Join the conversation! Send your comments to Blog@RJCHQ.org.

To become to a guest blogger, go here.

---

In the 2008 Presidential race in New Jersey, Barack Obama defeated John McCain by 15.7%. In the Governor’s race in New Jersey two weeks ago, Republican Chris Christie defeated the incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine by 4.3%. In other words, the margin shift from one year to the next was 20%, a remarkable political swing in such a short period of time. In Virginia, the swing from 2008 to 2009 was even larger: from a 6.4% victory for Barack Obama in 2008 to a 17.4% victory for Republican Bob McDonnell in 2009.

It should therefore be no surprise that the Republicans did better among individual subgroups among the voting population in New Jersey and Virginia (e.g. Jewish voters) in 2009, than they did in 2008. Quite simply, had the Republicans’ vote share among individual subgroups remained the same in 2009, as in 2008, the results (a GOP victory in each of the Governor’s races) would not have occurred.

Jewish voters are a far larger share of the total vote in New Jersey than Virginia. The 2006 American Jewish Yearbook estimates that 5.5% of the population of New Jersey is Jewish (480,000 out of just over 8.7 million residents), and 1.3% of the population in Virginia is Jewish (98,000 out of just over 7.5 million residents). New Jersey has the 4th highest Jewish population in the country, after New York, California and Florida, and the second highest Jewish percentage of the population, after New York.

Jews tend to have a significantly higher share of the total vote than their share of the population. This is for 3 reasons: Jews are older on average than other demographic subgroups (a smaller share of the Jewish population is under 18, and therefore ineligible to vote), a higher percentage of Jews who are eligible to vote are registered to vote than is the case for all Americans, and a higher percentage of Jews who are registered turn out to vote, than is the case for all Americans.

The New Jersey Governors race in 2009 was hard fought to the end, and there were significant efforts made by Jewish Democratic groups to get out the vote for Jon Corzine. The Republican Jewish Coalition had a poll conducted of New Jersey voters after the election. The survey was based on interviews with 800 voters, 72 of whom (9%) were Jewish. It is quite possible that Jews made up as much of 9% of the electorate in New Jersey this year despite their smaller share of the population for the reasons given above. My own estimate is that if Jews are 2% of the population nationally, their vote share may be as much as 50% higher, or 3% on average. The survey, by McLaughlin & Associates revealed that Corzine won 62% of the Jewish vote, and Christie 38%.

Almost immediately, the NJDC and its media allies attempted to undermine the poll results as unreliable, due largely to the small survey size (and resulting high margin of error).

What is remarkable about the criticism by the NJDC of the small survey size for the New Jersey poll in 2009, is that this issue never concerned the NJDC in 2006 and 2008 when very small numbers of Jews were included in the national exit poll data for these years. The national exit poll interviews included about 200 Jews for the entire country in 2006 and around 300 in 2008. In both cases, the share of Jews to total voters (1.5 to 2%) was significantly below the likely national Jewish vote share. The national exit polls do not pretend that they interview a random sample of voters for any ethnic subgroup, nor make any claim about the reliability of their results for any subgroups. Yet the NJDC trumpeted the national exit poll data from both years as proof positive of Jewish voting patterns.

Democratic pollster Mark Mellman offered a very reasonable critique of reliance on national exit poll data for ethnic subgroups:

“The truth is there are a lot of issues with exit polls,” particularly when it comes to measuring the Jewish vote, said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, who, like Greenberg, was part of the Solomon Project analysis. He cites “cluster bias” in which voters are interviewed only in select precincts. Early exit polls also mostly come from urban areas that favor Democrats, and unlike phone polls in which all voters have an equal chance of being surveyed, only those at select voting sites are polled.”

It is likely for instance that Orthodox Jewish voters, who heavily favor Republicans, are undercounted in the national exit polls. Has anyone ever seen the young people with clipboards conducting interviews with the Chassidic Jews in Williamsburg, Brooklyn on election day? Interviews with 150 Orthodox Jews in Baltimore in 2008, suggested that 85% of them voted for John McCain.

None of this is to argue that Jews have suddenly become Republican or conservative. But in individual years, in individual elections, Jews are not as reliably Democratic as in other years. Rudy Giuliani carried the Jewish vote when he ran for Mayor of New York City. It is highly likely that Chris Christie did much better among Jewish voters in New Jersey in 2009, than John McCain did nationally in 2008. It is also a good idea to avoid being outlandishly hypocritical in looking at poll results for Jewish voters. Regrettably, this has become a pattern for the NJDC - the results are meaningful when they like them, and are not when they don’t.

This article originally appeared on the American Thinker web site. Read more here.

Disclaimer: Entries posted on the Guest Blog reflect the views of their individual authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Republican Jewish Coalition, its staff, or officers.