419481

Don't bother Greg with any honest assessment he is far too busy beating the muslims are great drum. While most of us have no issues with anyone who comes here legally, plays by the rules, works hard and follows our laws etc he want to try to paint any muslim coming here in any way and for any reason as being A-Okay.

Yes the other votes are important etc. But if the Muslim voters had been skewed Democrat rather than Republican, he would've lost. That's the point. They were skewed Republican and he barely won by just a few hundred votes.
So it is indeed fair to say he won the election off the Muslim vote, because if the Muslims didn't vote he would've lost. If the Muslims voted Democrat in FL he would've lost as well.

In the 2000 Florida Presidential General Election

54% of men voted for Bush
55% of Whites (66.7% of the total voters) voted for Bush
9% of African Americans
44% of Women
35% of Hispanics
41% of Asians
47% of 18-24 year olds
46% of 25-29 year olds
50% of 30-49 year olds
48% of 50-65 year olds
47% of 65+ year olds
38% of people that made less <$15,000
42% of people with household income between $15,000-29,999
48% of people with household income between $30-49,999
51% of people with household income between $50-74,999
52% of people with household income between $75-99,999
55% of people with household income between $100,000 & over

If I applied your statement "...But if the Muslim voters had been skewed Democrat rather than Republican, he would've lost." to any one of all the demographics listed above, could I not say the same thing? So the total Muslim vote accounts for at most 2% of the vote and it would take a 100% shift on the entire Muslim vote to equal 1 or 2 point shift in any of the demographics listed above.

The most generous estimate puts the number of registered Muslim voters in Florida at about 124,000. The American Middle East forum shed some light of CAIR's methodology in arriving at the number and suggests that it is likely 3-3.5 times too high. The most generous estimate is that about 60% of registered Muslim voters actually voted, (compared to 70% of all registered voters) with roughly 30% of those being African American Voters, which are estimated to have 96% loyalty to the Democratic party. Further more according to CAIR's executive director, Nihad Awad, "Muslims based their vote on the best choice . . . It happened to be George Bush, but in four years it may be different." In the prior to presidential election cycles, exit polling indicates that approximately 55%-60% of the nationwide Muslim vote has traditionally voted for the Democratic party candidate, roughly mirroring the national statistics on age and income.

“It can be said with reasonable certainty that the Texas governor [Bush] did better among Muslims than Dole did four years earlier, when the Muslim vote apparently went more for President Clinton than did the country as a whole. Among Arab-American Muslims, there also appears to have been a marked shift to the Republicans between 1996 and 2000.

Was this tilt a temporary aberration or the harbinger of a long-term political alliance? Did or did not the election of 2000 witness the birth of a permanent national voting bloc?

As a whole, Muslims are socially conservative and this leads some to believe that, in the words of the Islamic Institute, Muslims and Republicans logically form a "natural alliance." Representative Davis says, for example, that "Muslims are basically pro-life and have conservative values, and the Republican Party is their natural home."

But Muslims can by no means be counted as natural Republicans.
_First, they are fiscal liberals on such issues as taxes, health care, and welfare.
_Second, perhaps one-third of Muslims are blacks and they (Back Muslims) have an overwhelming loyalty to the Democrats.
_Third, the Islamist organizations are radicals who hardly reflect moderate opinion. Many have not issued categorical denunciations of terrorism against United States, Israeli, and Western targets; others have alarming connections to groups designated by the U.S. State Department as terrorist organizations. Republican leaders who get into bed with Islamists may find themselves constantly having to explain away the latter's embarrassing public statements. The lesson here for Republican and Democratic recruiters is to focus on the broad mass of mainstream, moderate Muslims and not use radical Islamist groups as middlemen.
_Fourth, the Islamists consistently insist that their constituents voted for Bush, not the Republican Party. CAIR's executive director, Nihad Awad, has said, "Muslims based their vote on the best choice . . . It happened to be George Bush, but in four years it may be different." In other words, as Islamist leaders saw it, Bush—not necessarily his party—was more responsive. According to Salam al-Marayati, MPAC's national director and a moving force behind the AMPCC endorsement, "At least Bush made a play for us [but] I'm still a registered Democrat and will continue to be one."
_Fifth, Islamist leaders want to keep their followers independent rather than attach them to any particular party. As Awad explained, "It is clear Muslims will vote for those candidates who address their concerns."
_Sixth, It may be inferred that Muslim support for Bush was not as fervent as the Islamists now claim. In the face of the grand total of $218 contributed to Bush by Arab/Muslim PACs, even The Washington Report had to concede that "the Muslim bloc vote did not translate into bloc money."

For these reasons, what tilt there was to Bush in 2000 was most likely a temporary aberration caused by the election's unique nature. Henceforth, a Muslim vote for Republicans is by no means certain. – Source “American middle East Forum” dated Summer 2001 Volume 8: Number 3: