OY GEVALT

The GOP’s Jewish Donors Are Abandoning Trump

In recent years, Republicans have made inroads into the overwhelmingly Democratic constituency of American Jews. But this year, Republican Jews — or Jewish donors to the Republican party, at least — are abandoning their party’s nominee at a stunningly high rate.

In 2012, 71 percent of the $160 million that Jewish donors gave to the two major-party nominees went to President Obama’s re-election campaign; 29 percent went to Mitt Romney’s campaign, according to our analysis of campaign contributors, which used a predictive model to estimate which donors are Jewish based on their names and other characteristics. This ratio of support mirrors how Jewish voters cast their ballots in 2012.

So far in 2016, of all the money given to major-party candidates by donors who appear to be Jewish, 95 percent has gone to Hillary Clinton and just 5 percent has gone to Donald Trump.

To understand what’s going on here, some context is useful.

In 2008 and 2012, about 70 to 75 percent of voters identifying as Jewish supported President Obama. A recent poll of Jews suggests that 76 percent of those voting for a major-party candidate are leaning toward Clinton. These numbers make Jews one of the most pro-Democratic constituencies in American politics.

But there are also active constituencies of Republicans, including Orthodox Jews, the majority of whom favor Republicans, as well as Jews who are dissatisfied with Obama’s handling of Israel, though there is overlap between these groups. And as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has moved to align himself with Republicans in the U.S., Jews who are supportive of Netanyahu’s policies in Israel may be following suit.

But for Republican Jews, Trump is a problematic figure. For starters, there is the issue of Trump’s anti-Semitic followers, anti-Semitic (re)tweets and anti-Semitic-ish comments to Republican donors.

Then there are the issues of Trump’s racism, religious intolerance and opposition to refugees. For a religious minority like Jews, who have a recent history of persecution and forced displacement, these issues are often especially salient. (See also: Mormons).

For those Jews who are primarily interested in American foreign policy in the Middle East, Trump’s lack of engagement with foreign affairs and unprecedented lack of experience in government make him an unknown quantity on many public policies, including foreign policy toward Israel. His early statements on Israel also signaled possible deviation from the standard pro-Likud line.

And while some Republicans who otherwise dislike Trump might support him because he would nominate socially conservative Supreme Court justices, Republican Jews (with the exception of the Orthodox) are typically less focused than other Republicans on social issues like abortion and gay rights, so the Supreme Court justification doesn’t carry much weight for them.

For these reasons, one might expect some decay in support for the Republican nominee among American Jews. On the other hand, partisanship is a pretty strong force. Most Republicans are getting behind Trump, including the most high-profile Jewish Republican donor in the U.S., billionaire Sheldon Adelson.

To measure the relationship between Republicans and Jewish supporters, we gathered data on campaign contributors. We focused on this group for two reasons: First, Jews make up such a small percentage of the U.S. population (2 percent), that there is not much reliable data on their overall preferences (the AJC poll released last week claims to be the first poll of Jews this cycle). In a representative sample of 1,000 Americans — the typical size for a national poll — a pollster would only get about 20 people who identify as Jewish. Since researchers know less about the Jewish population than they do about larger demographic groups, even a larger survey of Jews could easily be thrown off by the sampling weights used by the pollster.

(1/2)

archive.fo/4M2lf

Studying political contributors may provide a useful signal regarding the overall preferences of the subgroup, but that’s not the only reason to look at them. Jews make up a much larger share of campaign contributors than of voters. A big swing in their donation behavior is probably more consequential than a big shift in their voting behavior.

So here’s what we did: We looked at every contribution of more than $200 that was made to a federal candidate, which is a matter of public record.1 We took the names and addresses of the donors and linked them to a micro-targeting profile produced by Catalist, a political data vendor.2 By combining public records about names and neighborhoods with polling data and its own proprietary records, Catalist estimates whether every voter in the U.S. is Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, Hindu, Buddhist or other. The model will do a better job predicting religious affiliations for groups like Jews that tend to have distinct names and often live in geographic clusters.3

A prediction of who is Jewish based on names and neighborhoods isn’t perfect. It’s a rough estimate. The model will probably count some people as Jewish who don’t identify that way, like former U.S. Sen. William Cohen of Maine. And it will likely count other people as not Jewish who do identify as Jewish, like journalist Matthew Yglesias. For example, if Jews with more secular names tend to be less religious, this model would probably fail to identify Democratic Jewish donors more often than Republican Jewish donors. That sort of bias would mean the true donation behaviors could be even more starkly divided than what we are showing here.

