“The israel Factor: Ranking the Presidential Candidates”

As usual, israelis are one step ahead of Americans - sizing up each presidential candidate - by rank - according to how well they're expected to serve israel's interests.

According to this commentator at Syracuse.com, israelis have every reason to insinuate themselves into America's presidential election.

Nevermind that they have NO RIGHT.

Why are [israelis] doing this? The reason is quite obvious: As the U.S. is the sole world superpower, the influence wielded by the American president impacts way beyond the borders of the U.S. As a major recipient of U.S. aid and political support, Israel is one country for whom the positions and policies of the American president are crucial.

How do they measure up?

Well, they have each candidate individually ranked, Rudy Guliani leading with a whopping 8.13, Newt Gingrich trailing close behind at 7.63, McCain 7.13, Clinton 6.63, Gore 5.88, John Edwards 5.53, and Obama scraping the bottom of the barrel at meager 4.0.

But, then they have an in depth analysis of a race between the two most likely contenders:

Clinton vs. McCain: Who's really better for Israel?
Looking at the two leading candidates, the panel gives John McCain better marks, but actually prefers Hillary Clinton as president. The explanation for this strange phenomenon is both obvious and complicated, and our statistics expert says it often happens.

* * *A surprising conclusion: For the first time since we started this project, we learn that most of the panel, in a two way race between the two leading candidates, prefers Hillary Clinton the Democrat over John McCain the Republican. This conclusion, though, doesn't change the fact that on average McCain keeps getting higher marks from the panel.

In the regular question we ask about all candidates - the question that's the key to our general ranking: How good is the candidate for Israel - McCain is third this time, as he was in the last four surveys.[they do this all the time!!!] McCain got 7.12, and was ahead of Clinton with 6.62 (they were virtually tied in the first survey, back in September, but McCain was ahead of Clinton in the next three).

However, in this survey we decided to try and compare candidates in imaginary two-way races. Each pair simulates a possible national race with one Democrat and one Republican running against each other. Some of the pairs - like Clinton vs. McCain - are of the more likely candidates. Some pairs - like Romney vs. Obama - are of interesting candidates that are still trailing in their respective parties.

The methodology we followed is this: For each pair we gave one of the candidates a score of 3, and asked the panelists to rate the other candidate from 1 to 5. If they gave the candidate a score of 3 it means that the two candidates are perceived as equally good for Israel, a higher number means the second candidate is better, a lower number means he is not as good. In the case of McCain and Clinton, we gave the Republican the imaginary 3. Clinton finished with an average of 3.25, meaning she is somewhat preferable.

Clinton's higher ranking than McCain was not unanimous, but is nevertheless quite definitive. Four of the panelists gave her a higher ranking than 3 (meaning, higher than McCain), two ranked them as equal, and two thought McCain was better. Several questions we asked about McCain in a different part of our survey - comparing him to Rudy Giuliani on a number of issues - can provide us with some clues as to the reasons for which Clinton was able to beat him on this question.

The four panelists who thought Clinton is better were the same panelists who gave McCain the lowest grades on the question his emotional attachment to Israel. This, evidently, is an important question, and probably the most profound reason why Giuliani keeps getting better marks than McCain (and Clinton - in a two way race he beat her easily with 4.12 to 3). The panelists highlighted the "emotional attachment" as the most distinctive difference between the two, with McCain scoring 2.75 to Giuliani's 4.12.

Interestingly, back in September, when we asked the "emotional attachment" question about all the candidates, Clinton beat McCain in this specific area by 7 to 6.88. Another important thing to note is that in October, when we asked the panelists who's more likely "to change his policies after the election," the panel trusted McCain to be more consistent than Clinton. Still, Clinton was able to convince the panel this month that she is slightly better in a two-way race.

The same four panelists who ranked Clinton higher were ready to rank another Democratic possible nominee as better than McCain in a two-way race: Al Gore (who also scored 3.25 to McCain's 3). But in Gore's case, as is in Clinton's, the average he gets from the panel on the general ranking question of "good for Israel" is lower than McCain's (7.12 for McCain and 5.87 for Gore). In a two-way race between McCain and John Edwards, the Republican is the one leading, with 3.75 to Edward's 3, and only one panelist ranked McCain lower.