Gallup: Catholic vote a tossup, 46/46

posted at 9:21 am on May 3, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

In 2008, Barack Obama won the Catholic vote by nine points, 54/45, over John McCain on his way to a seven-point victory in the national popular vote.  Three months after announcing the HHS mandate that would force religious hospitals, schools, and charities to fund contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients, Obama has lost that edge among the tens of millions of Catholic voters.  A new Gallup poll shows Obama in a dead heat with Mitt Romney, at just about the same level as McCain got in 2008:

Catholic voters in the United States are evenly split in their support for Barack Obama and Mitt Romney for president, mirroring the national trend. However, Hispanic Catholics — about 18% of the total group of Catholic voters — are overwhelmingly likely to support Obama over Romney, while a majority of non-Hispanic white Catholics support Romney.

Obama led Romney by one percentage point, 46% to 45%, among the more than 8,000 registered voters interviewed as part of Gallup Daily tracking conducted April 11-30. Among the 1,915 Catholics interviewed during that time, support for Obama and Romney was almost the same, with 46% support for Obama and 46% for Romney.

Catholics’ divided preferences at this point contrast with those of the largest religious group in the country, Protestants, whose support swings to Romney by 51% to 41%. The split in Catholics’ preferences also differs from the choice among those who identify with another religion or no religion at all, a group that clearly supports Obama, by 58% to 33%.

The Protestant vote is going to be a problem for Obama, too.  He lost Protestants to McCain by the same numbers, 45/54.  However, the difference in both numbers is that Obama is a known quantity this time, unlike in 2008. Those who remain undecided now are much less likely to break towards the incumbent.  Romney already has a ten-point lead among Protestants, and could easily stretch it out to the mid-teens by Election Day.  Protestants made up 54% of the electorate in 2008, and it’s probably a safe bet that they’ll turn out even stronger in 2012.

Obama won despite the disadvantage mainly because of his strength among Catholics.  Gallup tries to soften the blow by noting that Obama does very well among Hispanic Catholics, 70/20, but they are only about 18% of the bloc.  Obama is deeply unpopular among non-Hispanic Catholics, 38/55.  Whatever else happens, the Catholic vote won’t come to Obama’s rescue in 2012 as it did in 2008.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops have not relented one iota on the issue of the HHS mandate, which means these numbers won’t be improving any time soon.  That may even start having an impact on Obama’s lead among Hispanic Catholics.  Obama will have to defend this intrusion on religious expression, thanks to the USCCB’s energetic attacks, but the administration will have to do better than this:

In sworn testimony before the House Education and Workforce Committee, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that her general counsel did not write a legal memo explaining the religious freedom issues in the birth control mandate. During the same line of questioning, Sebelius also admitted to being unfamiliar with several important Supreme Court religious freedom cases.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said that he knew of only three tests that the Supreme Court has used to balance a constitutionally protected freedom against a policy goal. He described those three tests and then asked Sebelius last Thursday, “Which of those three constitutional balancing tests were you making reference to when you said you ‘balanced’ things?”

“Congressman, I’m not a lawyer and I don’t pretend to understand the nuances of the constitutional balancing tests,” Sebelius answered.

“Before this rule was promulgated, did you read any of the Supreme Court cases on religious liberty?” Gowdy later asked.

Sebelius answered that she did not.

Chris Cillizza and Rachel Weiner underscore the importance of this bloc:

As Gallup’s Frank Newport notes in a memo on the findings, Catholics have historically been a Democratic-leaning constituency — the party can thank John F. Kennedy for that one — but in recent decades have become more of a toss-up voting bloc.

The eight presidential elections reveal how up for grabs Catholics truly. The Republican nominee has carried Catholics four times, the Democratic nominee has carried Catholics four times. …

Keep an eye on the Catholic vote between now and November. How it goes will tell you a lot about who is going to be the next president.

