NY-Quinnipiac: Gov. Cuomo (D) sets post 9/11 approval ratings record

[NY Jew]

http://www.thearda.com/rcms2010/r/s/36/rcms2010_36_state_name_2010.asp
Jews in NY
Orthodox Jews 588,500
Reform Jews 106,806
Conservative Jews 82,809
Reconstructionist Jews 5,991

next time look at the source of the "fact" you said it was only a letter to the editor in a magazine.

Quick question.

Do you believe there are only 190,000 non-Orthodox Jews in the state of New York?

You're citing that data under the header "Jews in NY."

the rest are secular and don't identify with any type of Judaism.

You are incorrect to say that Jews who are not adherents to synagogues "don't identify with any type of Judaism." Maybe their identification as Jews is meaningless to you and other Orthodox Jews, but you don't get to decide how they self-identify, and you certainly don't get to apply this to polls where self-identification is the issue and they are counted as Jews. After all, the Satmars would consider you a goy.

how many Satmar's do you know?
you have no clue about the Orthodox Jewish community.  you know that Satmar (at least the more religious ones) respect some non Chasidiem very much.  besides there are many things that I'm much more machmir about then Satmar (and if you don't know what that means then your opinion is all the more worthless).  Just for the record non chasidich Lakewood is much more religious then Williamsburg and KJ.

Thought you might be interested to know that one of the Satmar rebbe's has a picture of one of the rabinic leaders of the OU (which show his respect) in his house I'm 100% sure that the situation is not reversed.

[Brittain33]

I take it you're conceding the rest of the post where the fact that you don't consider Jews not affiliated with temples to be Jewish is immaterial if they identify as Jewish to a pollster or anyone else.

[The Conflict]

So by the same standard, any self-identified Christians who don't belong to a church are not actually Christian. Then the percentage of non-Christians in the country is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher than normally reported (per ARDA's data that would put Minnesota as 43% non-Christian for example when the last Pew survey has us as 14% (13% unaffiliated and 1% non-Christian religions). That's quite the discrepancy. Also if there are synagogues that are as sloppy at membership numbers keeping as many churches are those numbers could underestimate even the number of Jews affiliated with a synagogue (and it seems Reform synagogues would be more likely to do this than Orthodox.)

[Brittain33]

So by the same standard, any self-identified Christians who don't belong to a church are not actually Christian. Then the percentage of non-Christians in the country is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher than normally reported (per ARDA's data that would put Minnesota as 43% non-Christian for example when the last Pew survey has us as 14% (13% unaffiliated and 1% non-Christian religions). That's quite the discrepancy. Also if there are synagogues that are as sloppy at membership numbers keeping as many churches are those numbers could underestimate even the number of Jews affiliated with a synagogue (and it seems Reform synagogues would be more likely to do this than Orthodox.)

There are loads and loads of Reform and Conservative Jews who will go to synagogue on the High Holidays but not affiliate with the synagogue during the year - they wouldn't be on the rolls but still identify as Jewish. They don't have to affiliate with a temple to have a seder and eat matzo for Passover. They aren't secular and identify as Jews in their lives and presumably to pollsters. Of course, if you go to a Reform synagogue twice a year or every week, you're still not a real Jew by the standards of Orthodoxy. That's fine for religious beliefs—NY Jew can label several million people however he wants in his head and the heads of his community—but it doesn't apply to demographics and psephology.

[Brittain33]

you have no clue about the Orthodox Jewish community.

Quite possibly, and you are equally ignorant about the 80+% of American Jews who aren't associated with Orthodox or Hassidic Jewry, because you don't need to know anything beyond that they aren't at your level of observance or follow your denomination's beliefs.

[NY Jew]

I take it you're conceding the rest of the post where the fact that you don't consider Jews not affiliated with temples to be Jewish is immaterial if they identify as Jewish to a pollster or anyone else.

I consider anyone whose mother is Jewish to be Jewish with the addition of Orthodox conversions.

only Orthodox Jews follow Judaism though.

