Does Obama's Israel Policy Mean a 2012 GOP Win?

friday · May 21, 2011

We have heard a great deal of talk in recent days about how the GOP doesn't have a "serious" candidate. Compared to the GOP class of 2016, that may be true. But does the left have a serious candidate? Nevermind Obama's failed economic policies. Does his new anti-Israel policy of land ransoms to terrorist groups spell the end of his chances for re-election? Is it time for Democrats to find a pro-Israel candidate and hold a primary?

StillBallin75 · May 21, 2011

Obama's Israel policy, emotional as the debate might be for some, I believe will have little to do with the 2012 election. At the end of the day people are still focused on the economy, and for those looking to the GOP, a viable candidate that is capable of beating Obama (I think the most likely option is Daniels).

Chappy · May 21, 2011

Wow, another bogus poll from a conservative. What a surprise!

The thread title: Does Obama's Israel Policy Mean a 2012 GOP Win?

The poll question: Do the Democrats have a serious candidate for 2012?

Maybe the the thread title and the poll question could be the same?

But more important, the options should not be at the level of "How much do my political opponents suck?" with choices of "A lot", "A Helluva lot", "A really, really large amount", and, "Total suckage."

It seems as if conservatives are an incurious bunch. Heaven forbid that reality conflict with their preconceived conclusions.

MKULTRABOY · May 21, 2011

How about an actual poll? This is poo.

Bluespade · May 21, 2011

Since President Obama has no problem going back on what he says, I'm sure he'll have plenty of time to mend fences with the big money donors from the Pro-Israel lobby.

ThePlayDrive · May 21, 2011

friday said:
We have heard a great deal of talk in recent days about how the GOP doesn't have a "serious" candidate. Compared to the GOP class of 2016, that may be true. But does the left have a serious candidate? Nevermind Obama's failed economic policies. Does his new anti-Israel policy of land ransoms to terrorist groups spell the end of his chances for re-election? Is it time for Democrats to find a pro-Israel candidate and hold a primary?

1. No.
2. I see no evidence that he isn't "pro-Israel".

mbig · May 21, 2011

friday said:
We have heard a great deal of talk in recent days about how the GOP doesn't have a "serious" candidate. Compared to the GOP class of 2016, that may be true. But does the left have a serious candidate? Nevermind Obama's failed economic policies. Does his new anti-Israel policy of land ransoms to terrorist groups spell the end of his chances for re-election? Is it time for Democrats to find a pro-Israel candidate and hold a primary?

Our policy re Israel is Unchanged.

As Debunked here. (including your other bogus poll in the M-E section)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/99657-rights-mischaracterization-misquote-obama.html

cpwill · May 21, 2011

isn't it interesting that Democrats are now defending Obama....... by arguing that he is Bush? :lamo

LizardofOz · May 23, 2011

What Obama is doing is addressing a problem no one wants adressed. I dont care about it personally and think he has more important things to talk about than a few acres of land.

Jetboogieman · May 23, 2011

Its the economy stupid.

Kandahar · May 23, 2011

friday said:
We have heard a great deal of talk in recent days about how the GOP doesn't have a "serious" candidate. Compared to the GOP class of 2016, that may be true. But does the left have a serious candidate? Nevermind Obama's failed economic policies. Does his new anti-Israel policy of land ransoms to terrorist groups spell the end of his chances for re-election? Is it time for Democrats to find a pro-Israel candidate and hold a primary?

No. Most Americans don't give a **** about Israel, including most Jewish-Americans.

Apocalypse · May 23, 2011

Kandahar said:
No. Most Americans don't give a **** about Israel, including most Jewish-Americans.

Support for Israel in U.S. at 63%, Near Record High

Kandahar, you don't speak for most Americans, you're a radical who compared between the Israeli government and the terrorist organization of Hamas.

As to the OP I don't think Obama took an anti-Israeli position here and I doubt the majority of Americans would think so. Regardless I also doubt it is such a significant factor in the elections of a president in the US.

