Trying new ways of asking questions is a sure way to provide one with refreshing data about his subject of interest, and this exactly what we tried to do with our Israel Factor panel this month. (Click here for the results of the latest survey.)
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. 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.
The explanation for this strange phenomenon is both obvious and complicated. Prof. Fuchs, our statistics expert, says that it often happens. When you give your marks to the wide field of candidates, all you think about is the candidate you rank, but when you're forced to look at a more specific race, this is the time that you take sides. Thus, two panelists who gave McCain and Clinton exactly the same marks came to choose her over him in a two-way race. Three panelists gave Gore and McCain the same marks, but chose Gore in a two-way race.
Looking for a more profound, less technical explanation? You might be disappointed. It's the "gut feeling" component of political choice. Forced to choose, people make a decision - and the panel revealed its true colors on this two-way race.
Haaretz.com, the online edition of Haaretz Newspaper in Israel, offers real-time breaking news, opinions and analysis from Israel and the Middle East. Haaretz.com provides extensive and in-depth coverage of Israel, the Jewish World and the Middle East, including defense, diplomacy, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the peace process, Israeli politics, Jerusalem affairs, international relations, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Israeli business world and Jewish life in Israel and the Diaspora.
Trying new ways of asking questions is a sure way to provide one with refreshing data about his subject of interest, and this exactly what we tried to do with our Israel Factor 
