a religious preference. Of course, that is not the progressive, enlightened way of seeing things. Jews and their voting patterns are no more part of a special interest group receiving privileges than the voting habits of pipe-fitters.
               
               I saw the right wing video and source you provided. It is interesting that you seem to want to identify their culture or what their culture should be, as opposed to the people who are actuallly members of this group and are more than capable of identifying their own culture , that is a bit arrogant. So, they are not truly "Jews" unless they vote with the reactionary line? Most interesting.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Onusonusposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes I suppose it is arrogant to expect Jews to adhere to the precepts of Judaism. Why would we expect Jews to act like Jews, or even read their own book?
                  But you said it yourself, Jews distinguish themselves by adhering to their religious faith. That is the precepts outlined in the Torah. If you have ever read the Torah it should be blatantly clear that it is not a left wing, or progressive, or a liberal set of beliefs.
                  Hence as stated earlier, most people who claim to be Jewish are Jewish by heritage only, which is to answer the original question as to why Jews vote to the left. The ones who actually practice the religion of JUDIASM however, usually vote to the right.

                  replyreport
2. 93

   wildernessposted 8 years ago

   Only 2% or so of Japanese are Christian and around 5% in China.  There are no Christian Jews, of course. 
   
   Does the heavy reliance on religion of the GOP drive these people away?  If so, are atheists also primarily democratic?  I have no idea.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Quilligrapherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Atheists, that is to say the group Pew Research calls the “religiously unaffiliated”, have mostly been voting for Democrats in recent years. In 2000, 61% of the “unaffiliated” voters favored Al Gore over Bush II. In a similar pattern, 67% cast their votes for John Kerry in 2004 and the margin grew larger in 2008. Close to 75% of exit poll respondent that identified as religiously unaffiliated also voted for Barack Obama. {1}
      
      {1}
      http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/none … cal-views/

      replyreport
   2. 78

      Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      That is as good as a reason as any. I did not think that religious affiliation or lack thereof could be the sole reason these groups would vote Democratic.  You would think that given their economic circumstances they would naturally find a home with the GOP
      
      But the power of religion cannot be underestimated. why do so many poor southern whites vote GOP, which is obviously not in their economic interests? People say that adherence to religious faith and the perception of the Democrats in that regard is a big part of it.

      replyreport
      1. 93

         wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Do poor southern whites vote GOP because it is obviously in the best economic interests of the country? 
         
         Personally, I doubt it - the American consumer doesn't care any more about the economic well being of the country than the politicians (of both parties) do.  Only what they, personally, can get out of it in the short term - for the poorer segment of the country that means charity from the DEM's.  I would guess that the majority vote GOP because it agrees closer with their religion and they like the idea of religious control.
         
         But I could be wrong - maybe the man in the street DOES care more than I think they do, and understand basic economics and human reaction better than I think, as well.  Whereupon, if economics is the primary concern, they will vote GOP.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Not so much the country, but their individual economic interests.

            replyreport
            1. 93

               wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Somehow I don't think poor southern whites vote GOP because it's in their best immediate economic interests.  Were that the case they'd be voting DEM - the party of the giveaway.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  No, you're missing it. I said you would think that these folks would vote Democratic, considering that most transfers of social spending are focused on Red states. Largest percentages in these states are poor, being poor is a part of the constituency of the Dems. We were saying that evangelical religious fervor and their belief that Democrats are heathens, trump any economic advantage they would gain for themselves by voting Democratic.
                  
                  So they align themselves with the GOP-the party of the takeaway.

                  replyreport
                  1. 93

                     wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     Oh, I agree with that too, although applying a single reason to a large number of people is dangerous.  And there is also the question of "poor" - what is "poor"?  Not having a Mercedes in the drive or not having enough to eat to the point of distended bellies and ultimate starvation and death?  To an awful lot of the country it seems to be the Mercedes; to the typical poor of the south (that have been poor for generations) it is starvation and death.  (And yes, both are exaggerations, but the concept should come through).

                     replyreport
                     1. 78

                        Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                        Wilderness, ironically that is what conservatives and conservative media use to explain the Blacks affinity for the Democratic party, social services- through wealth transfer ( a single reason applied to a large group of people)
                        
                        We need to measure 'what is poor' through an objective yardstick applicable to American society. Household or individual  income at levels below that considered to be poverty as established by Health and Human Services (?) is good enough for me. Under that yardstick, the Red States have the largest population of (poor).

                        replyreport
                        1. 93

                           wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                           Unfortunately, what is 'poor' is in an unending climb upward.  It is no longer subsistence, but a life of luxuries; luxuries that I worked many years to accumulate but are now considered necessities.  It is no longer a matter of "what do I need to live" but "how much can I squeeze out of my neighbors".
                           
                           And that I cannot agree with, whether from H&HS or anywhere else.

                           replyreport
                           1. 78

                              Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                              You may have a point, since the advent of the social safety net, grinding poverty is really unknown here. "Poor" is still out here, I have seen people in poverty living in the rural south and West Virginia.  But, I guess that the standard should be food, shelter and clothing, if you have that, let that be sufficient. But I might say that access to health care could be included in that these days.

                              replyreport
                              1. 93

                                 wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                 Unfortunately it doesn't end there.  Health care, of course, is now a necessity.  But also phone service.  Clean water.  Electricity.  Natural gas.  Shelter far beyond any reasonable minimum.  Internet access in many places. 
                                 
                                 And when you have all that, here's another few thousand for whatever you'd like, all from the bottomless taxpayer pocket.

                                 replyreport
3. 58

   Alternative Primeposted 8 years ago

   Very simple ~ Most Jews & Asians like all other demographics are NOT extremely wealthy, therefore, voting republican would be an insane action ~

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I dunno, AP, the average household income of Asians I know for a fact exceed that of Anglos'. While they are all not wealthy, they are not poor as a group. They do at least as well as White's economically who vote GOP, so why don't they vote GOP?
      
      Why do southern anglos vote for GOP when they make so much less? I don't think that economics has anything to do with Asian or Jewish  preferences of political party, unlike Black or Hispanics.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Well Credence, there are always expetions to every rule so I stand by my analysis ~
         
         Let's address the "Southern Anglo" demographic for a very brief momnet ~ And here are the facts, difficult to accept as they may be ~
         
         Firstly, this demographic is living in an entirely different universe than the rest of America and the primary reason why they tend to vote republican is the "Racism" factor ~
         
         Everyone understands that the Southern Region of the United States is absolutely more racist than other regions and repulican candidates tend to be more racist against Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and even working whites ~
         
         It's pretty obvious and clear cut ~

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

            True, AP, but the conclusion can be more accurate based on the rule rather than the exception.
            
            The Southern Anglo, indeed
            
            The racism, resentment factor is pretty powerful to get people to vote against their economic interests which is not represented by the GOP and its positions. Rather than join with those people of color facing the same economic threats, it is more important to distinguish oneself as white as if that is going to save them from the plutocrat who could care less about either of us.  For the GOP, the  Southern strategy of "divide and conquer' has worked well and just as expected.
            
            There are many factors as to white southern white, men in particular, affiliate themselves with the GOP. Race and religious affiliation are powerful motives. But a lot of this transfers to the North among working class whites, who have voted more heavily GOP since Reagan. In plenty of Northeast cities, if you are in the wrong neighborhood from a race and ethnic standpoint, these communities like Boston, Phily, Detroit, Chicago are balkanized  and you can expect trouble. Giving credit to the South, I never felt the fear between the races that I find almost everywhere in the country. It's like they have always lived together, but had this "understanding" as to how things are supposed to be. Of course, that relationship had to change, thus the Civil Rights Movement.
            