And as long as the bishops maintain the fight against the Obama administration — and they defend the mandate so badly — it won’t be Obama who wins this bloc.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

So how come it’s 45-45? How come it’s not 30-60? This doesn’t speak well of American Catholics.

gryphon202 on May 3, 2012 at 9:23 AM

What is with Catholics and Jews?

ctmom on May 3, 2012 at 9:24 AM

46% of Catholics apparently need serious ecclesiastical counseling.

coldwarrior on May 3, 2012 at 9:25 AM

…so…there ARE ‘retarded’ (JugEars term)Catholics!

KOOLAID2 on May 3, 2012 at 9:26 AM

In 2008, Barack Obama won the Catholic vote by nine points, 54/45,

A new Gallup poll shows Obama in a dead heat with Mitt Romney, at just about the same level as McCain got in 2008:

I don’t understand how those two statements jive.

keep the change on May 3, 2012 at 9:26 AM

And as long as the bishops maintain the fight against the Obama administration — and they defend the mandate so badly — it won’t be Obama who wins this bloc.

The bishops will ultimately cave.

Happy Nomad on May 3, 2012 at 9:26 AM

So how come it’s 45-45? How come it’s not 30-60? This doesn’t speak well of American Catholics.

gryphon202 on May 3, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Same reason Jewish voters aren’t abandoning Obama. Or black voters. Or Hispanic voters. Or women voters. We’re dealing with blocs of voters that are hardcore liberals and/or Democrats, so no matter how badly Obama has failed them, their natural inclination is to still pull the lever for whomever has the D after their name on the ballot.

Doughboy on May 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Haven’t Catholics traditionally supported Democrats? Aren’t they more comfortable with top-down hierarchies with wise elders making decisions for the lay folk? This seems like a natural fit for Democrat support and Obama blew it.

rhombus on May 3, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Yawn! another poll

gerrym51 on May 3, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Remember, for the purposes of polling, a “Catholic” is someone who had a Catholic priest pour water on their head (three times) when they were a baby, and who now believes they can tell priests what Catholic teaching is.

RBMN on May 3, 2012 at 9:33 AM

That was something, wasn’t it?

And as for the Hispanic numbers, remember a couple of things:

1. Hispanic raw numbers are often accidentally-on-purpose leavened with those who are, shall we say, ineligible to vote. Voter ID laws will suppress the turnout by the ineligible, and the Hispanic vote will probably not match current polling.

2. Spanish-language media is even more in the tank than English-language media, and that is where a lot of the ineligible and the very, very recent eligible immigrants get their news.

3. Polls don’t have to be accurate right now, and are often used more to drive the narrative and keep voting blocs in line. Don’t you want to be on the bandwagon, mijo?

Sekhmet on May 3, 2012 at 9:34 AM

The bishops will ultimately cave.

Happy Nomad on May 3, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Oh trust me on this one, they won’t. When it comes to the sanctity of human life, the Church will not budge one inch.

Trafalgar on May 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Jews support any democrat, even Obama.
Catholics supported Kennedy and now Obama.
Evangelicals supported Santorum.
Someone’s telling me that religion and intelligence can coexist? Hell no.

PS: Okay, don’t take it personally. *You* may be an exception.

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Oh trust me on this one, they won’t. When it comes to the sanctity of human life, the Church will not budge one inch.

Trafalgar on May 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM

I hope you are right but the bishops’ track record is more on my side than yours.

Happy Nomad on May 3, 2012 at 9:40 AM

My mother’s long-time gentleman friend is an 82 year old Catholic Korean War vet. I think he’s republican-I can’t imagine Ma ever ‘dating’ a Dim-but I also think he’s just decided not to vote. He doesn’t have any grandkids-so to C-it just isn’t as important anymore.
Ma(Jewish) WILL be voting GOP-mainly because she doesn’t want to see ‘fangs and claws’ from her daughter and grandson.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 3, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Oh trust me on this one, they won’t. When it comes to the sanctity of human life, the Church will not budge one inch.

Trafalgar on May 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Then why we were they so easily bought off with a flimsy EO in order for O-Care to pass?