[NY Jew]

let's review over 35% of all Jews in NY are Orthodox where there is no way Coumo unapproval ratings are less then 50%.

 but according to a poll Coumo only has a 9% unapproval amongst all jews even after factoring in children this is wrong even if every  single non Orthodox Jew supported Coumo.

[Purch]

I'm surprised. I guess that most New Yorkers must not pay enough attention to relaize that he's a paranoid bully.

He's pretty decent compared to the people in power around the country.

[Mr. Morden]

Not a chance, her shot was in 2008.  She's only got high approvals atm because she's basically stayed out of domestic politics since being made Secretary of State.  The minute she tries to reinsert herself into domestic politics, her negatives will go back up.  Also, many Democrats still haven't forgiven her for her race-baiting during the 2008 campaign.  Additionally, ambitious Democrats such as O'Malley, Cuomo, Hickenlooper, etc. aren't just going to stand aside because a Clinton is running.  Obama already proved that she is beatable and many Democrats will be more willing to publicly cross the Clintons than in 2008.  Also, she is simply a very unlikable person and comes across as bullying, paranoid, arrogant, and ruthless when running against a strong opponent  (there is a reason she is sometimes referred to as "Lady McBeth" ).  Plus, she seemed to be pretty much dead to the progressive/liberal wing of the Democratic party.  Lastly, some of the groups that backed her in 2008 (Jewish voters, Hispanics, Southern whites, etc) probably wouldn't support her as strongly if she were to run in 2016 (for a variety of reasons).

No way.  Clinton is in a much stronger position than she was going into 2008.  She's more popular with the general electorate, and she has an 86% favorability rating among Democrats.  That isn't going to evaporate overnight if she gets back into domestic politics.  Here's my take on why Clinton would basically clear the field if she runs (though I'm not certain that she's going to run):

I do wonder what kind of non-establishment challengers we'd see. Would the most significant among them be traditional liberals (I'm struggling to think of a realistic example), or would they be of a different flavor (e.g. Schweitzer)?

The template I would use is Gore vs. Bradley 2000, where the frontrunner (Gore in 2000; Clinton in 2016) is such an imposing frontrunner that he/she only gets one challenger of any consequence, who looks like he might have a chance at making something happen in either IA or NH early on, but ends up losing all 50 states to the frontrunner in the end.  The challenger is someone who goes after the frontrunner from the left, and who's at a stage in his career where he doesn't really have anything to lose by running.  (Don't know who that would be in 2016, but an obvious possibility would be Feingold.)

My reasoning for why Clinton would be so much stronger in 2016 than she was in 2008 that she'd clear the field:

1) She's the most popular politician in the country at the moment.  And that's with the general electorate.  Among Democrats, she has a phenomenal 86% favorability rating: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_417.pdf
It's quite rare for candidates to begin a presidential campaign with numbers like that.  Unless she does something to screw that up in her last year as SoS, she'll probably keep those numbers through 2014 and into 2015 when candidates have to start declaring for the 2016 primaries.

2) In 2006/7, there were quite a few qualms about HRC among pragmatic Dems who just wanted to win.  (Many establishment Dems were urging Bayh and Warner to run, because they thought HRC was a sure loser.)  She was seen as a polarizing figure who might not be able to win a general election.  Those concerns have now evaporated because of reason #1.  For that reason, I don't see any establishment competition for her in 2016.

3) In 2006/7, there was also quite a bit of suspicion and even outright hostility towards her from the liberal base of the party, because of her triangulation on various issues as a senator, and especially about the Iraq War vote.  The Iraq War has faded as an issue now, and I doubt that'll be much of a factor in 2016.  Also, many in the liberal base have been disillusioned by Obama anyway, so they'll probably end up just being more apathetic in 2016, not as easily able to get excited about a challenger to Clinton.

4) Among some Dems, there's a sense of "unfinished business" from 2008 about electing the first female president, and Clinton is the most obvious vehicle through which to do it in 2016.