            The issues are full of nooks and crannies. Going through the South many times, if one can find  this sort of resentment under the radar, it is carefully concealed until election time.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               "Religious Affiliation" falls under the "Dumb" category ~
               
               When you cast a vote which demonstrably degrades your quality of life in favor of mere religious beliefs, sorry, but that's just plain "Dumb" ~
               
               No I'm not an athiest, I'm Catholic ~

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Absolutely, acknowledged....

                  replyreport
               2. 0

                  Onusonusposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  A perfect example of left wing bigotry. It has been deemed politically correct to express disdain and intolerance towards the religious, but questioning 50 years of failed Democrat policies is off the table.

                  replyreport
   2. 0

      Onusonusposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      You think that voting for Republicans has something to do with being rich? Half of the country votes Republican. It has a little more to do with the fact that conservatives actually read and agree with the constitution of our nation. While the other half is ashamed, and prefers to desecrate our culture, and our flag in the name of income equality and special rights for special interest groups.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Those who are not wealthy and vote republican are either ignorant, racist, extreme worshipers, or just plain dumb ~
         
         Sorry Onusonus, but that's the truth ~

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Onusonusposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            All characteristics of the liberal left. Sorry to break it to you, but liberals are much more intolerant than conservatives ever could be.
            The Democrats started the KKK, and since slavery and segregation against blacks became unpopular, they moved to owning and destroying their families simply by pandering to them. Hence we have liberal bastions of death and poverty in every major city owned by Democrats. And they own every ghetto in the country.
            It is willful ignorance that allows the Democrat party to continue its attack on the basic values in this country that created the largest economy the world has ever seen.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               That's insane Onusonus and you know it  ~ I really don’t know how much more incorrect you could possibly be ~
               
               How’s this, go tell Lindsey Graham, Mitt Romney, Jed Bush, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, any other Paul, and Mitch McConnell they just might be distant relatives of an individual of African decent ~ See what happens ~
               
               You’ll be extremely lucky if you leave the venue with your testicles in place ~
               
               The republicans can’t even accept the reality that the origins of life appear to be located in Africa ~

               replyreport
            2. 78

               Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

               onusorus, parties change with time. Why does the right continue with this lame line of argument all of the time?
               
               I am concerned with what the stances of the political parties are today, not 100 years ago.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Onusonusposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  And the stance of the liberal left is to weaken the basic family unit, destroy more human institutions such as religious and charitable organizations, and create a dystopian society solely dependent on a big brother government. All in the name of identity politics. You got the first black president. Turns out he was Bush on steroids, but with no character. Can't wait till the lunacy continues with the liberals top pick for the first woman president.

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     So, Bush had character?
                     
                     We want to weaken and destroy a plutocrat rule and a slavery under a new corporate master. Anti-intellectual, anti-equality, misogynistic purveyors of tyranny by the few over the many. That is todays GOP, I am duty bound to undermine and destroy it and any credibility that it claims to have. But, I don't have to do that, just look at the passengers in the GOP clowncar. Nobody's going to vote for them. In spite of your disdain, the Dems seem to be winning the Presidency by a comfortable margin over the last two election cycles, so where is your silent majority? All those respectable people "real Americans" who would vote GOP?

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Onusonusposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes it is sad to see so many people turn this country upside down, and you will not be happy until every city is as filled with violence and corruption as Detroit, Chicago, Camden, Flint, etc.. All in the name of intellectualism and equality.
                        You want everyone to share equally in your misery. You want to disband what you call a "plutocracy" to set up the exact same thing in its place just with a different flavor. And you are willing to put your  ultra transparent Hillary in the position.
                        The same woman responsible for the massacre at Benghazi, the same one who lost tens of thousands of E mails containing an incalculable amount of classified files on them. The one who was kicked off of the Watergate investigation for ethics violations, the one who pushed the reset button with Russia right before they invaded Crimea.
                        And, documents regarding Hillary Clinton’s work at the Rose Law firm in Arkansas – specifically, regarding a savings and loan company run by the Clintons’ business partner in the Whitewater land venture go missing for two years. Then, in January 1996, they miraculously appear. The Rose Law firm documents magically show up. A White House aide finds them. In the White House. In a storage area in the third-floor of the White House, the private residence of the President and First Lady. And the long lost memo shows up just a couple of days later. How miraculous! Hillary’s lawyers said that she had no idea the documents were there. Except that the FBI found Hillary’s fingerprints on the documents. Hillary is still the only First Lady in American history to be fingerprinted by the FBI. And in case you didn't know, during her time in the U.S. Senate, Clinton paid women in her office 72 cents for each dollar paid to men, according to a report by Washington Free Beacon.
                        