Bitter Clinger on May 3, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Someone’s telling me that religion and intelligence can coexist? Hell no.

PS: Okay, don’t take it personally. *You* may be an exception.

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Are you honestly making the case that those who define themselves as atheists are, by definition, intelligent? Lotsa luck making that case.

Happy Nomad on May 3, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Remember, for the purposes of polling, a “Catholic” is someone who had a Catholic priest pour water on their head (three times) when they were a baby, and who now believes they can tell priests what Catholic teaching is.

RBMN on May 3, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Yes, for the purposes of polling only. As someone who became a Catholic well into my 50′s I actually take it seriously, and the people I know and go to Mass with every week are staunchly opposed to Obama. The Catholics who last were inside a church for cousin Pookie’s wedding, not so much.

Trafalgar on May 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Link to poll showing Romney with a crushing lead over Obama among atheists?

sadarj on May 3, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Other than voting for Perot in ’92(I’m sorry)I’ve been voting straight conservative @ the state and national level since I turned 18 in ’88.
*I was also one of Herr Pat Buchanan’s Jewish supporters for a while. Youth is wasted on the young.*

annoyinglittletwerp on May 3, 2012 at 9:44 AM

As Gallup’s Frank Newport notes in a memo on the findings, Catholics have historically been a Democratic-leaning constituency — the party can thank John F. Kennedy for that one — but in recent decades have become more of a toss-up voting bloc.

Not true. Catholics have been a Democratic constant since the Civil War, when Irish (Catholics), who at that time occupied the dirtiest and lowest paying jobs on the ladder, convinced themselves that free blacks would steal their jobs.

Not that Democrats have ever shown any sort of upwardly mobile wisdom, they did like all other ethnic groups did and rose into the middle class — but never lost their anti-black leanings.

To understand this, look at the votes and comments of Rep. John F. Kennedy (D) on the civil rights issues of his day.

“Kennedy put political realism before any form of beliefs when he voted against Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act. The route from bill to act nearly served to tear apart the Republicans and the Democrats were almost united to a politician in their opposition to the bill/act. Kennedy had aspirations to be the Democrats next presidential candidate in the 1960 election. If he was seen to be taking the party line and demonstrating strong leadership with regards to opposing the bill, this would do his chances no harm whatsoever. This proved to be the case and Kennedy lead the Democrats to victory over Richard Nixon in 1960.”

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/john_kennedy_and_civil_rights.htm

Indeed, JFK got the Catholic vote in the same ratio as BO got the black vote in 2008, but, except for Reagan in 1980, the Catholic vote has always tended Democratic.

With Mr. Obama’s decision to attack the Church, he’s lost a bunch of that vote. All it takes is little acts like this to eat it up:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/News/PRDetail/5472

Hercules owners William Newland, Paul Newland, James Newland, and Christine Ketterhagen, and its vice-president, Andrew Newland, are practicing and believing Catholics. They desire to run the company, an HVAC manufacturer, in a manner that reflects their sincerely held religious beliefs, including their belief that God requires respect for the sanctity of human life. Their lawsuit, Newland v. Sebelius, is in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

unclesmrgol on May 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Are you honestly making the case that those who define themselves as atheists are, by definition, intelligent? Lotsa luck making that case.

Happy Nomad on May 3, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Torch that strawman, will you? My case is that atheists are, at average, more intelligent than believers. I know, any statement is awfully tough to prove scientifically but American politics does provide ample anecdotal evidence to it.

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 9:46 AM

PJ Media did an interview with the awesome Mr Gowdy about the hearing:

In a telephone interview Friday, Gowdy said that he had looked up a video from last year of Sebelius being questioned on the constitutionality of the individual mandate:

[She used] the exact same words: “I’m not a lawyer.”

Gowdy does not accept the explanation:

You don’t have to be an attorney to check with the solicitor general … or your boss who claims to be a constitutional scholar.