So what are we showing? Again, about 70 percent of both the money given and votes cast by Jews went to Obama in 2012.

But in 2016, of the $95 million given to presidential campaigns so far by Jewish donors, 84 percent went to Democrats and just 16 percent went to Republicans. This is particularly interesting, since this figure includes donations to all of Trump’s primary opponents. If we ignore the primary losers and just focus on the nominees, 95 percent of all contributions went to Clinton.

In raw dollars, Jewish donors have already given Clinton about two-thirds the amount they gave to Obama through the whole 2012 cycle. But donations to Trump amount to just 8 percent of what was given to Romney.

As a percentage of all contributors, Jews made up 18 percent of Obama’s donors and 7 percent of Romney’s donors in 2012. In 2016, 20 percent of Clinton’s donors appear to be Jewish, compared to 3 percent of Trump’s donors.

Jewish donors’ abandonment of the Republican nominee is dramatic. But what does it mean? For one thing, most Jewish donors are not like Sheldon Adelson. They are withholding support from a candidate they do not like, even if the candidate is affiliated with their favored party.4

It is possible that the abandonment is about policy — as discussed above, there are policy-oriented reasons why some Jews are not fond of Trump. But policy is not the only factor at work here. This is probably also about culture and social identification. If Jews perceive that the kinds of people who support Republicans are not like themselves, then they will update their identification with the party. To be willing to donate to and affiliate themselves with a party, a person needs to look at the other people supporting that party and think, “Those are my people.” For Jews, Trump-aligned Republicans appear to be very much not their people.

(2/2)

more at 10

I want to vote for Trump rather than lurk Holla Forums, but that image is kinda giving me a bad feeling

Good.

Aren't his former opponents practically forced to support him now that he is the top goy?

Trump doesn't even need much money to run, especially now in the home stretch. Hillary has thrown millions and can barely stay within 5-10 points of Trump.

I'm sure the jews are very concerned that their sheckles don't have much power over Trump. They have no other influence to use.

Not really.

The Republican party is basically dead at this point, split in half between the voters and the establishment.

The establishment folks are going to try to find someplace else to go - expect to see a new US political party forming in the next 4 years, as establishment republicucks try to find a new place in the hierarchy.

They don't have to support Trump, and many will not, and it won't cost them much of anything - just look at Paul Ryan.

These establishment cuckolds are largely in power because a good portion of the US populace is composed of white cuckolds, and a few mud people who are more inclined to support a White cuckold than a Marxist of any race.

I'm really looking forward to this aspect of things.

If Trump wins, its going to basically prove once and for all that monetary contributions are not all that important to winning, which will then bring into question why politicians put so much effort into courting lobbyists.

Their boilerplater response is that its necessary, because they need the money to campaign - yet here is Donald Trump, running an election with far, FAR less money than his opposition (which is hilarious given he's got more personal wealth than most of his opposition combined) and he won.

If he can win in that context, its going to really shake things up in terms of the narrative these people employ to explain or justify their blatant corruption.

I guess shills just lost their best d&c argument.

That's going to be motivational, very motivational for me.

And that's political suicide (for the most part). You have to understand that those not supporting Trump will be in a not so disfavored position if trump looses.

Someone explained in a Holla Forums group that the only way those not supporting Trump will not be a political suicide is if:
1) Trump looses in a landslide
2) Trump presidency is filled with scandals by his own making
3) The People beg for the new administration to repair any of the things his presidency caused

The first scenario is unlikely, second and third could happen but (feelings aside) they don't seem very likely. You have to understand that most of the republicans and conservatives that didn't support trump, did so in a time where it was very UNCERTAIN of what the future hold.

Ha
ha
ha
shills
oh
shills
ha
ha
ha

...

Reminder that 70% of Hillary's top 20 Super PAC donors are kikes.

Jews fund whoever they think will win. They have no allegiance to country, religion, race, not even their own.