5) People say that only the GOP ever nominates people who've run before, but it's rare that the runner up on the Democratic side comes as close to winning as Clinton did in 2008.  The closest parallel would be Gary Hart in 1984, who would have actually been the prohibitive frontrunner in 1988 if he hadn't gotten himself in trouble re: Donna Rice.  As long as Hillary doesn't have an affair with Clarence or something, she should be OK.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

only Orthodox Jews follow Judaism though.

Excuse me?  Imma have to disagree with you on that one.

[Comrade Funk]

NY Jew is in denial that most Jews are Democrats.

[Napoleon]

NY Jew is in denial that most Jews are Democrats.

The first four words in that sentence would suffice.

[ag]

NY Jew is in denial that most Jews are Democrats.

He defines Jews to be Republicans. You know: if you vote Dem, your circumcision is invalid.

[NY Jew]

NY Jew is in denial that most Jews are Democrats.

no I'm not I'm denying that most Jews follow Judaism.

[NY Jew]

NY Jew is in denial that most Jews are Democrats.

He defines Jews to be Republicans. You know: if you vote Dem, your circumcision is invalid.

no,
I'm saying if your in favor of gay marriage you have no Jewish values.
If you don't keep Shabbos your opinion about Jewish values is worthless.
I'm saying that the vast majority of Jews in America are for all intensive purposes complete non Jews (meaning that's how they live their lives, they still are jews)

[Holmes]

You're so controversial.

[ag]

no,
I'm saying if your in favor of gay marriage you have no Jewish values.
If you don't keep Shabbos your opinion about Jewish values is worthless.
I'm saying that the vast majority of Jews in America are for all intensive purposes complete non Jews (meaning that's how they live their lives, they still are jews)

Exactly. Which, basically, means, you don't consider Jewish - and, pretty obviously, dislike - most US Jews. Which, in my book, of course makes you anti-semitic, my dearest NYJewhater (or should it be Antiamericanjew?)

[mondale84]

NY Jew is in denial that most Jews are Democrats.

He defines Jews to be Republicans. You know: if you vote Dem, your circumcision is invalid.

no,
I'm saying if your in favor of gay marriage you have no Jewish values.
If you don't keep Shabbos your opinion about Jewish values is worthless.
I'm saying that the vast majority of Jews in America are for all intensive purposes complete non Jews (meaning that's how they live their lives, they still are jews)

The Jews eating their own again. This is actually quite common among American Jews: to question other Jews' "Jewness."

[The Conflict]

Should "No True Scotsman" be renamed "No True Jew"?

[Brittain33]

Should "No True Scotsman" be renamed "No True Jew"?

"No True Landsman"

[ag]

Should "No True Scotsman" be renamed "No True Jew"?

"No True Landsman"

That sounds like a Jewish last name

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I'm saying if your in favor of gay marriage you have no Jewish values.
If you don't keep Shabbos your opinion about Jewish values is worthless.

I damn well disagree with both of those. 

[old timey villain]

NY Jew is in denial that most Jews are Democrats.

He defines Jews to be Republicans. You know: if you vote Dem, your circumcision is invalid.

no,
I'm saying if your in favor of gay marriage you have no Jewish values.
If you don't keep Shabbos your opinion about Jewish values is worthless.
I'm saying that the vast majority of Jews in America are for all intensive purposes complete non Jews (meaning that's how they live their lives, they still are jews)

Most Jews in America favor gay marriage. But I guess they don't count anymore. You just lost like 3 million Jews out of 14 million worldwide.

[Vosem]

NY Jew is in denial that most Jews are Democrats.

He defines Jews to be Republicans. You know: if you vote Dem, your circumcision is invalid.

no,
I'm saying if your in favor of gay marriage you have no Jewish values.
If you don't keep Shabbos your opinion about Jewish values is worthless.
I'm saying that the vast majority of Jews in America are for all intensive purposes complete non Jews (meaning that's how they live their lives, they still are jews)

My entire family is Ashkenazi as far as the records go -- I was circumcised, I had a bar mitzvah, but I don't observe Shabbas. In fact, I think abortion should be legal. Am I Jewish?