Gowdy also noted that President Barack Obama doesn’t appear interested in adherence to the Constitution:

For a guy who claims to be a constitutional scholar, he sure seems to show disdain for the document.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/kathleen-sebelius-constitutional-ignorance/?singlepage=true

FLconservative on May 3, 2012 at 9:46 AM

A lot of my fellow Catholics are Catholic for Easter and Christmas purposes only. Or they are grocery store Catholics, who pick the teachings they wish to follow off the shelf and ignore the rest. Which is why they can vote for the party of death. It won’t change until the Pope and bishops underneath him start excommunicating people who don’t follow the teachings of the Church.

search4truth on May 3, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Someone’s telling me that religion and intelligence can coexist? Hell no.

PS: Okay, don’t take it personally. *You* may be an exception.

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Atheism and Marxism have a much stronger correlation than Religiousity and Marxism.

Those who believe in nothing will fall for anything.

*You* may be the exception :D

BKennedy on May 3, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Then why we were they so easily bought off with a flimsy EO in order for O-Care to pass?

Bitter Clinger on May 3, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Perhaps they were following the old Obama “I assume that people meant what they said when they said it. And that’s been at least my practice.” premise?

Trafalgar on May 3, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Doughboy on May 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM

See my reply to Archivarix. I’m the cradle Jewish conservative daughter of cradle Jewish conservatives.
We’re not all sheep.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 3, 2012 at 9:48 AM

The Catholics who last were inside a church for cousin Pookie’s wedding, not so much.

Trafalgar on May 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM

She’s not my cousin.

unclesmrgol on May 3, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Well, we can be certain that voters who are undecided at this point will break for the challenger by about 80/20. This means Romney actually has about a 53/47 lead with Catholics.

I also read somewhere that Nobama’s numbers are down with Jewish voters. He’s definitely lost some support there since 2008.

TarheelBen on May 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM

PS: Okay, don’t take it personally. *You* may be an exception.

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM

In the pompous a$$ category, you are not the exception.

Vince on May 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM

*I was also one of Herr Pat Buchanan’s Jewish supporters for a while. Youth is wasted on the young.*

annoyinglittletwerp on May 3, 2012 at 9:44 AM

O.M.G. I can see certain allure in Ron Paul’s economic message and his offer of pot-smoking freedom, but what virtue can a sane person – even though, IMHO, young Jewish girls rarely qualify as such – find in Buchanan?

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM

It’s appalling they can find 46% who support this demon. Seems like Barry’s magic number when it comes to polls. Let’s hope it continues thru the election.

RobertMN on May 3, 2012 at 9:50 AM

And as long as the bishops maintain the fight against the Obama administration — and they defend the mandate so badly — it won’t be Obama who wins this bloc.

The bishops will ultimately cave.

Happy Nomad on May 3, 2012 at 9:26 AM

The bishops, Notre Dame, and Georgetown already caved. I have a friend who is an Anglican Priest, he can’t get enough Social Justice.
Read what they think of Ryan’s budget.

tdarrington on May 3, 2012 at 9:50 AM

In North Carolina, many Catholic churches are being treated to mid-week information sessions on Amendment 1 (banning gay marriage, May 8 vote) and on the HHS mandate, courtesy of the local bishop. I’ve never seen the Church schedule adult education sessions to clearly define the issues like this before. All US Conference of Bishops letters on the HHS mandate have been published in my parish bulletin. In my parish, it is relentless.

DrStock on May 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM

In the pompous a$$ category, you are not the exception.

Vince on May 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Is it your God’s teaching to resort to personal insults when arguments fail?

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Whereas a good African Methodist Episcopal Church pastor will bring his flock out of their seats, witnessing, singing and shouting Amen’s…and tell them what to vote for who to vote for and how…

Most Catholic priests will mumble something in a vapid homily about following your conscience….and let it go at that…unless it has to do with sheltering of illegal immigrants or opposing Conservative presidents’ alleged war-mongering abroad.

Have been to both…trust me.