MKULTRABOY · May 23, 2011

Yes, and Fox news is the most popular news station in the US and the most popular vomiting inducing agent in hospitals abroad. As if 60% of Americans supporting Israel over Palestine means anything. In a one vs the other sure, but this is not an index on how much a **** is given about Israel. The people who give the most damn about Israel are the ones who believe christ is coming back. If this were an index on 'how much' Americans cared about Israel rather than support for one or the other it may actually be a conceptually valid piece of evidence. Until then your post was an oops.

Kandahar · May 23, 2011

Apocalypse said:
Support for Israel in U.S. at 63%, Near Record High

The poll didn't ask them how much they actually care though. On the list of issues that voters care about, I bet the Israel-Palestine conflict ranks somewhere between earmarks and flag-burning. :roll:

Apocalypse said:
Kandahar, you don't speak for most Americans, you're a radical

Now what is the purpose of this, other than to randomly start trouble? Especially when you follow it up with this:

Apocalypse said:
Regardless I also doubt it is such a significant factor in the elections of a president in the US.

So in other words, you agree 100% with what I wrote in my previous post that it's not a major concern for American voters. You just couldn't agree without getting yourself a rules infraction in the process.

Apocalypse · May 23, 2011

Kandahar said:
The poll didn't ask them how much they actually care though. On the list of issues that voters care about, I bet the Israel-Palestine conflict ranks somewhere between earmarks and flag-burning. :roll:

That they claim support for Israel is enough to debunk the claim that the majority of Americans "don't give a ****".

Now what is the purpose of this, other than to randomly start trouble? Especially when you follow it up with this:

So in other words, you agree 100% with what I wrote in my previous post that it's not a major concern for American voters. You just couldn't agree without getting yourself a rules infraction in the process.

Claiming that I believe your views on the subject to be radical is not a personal assault as I am referring to your politics and not to you yourself, furthermore I discuss it in the context of you claiming what the opinion of most Americans is. Secondly, you did not say that the issue is not a significant factor but that the issue is not a factor at all, AKA, majority of Americans "don't give a ****".

Kandahar · May 23, 2011

Apocalypse said:
That they claim support for Israel is enough to debunk the claim that the majority of Americans "don't give a ****".

No it isn't. Telling a pollster that they sympathize more with one side over the other says absolutely nothing about the intensity of that support. There are some issues in American politics that generate strong opinions on which people are closely divided (e.g. abortion). There are other issues where there is a widespread consensus but most people just don't give a **** (e.g. campaign finance reform). The Israel-Palestine conflict is in the latter category, although apparently the consensus isn't even that widespread if those Gallup statistics are correct.

Apocalypse said:
Claiming that I believe your views on the subject to be radical is not a personal assault as I am referring to your politics and not to you yourself,

:roll:

MKULTRABOY · May 23, 2011

Apocalypse said:
That they claim support for Israel is enough to debunk the claim that the majority of Americans "don't give a ****".

Claiming that I believe your views on the subject to be radical is not a personal assault as I am referring to your politics and not to you yourself, furthermore I discuss it in the context of you claiming what the opinion of most Americans is. Secondly, you did not say that the issue is not a significant factor but that the issue is not a factor at all, AKA, majority of Americans "don't give a ****".

No, unfortunately the parameters of the poll dont meet the criteria to back your asertion that they do. The only way to do that is to measure level of interest on a scale. (Research methods). To put it simply if Americans didnt care for chalupas or chimichangas but they were polled on them and chimichangas were more popular, that still dosnt mean they have much interest in them at all. Construct validity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apocalypse · May 23, 2011

SE102 said:
No, unfortunately the parameters of the poll dont meet the criteria to back your asertion that they do. The only way to do that is to measure level of interest on a scale. (Research methods). To put it simply if Americans didnt care for chalupas or chimichangas but they were polled on them and chimichangas were more popular, that still dosnt mean they have much interest in them at all. Construct validity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When you're being asked if you support the New York Knicks, the Boston Celtics or Both/Neither/No opinion, and you vote for either the Knicks or Celtics, then you pretty much give a **** about the team you voted for.
Next.

Apocalypse · May 23, 2011

Kandahar said:
No it isn't. Telling a pollster that they sympathize more with one side over the other says absolutely nothing about the intensity of that support.