SHILLS BTFO

B-b-b-but Trump is jewish…

b-but he's just a jew puppet

here user I added the scars

I disagree with that analysis.

I would suggest that if Trump wins, many of those who opposed him will re-align their careers to being his opposition while in power and such.
Paul Ryan is a perfect example - he blatantly opposed Trump, acted to inhibit him at several points, and he was elected no-prob.
Its not going to be the same for everyone, mind you, but there are certainly many, especially the most stringent anti-Trump folks in areas that they won (see Cruz, see Kasich, see folks like Paul), who can thrive in a post-Trump-victory scenario, still trying to play the moderate card and drag us back to the cuckoldry.

Very good

Those who believe trump isn't apart of jewish plan just like every political move for over 100 years because of the illusion of hate towards him by those who played the role of the "bad guys" in this political stage must understand that this is all pre planned.

Everyone already knows that the jews control all known media and are masters of deception, leading the world in psychological warfare, most notably by the use of media. Yet no one bothers to wonder why they give trump any publicity (bad or good; we all know any publicity is good publicity for sales to increase). Trump has been given more media attention than all candidates combined. Yet this brings no suspicion to anyone. Disregard the eye candy and ask yourselves why they would do this…
Before you say it is about money. Keep in mind that they already control the central banks (and have for over 100 years). Money is not even remotely close to being considered a "problem" for them. They can simply print more without transparancy.

I like his policies except for the war mongering in the middle east. The only difference between him and other candidates is really just the domestic policy. Foreign policy remains jew owned for the greater israel plan.

From the people who spent millions shilling away conspiracy theories and keeping it from tv, they are directly pumping 10's of billions of dollars towards trump's campaign. This is why he doesn't "take their money". Because he just skips the middleman ($) to receive the finished product (paid publicity).

This is the only argument that will never be responded to with an actual reason because it can't be explained away. People just assume the media is all of a sudden stupid and is giving away billions of $ worth of publicity. Something they are notorious for never doing. As a matter of fact, they are well known for pre-planning their agenda (this is what their think tanks are for). Not saying "yolo" and praying for the best.

Kek!


My hatred for Shillary knows no bounds. I'm in the AnybodybutShillary camp. I consider the parliamentary system broken beyond repair.
Staying in control is about money. Other than that, I don't know why asking critical questions about Trump is by many considered the same as shilling for Hillary.

No they do not and no they are not.
Only kikes believe this.

It is kind of odd when you compare the way they treated Ron Paul and the way they treat Trump now.

the media in Germany also gave lots of attention to Hitler, and they weren't pretending to hate him. Explain that.

It's not political suicide if the Dems win, they're literally playing for the same team.

Because he doesn't outright say things like this?

They gave Hitler lots of attention too. Some people you just can't ignore.
He wasn't one of those people. He wasn't loud, he wasn't flashy, he never said anything inflammatory. He was basically a right wing Bernie Sanders in the sense of being an old guy with a young, loyal following. He could be easily ignored.
Hitler knew that the Media couldnt help but cover loud, inflammatory things because it sells, but even more so because they can't help but virtue signal and go "oy vey look at this bad goyim he's awful". They think people will be just as disgusted as they are. These people can't see outside themselves and think people will just agree to what ever they say.

Did Hitler even say inflammatory things? He looked loud and angry, but he was never saying anything like we do.

What a shining endorsement.

I miss you happening man.

The most fundamental tenets of Jews are racist. They want to end the white race through whatever means. Trump is advocating for healthy nationalism and borders. No matter how conservative their values may be, Jews want none of that.

Really shows just how much Israel runs the show when you talk about Israel being your greatest ally; Canada, your northern neighbour, biggest trade partner (outside of the EU) and ally with an extremely similar culture is at best the second fiddle to a bunch of desert Bergs because any case of not sucking their dicks will get you called an anti-Semite who wants to turn everyone into a lampshade.

Ron Paul spoke too precisely which allowed the media to pick a 5 second clip of a 10 minute answer he gave and take it out of context. Trump is smart enough to keep it simple and put all complex policy issues online so he doesn't give the mainstream media clips to take out of context. If Paul stuck to "build the wall" type shit and verbally bitch slapped a couple neocons he would have been president.