Sanctity of human life…most American Catholics couldn’t care any less, really….that whole birth control thing…according to too many Catholics, what they do in their bedrooms is none of the Church’s business, apparently.

But, get a Republican war-monger in the White House and they’ll go all Cindy Sheehan on you.

Maybe the Conference of Catholic Bishops needs to get a bit more energized or energetic on this one?

That is unless some Catholics might be offended being told what to do by their Church leadership.

Yours truly,

A once-lifelong Catholic, presently Lutheran ELCA.

coldwarrior on May 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM

46% of us backing That One is disappointing, but hey, it’s a heck of a lot better than in 2008…
That One can’t back down on his abortion mandate, or he’d risk losing some of his far-left base… I feel like the RCC won’t back down either (being a direct affront to religious liberty, in addition to the problem of promoting abortion), so those numbers may improve for Romney throughout the summer and fall.

Also:

Vince on May 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM

My thoughts exactly. :D

Mr. Prodigy on May 3, 2012 at 9:53 AM

PS: Okay, don’t take it personally. *You* may be an exception.

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Well then, don’t make blanket statements like that.

Trafalgar on May 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM

A lot of my fellow Catholics are Catholic for Easter and Christmas purposes only. Or they are grocery store Catholics, who pick the teachings they wish to follow off the shelf and ignore the rest. Which is why they can vote for the party of death. It won’t change until the Pope and bishops underneath him start excommunicating people who don’t follow the teachings of the Church.

search4truth on May 3, 2012 at 9:46 AM

There would be no Catholics if the Pope did that. We are a Church of sinners. Excommunication — locking away from the Sacraments and apostolic authority — has been reserved as an ecclesiastical punishment against the clergy — a way to prevent errant clerics from claiming that something is Catholic doctrine/dogma when it is not, or from forming schism.

Maybe the Church needs to rethink this position with respect to lay politicians.

I’ve always wondered what Nancy Pelosi hears in the homily at Mass, and whether some form of correction might be needed to her teachers.

unclesmrgol on May 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM

If you disassociated devout Catholics from non-practicing Catholics then Romney would be well ahead. Among non-practicing Catholics, the inverse is true.

There’s nothing you can do about how people identify their religion to pollsters. Short of Obama decreeing that he is the new Pope and his White House is the new Vatican (formally, not implicitly through HHS mandates), he will win the latter group because they are mostly secularists identifying themselves as something they really aren’t.

The Count on May 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 9:49

like I said-youth is wasted on the young. What’s so bad-is even THEN I was aware of his Jew-hating tendencies…and I STILL supported him.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM

I’m not a Catholic, but if the college of bishops is encouraging the parishes to preach social justice from the pulpit, I don’t expect the numbers to change much. When Georgetown uses “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” to demonize Ryan’s budget and make the case for Jesus’ support for social justice, you can be sure the Catholics will be jammed full of propaganda.

I just can’t figure out what is in it for the Bishops. What advantage do they gain with socialism?

tdarrington on May 3, 2012 at 9:55 AM

The ‘catholic vote’ is an almost entirely bogus concept.

There are too many cafeteria catholics to make it a coherent block. On the one hand you have catholics who more or less keep to the catechism. On the other you have a significant number of rabidly pro-abortion ‘catholics’ like Nancy Pelosi, for whom politics will always trump the catechism.

CorporatePiggy on May 3, 2012 at 9:56 AM

coldwarrior on May 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Might I ask-what’s a conservative doin’ in ELCA?

annoyinglittletwerp on May 3, 2012 at 9:56 AM

See my reply to Archivarix. I’m the cradle Jewish conservative daughter of cradle Jewish conservatives.
We’re not all sheep.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 3, 2012 at 9:48 AM

I’m not saying all Jewish voters pull the lever for the Dems, but a vast majority of them do. That can’t be denied. For God’s sake, there was a poll out a few weeks ago that showed even people in Israel were split 50/50 on whether or not Obama’s policies were for or against their country. These were Jews polled in Israel!