                        Tell me again how much you are against tyranny after you check the box for the next spineless mouthpiece for special interest groups and lobbyists.

                        replyreport
                        1. 77

                           Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                           

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Onusonusposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                              A little too much reality for Credence I suppose. Here's another little fact about his champion for equality, intellectualism, and always transparent Democrat savior Hillary:
                              
                              Alana Goodman at the Washington Free Beacon (disclosure: another former NewsBuster at the WFB) reported that Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Family Foundation (CFF) gave $100,000 to a New York Times charitable fund in 2008, the same year that the paper resisted the Obama-mania and endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.
                              
                              The gift from the Clinton Family Foundation, the family’s charitable giving arm, went to The New York Times Neediest Cases Fund, a charity run by members of the Times Company’s board of directors and senior executives. Apparently, they never considered the potential conflicts of interest from taking massive amounts of money from the foundation of a presidential candidate.
                              
                              The six-figure contribution was bigger than most Clinton Foundation donations: “Of the 47 organizations the CFF donated to in 2008, only six groups received more than $50,000. Most received between $2,000 and $25,000. The CFF has not donated to the Neediest Cases Fund since 2008.”
                              
                              The New York Times tried to convince us that Sen. Marco Rubio shouldn’t be president because he and his wife accumulated 17 traffic tickets in 18 years, and that SEAL Team 6 is full of bad guys, but it’s cool with them to do this sort of thing.
                              
                              Journalism, I tell ya. It’s not just for people who want to report the news.

                              replyreport
                              1. 78

                                 Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                 Deleted
                                 1. 0

                                    Onusonusposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                    Yeah perhaps somebody a little more transparent like American Indian Democrat Elizabeth Warren.
                                    

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 78

                                       Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                       You are going to have to be more convincing than posting cartoons. Right off from the Fox News presses, why am I going to take anything from a right winger without a healthy dose of scrutiny? Any Democrat is better than any Republican in my humble opinion.

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          Onusonusposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                          Well you can look it up yourself, or you can be like the rest of the low informed liberal sheep.

                                          report
                              2. 78

                                 Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                 No Onusonus, not too much reality.....
                                 
                                 If Hillary is dirty and her record tainted, I will put all effort toward an alternate DEMOCRATIC candkdate. No way would I even consider voting GOP withits cuirrent record

                                 replyreport
      2. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         +1

         replyreport
4. 65

   thecrookedbellposted 8 years ago

   I don't know why you think Asians do.  Asians tend to favor Republicans.   Hard working culture and family is number one.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      TCB, not according to the data provided by the Washington Post which I excerpt here:
      
      The interesting ones here are Asian Americans, who as a whole favor Democrats 65/23. That's notable because Republicans won the Asian American vote in the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections. These voters have swung very blue in recent years, though, going 67 percent for President Obama in 2008 and 73 percent for him in 2012 -- one of the rare groups that moved more toward the Democrats in the latter election.
      
      So what do you think that the explanation is for that?

      replyreport
      1. 65

         thecrookedbellposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         I was not current.  I did read an article where the young were voting Democrat.  As you know the Asians favor education.  I imagine they are being indoctrinated like the rest of our kids.   American universities are bastions of liberal professors who only tell one side of the story.  Did you see where Jerry Seinfeld does not even do universities anymore because of political correctness run amok.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

            You may have a valid explanation for the 18-24 set, but how does that explain all Asian voters Dem preference who are over the age of 24 and up

            replyreport
5. 53

   jaggu118posted 8 years ago

   http://www.wellness2beauty.com/2015/05/ … -benifits/

   replyreport