In the case when they did not give a **** about one they would either vote for the other or vote for the option "neither/no opinion", they would not vote for the one they don't give **** about even if they give more **** about that one than the other, as there is an option for "none/no opinion", right? It's really elementary stuff, nothing Einstein is needed for to solve.

ecofarm · May 23, 2011

Kandahar said:
No. Most Americans don't give a **** about Israel, including most Jewish-Americans.

SE102 said:
No, unfortunately the parameters of the poll dont meet the criteria to back your asertion that they do.

“The findings of the present study challenge the view of a widening schism between American Jews and Israel,” it concludes. “A majority of American Jews feel attached to Israel and the overall level of attachment has remained stable for nearly a quarter of a century.”

The study, in which about 1,200 people were interviewed in June, did show generally lower levels of “connection to Israel” among those younger than 30. But for the Brandeis researchers, these numbers are not surprising. Every generation goes through a normal “lifecycle,” the study reports, in which attachment to Israel grows as people get older; in similar studies over the past 20 years, these researchers say, the ratio of younger people who don’t feel an attachment to Israel has remained constant. Instead, the researchers point to a steady number: the 63% of all respondents who say they feel “very much” or “somewhat” connected to Israel, and the 75% who say that Israel is an important part of their identity.

And, even more significantly for the currently polarized climate, this study sees no correlation between political ideology and attachment to Israel.

Survey Says Young Jews Do Care About Israel

MKULTRABOY · May 23, 2011

Apocalypse said:
When you're being asked if you support the New York Knicks, the Boston Celtics or Both/Neither/No opinion, and you vote for either the Knicks or Celtics, then you pretty much give a **** about the team you voted for.
Next.

Indulge at ignorance at no cost to face. Sorry the whole 'being wrong' thing is too hard for you and not worth learning something.

Kandahar · May 23, 2011

Apocalypse said:
In the case when they did not give a **** about one they would either vote for the other or vote for the option "neither/no opinion", they would not vote for the one they don't give **** about even if they give more **** about that one than the other, as there is an option for "none/no opinion", right? It's really elementary stuff, nothing Einstein is needed for to solve.

No. You can favor one side over the other and still not care that much, or vice versa. I would answer "both/neither/no opinion" to that poll question but that doesn't mean I don't care about it. Conversely, I bet if you asked Americans who they favored in the British-Argentine dispute over the Falkland Islands, a good many of them would pick a side despite not knowing the first thing about it.

Apocalypse · May 23, 2011

Kandahar said:
No. You can favor one side over the other and still not care that much, or vice versa.

I already said the obvious, voting for one when you can vote for none means you do support that one. That's the meaning of the poll. Let alone "give a **** about it" as you've phrased it.

Apocalypse · May 23, 2011

SE102 said:
Indulge at ignorance at no cost to face. Sorry the whole 'being wrong' thing is too hard for you and not worth learning something.

Your suggestion that one of the most credible researching polls facility out there (Gallup polls) is wrong and that you are right is not merely ignorant in inhuman levels but is also arrogant and ridiculous.

Councilman · May 23, 2011

Liberals really need to wake up to the reality that Obama has been a huge disappointment even to me.

I didn't vote for him but I did hope he would be at least mediocre, and he has failed at every turn and caused so much damage to the economy with Bailouts, and just plain stupid programs like Cash for Clunkers.

Had the $687 billion been given to the people we would for the most part be 100% out of debt and growing the economy by purchasing things we need instead of losing homes etc.

He has also made the US weak and foolish in the rest of the World, and hurting our relationship with England, Israel, and others.

Does Obama's Israel Policy Mean a 2012 GOP Win?

Do the Democrats have a serious candidate for 2012?

Yes, Obama is the President. How much more serious can you get?

Yes, better to go with what you have than go through the primary process.

No, time to open it up to Hillary or Lieberman or some more rational Democrat candidate

Heck no, I wouldn't vote for any Democrat.

Well-known member

Salty Specialist

User

New member

onomatopoeic

Somewhere in Babylon

Enemy Combatant

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Enemy Combatant

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Enemy Combatant

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

global liberation

Enemy Combatant

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!