Doughboy on May 3, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Let’s see, the church of anti-abortion, anti-contraception and anti-gay marriage throws 45% of their support toward a Pres who is exactly the opposite? WE ARE SO SCREWED.

hillsoftx on May 3, 2012 at 9:57 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on May 3, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Damn good coffee and donuts after services. :-)

coldwarrior on May 3, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Maybe the Conference of Catholic Bishops needs to get a bit more energized or energetic on this one?

coldwarrior on May 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM

They’ve been quite energetic on this issue with letters from the bishop’s read at Masses, release of the Catholic Voting Guide, recordings of speeches from the bishops played instead of a homily, petition drives, etc. Of course, those things only get to Catholics who actually go to Mass.

Trafalgar on May 3, 2012 at 9:57 AM

In the pompous a$$ category, you are not the exception.

Vince on May 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Is it your God’s teaching to resort to personal insults when arguments fail?

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM

It’s not an insult. It’s obvious.

Vince on May 3, 2012 at 9:58 AM

O/T but:
There is a group in Woonsocket, RI that wants to remove a ‘latin cross’ from a monument in town.
Woonsocket reps say they do not have enough money to fight this.
I’m sure this is part of the plan to remove religion (to substitute with gov’t oversight).
What has this world come to?

askwhatif on May 3, 2012 at 9:59 AM

I’m not saying all Jewish voters pull the lever for the Dems, but a vast majority of them do. That can’t be denied. For God’s sake, there was a poll out a few weeks ago that showed even people in Israel were split 50/50 on whether or not Obama’s policies were for or against their country. These were Jews polled in Israel!

Doughboy on May 3, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Hmmmm. I read in the Jerusalem Post that Obambi’s approval rating in Israel is like 10%.

TarheelBen on May 3, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Atheism and Marxism have a much stronger correlation than Religiousity and Marxism.

Those who believe in nothing will fall for anything.

*You* may be the exception :D

BKennedy on May 3, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Marxism has all the telltale signs of a religion, like irrationally believing in the infinite wisdom of the supreme being that will somehow provide benefits, material or spiritual, to true believers.

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 9:59 AM

how can anyone who considers themselves Catholic vote for this aethiest?? It is mind numbing to think about the twisted logic that must be there but I blame the Church too who rolled over in 2008 even though they new he was the most Abortion loving candidate in history and they stood by…..

Between this and the Jewish vote, you just don’t have enough palms for your forehead…..

SDarchitect on May 3, 2012 at 10:01 AM

It’s not an insult. It’s obvious.

Vince on May 3, 2012 at 9:58 AM

If the voice in your head, loosely referred to as God, tells you that it is obvious, both of you can go stimulate yourselves.

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Might I ask-what’s a conservative doin’ in ELCA?

annoyinglittletwerp on May 3, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Seriously.

steebo77 on May 3, 2012 at 10:01 AM

I find myself very, very curious to see whether this election will correlate to 1980, regarding the polls.

Remember that people were already disgusted with Carter, yet all during the first half of ’80, the polls had Carter with a large lead. So there was some sort of lag or defect or something else with the polls that completely failed to track people’s readiness to throw Carter out.

Yet, things have changed so VERY much since 1980: the splintering and growing bias of the media, people’s attention spans (walking around tapping on devices about what color their morning dookie was), and the racial component….

Even though a large portion of the electorate absolutely loath 0bama, though many of the polls still show them even, I wonder whether that portion of the electorate that was open to a sudden, late shift in ’80 will be open to a sudden, late shift in ’12.

I am quite worried that it won’t be, in that I have never seen the Democrat electorate so unwilling to debate or admit even basic facts. In ’80, we didn’t see the “stick fingers in ears – la-la-la-I can’t hear you” behavior.

One thing to ponder is the three specific moments that got a lot of play where Reagan caught fire:

1. “Mr Green [sic], I paid for this microphone,” when a New Hampshire(?) newspaper editor tried to shut off Reagan’s mic at a debate.”

2. “Aw, SHUT UP!” to a heckler at a rally in San Diego(?) (back then, it was not something a presidential candidate was supposed to say. Today the equivalent would be Romney telling a heckler, “F__YOU!”

3. The debate = “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” Reagan destroyed Carter in that debate.

Seeing as how we have a hated president, and a GOP contender who is pretty unknown to a lot of the electorate, and about hwom they have misgivings, might it not be wise for the ROmney campaign to carefully study those three moments, and try to duplicate them?

It’s going to take Romney doing something to majorly expose 0bama and show him for a liar and a charlatan.

/ramble mode, off

cane_loader on May 3, 2012 at 10:02 AM

askwhatif on May 3, 2012 at 9:59 AM

A group?

One resident complained about the monument set up in 1921 to honor WWI dead from that town…one resident.

And the Freedom From Religion Foundation pours into town…from Wisconsin. Not even Rhode Island residents.

coldwarrior on May 3, 2012 at 10:02 AM

These were Jews polled in Israel!

Doughboy on May 3, 2012 at 9:56 AM

LOL, some Israeli liberals make Obama look like a moderate centrist.

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Oh trust me on this one, they won’t. When it comes to the sanctity of human life, the Church will not budge one inch.

Trafalgar on May 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM

I don’t know. All the pro-abortion Democrats who still actively attend Mass would argue otherwise.

Washington Nearsider on May 3, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Most Catholic priests will mumble something in a vapid homily about following your conscience….and let it go at that…unless it has to do with sheltering of illegal immigrants or opposing Conservative presidents’ alleged war-mongering abroad.

coldwarrior on May 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltTd81XpDnc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaWma3taEEE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptzi4ZrkiJE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIJJQ_UxBHU

unclesmrgol on May 3, 2012 at 10:04 AM

What is with Catholics and Jews?

ctmom on May 3, 2012 at 9:24 AM

1) A liberal is a liberal first.
2) The more a minority was historically abused (ranging from slavery to being treated with contempt), the more that population is liberal today.

For example (using made-up/rough numbers):

Blacks (slavery, segregation) = ~90% democrat.
Jews (viciously insulted, lower social position) = ~70% democrat.
Catholics (lower social position) = ~60% democrats.

Never mind that the democratic party was the party of slavery – today that party is home to libs.

Over time, I suspect as the memory of said grievances fade, there will be an evening-out of the distribution towards the general population’s average.

That said to the extent that those grievances are still being fuelled today, it will take longer.

I tend to hear some Jew-bashing every now and then, and given that many Jews can’t be told apart from Europeans, it’s probably not fun for them to hear it. It’s not surprising then when Jews think they need to support the democratic party (supposed home of minorities™) to protect themselves.

This is just how it works.

ebrawer on May 3, 2012 at 10:05 AM

@gryphon202:

I wouldn’t worry about that. This explains it all:

Gallup tries to soften the blow by noting that Obama does very well among Hispanic Catholics, 70/20, but they are only about 18% of the bloc. Obama is deeply unpopular among non-Hispanic Catholics, 38/55.

Snakiis on May 3, 2012 at 10:05 AM

This is but a sad reflection on the bishops who too often sat silent in the face of public un-Catholic behavior (Notre Dame)-often by their own clerics, and directly reflects on the sad state of their failed catechesis.

Perhaps if they had followed their God-given mission of seeking salvation for their sheep, instead of seeking a political solution to man’s condition by chasing social justice managed by Caesar….as in universal Healthcare, at the expense of the Catholic principle of subsidiarity?

Then, funding, with millions given to the poor, ACORN which helped elect Obama, the most pro-abortion/infanticide president in history, could hardly send the right message to the flock.

I patiently await the shepherd’s call for reform of the misguided sheep….

Don L on May 3, 2012 at 10:06 AM

I just can’t figure out what is in it for the Bishops. What advantage do they gain with socialism?

tdarrington on May 3, 2012 at 9:55 AM

My church is always asking for money. In December, we had 39 different causes we were asked to give money to. We had a parish meeting and the turnout was huge. I was pleasently surprised that most of those present told the parish council to cut back on expenses and pool money for worthy causes.

Think about it. If you’re always begging for money relying on the state is not a big leap.

Vince on May 3, 2012 at 10:06 AM

TarheelBen on May 3, 2012 at 9:59 AM

I’m FB friends w/ a young orthodox couple living in Israel. He was born/raised in London and she’s from CA but came to Israel w/ her parents and sibling when she was-I’m guessing- a teenager and they can’t stand Zero.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 3, 2012 at 10:06 AM

A lot of my fellow Catholics are Catholic for Easter and Christmas purposes only. Or they are grocery store Catholics, who pick the teachings they wish to follow off the shelf and ignore the rest. Which is why they can vote for the party of death. It won’t change until the Pope and bishops underneath him start excommunicating people who don’t follow the teachings of the Church.

search4truth on May 3, 2012 at 9:46 AM

My wife calls them “Chreaster” Catholics. And the Catholic Church doesn’t tell me that life is sacred, God tells me that. I go to church weakly, um…er… weekly but I don’t give a rip about what some flawed man in a robe or funny hat has to say about any issue on which the Bible is clear. If what they say conflicts with the Bible, go with the Bible. The bishop of my diocese is a personal friend of the representative who voted for Obamacare and passes himself off as Catholic. You really think the bishop would excommunicate his BFF?

swinia sutki on May 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM

If you’re near a Mitt-bot, remove all sharp items from the room before he/she reads this….

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120503/D9UH39VO0.html

WASHINGTON (AP) – Hiring through the rest of 2012 will lag the brisk pace set early this year. But it will be strong enough to push the unemployment rate below 8 percent by Election Day.

That’s the view that emerges from an Associated Press survey of 32 leading economists who foresee a gradually brighter jobs picture. Despite higher gas prices, Europe’s debt crisis and a weak housing market, they think the economy has entered a “virtuous cycle” in which hiring boosts consumer spending, which fuels more hiring and spending.

angryed on May 3, 2012 at 10:08 AM

The bishops will ultimately cave.

The bishops aren’t caving on this one. If the question is one of being forced to provide any support for abortion whatsoever, the line will remain drawn in the sand. The Church will shut every Catholic hospital in the country down before they allow that.

While the wishy-washy attitudes of the bishops regarding many other aspects of public policy are often disappointing to say the least, they aren’t moving an inch on this one.

The open question remains of what the large swath of Catholic voters who don’t agree with or care about the Church’s stance on reporductive health. My suspicion is that there are a sizable number who will take the attitude that even if they don’t agree with the Church, they don’t like the way the Church is being treated, and will carry that anger into the voting booth.

Of course, a lot of the loss in Catholic support has nothing to do with the HHS flap at all. A lot of these voters are Rust Belt unon types for whom the economic “recovery” has yet to manifest. These are traditionally Dem voters that may be seeing the light this time out.

FuzzyLogic on May 3, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Don L on May 3, 2012 at 10:06 AM

+1.

What Don said.

coldwarrior on May 3, 2012 at 10:09 AM

If the voice in your head, loosely referred to as God, tells you that it is obvious, both of you can go stimulate yourselves.

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Pompous a$$. I rest my case.

Vince on May 3, 2012 at 10:09 AM

46% of Catholics apparently need serious ecclesiastical counseling.

A lot of Catholics are blue collar union members. Wouldn’t matter what religion they are, they’re hard-wired to vote for the Democrat even if the Dem nominee was Lucifer himself. Religion is a far, far, distant second place to the almighty union. These people aren’t Catholics. They’re union members first and foremost.

There’s the “Kennedy Koolaiders” who will always vote for the Democrat because JFK was Catholic and he was President 50 years ago.

Then there’s a large chunk of affluent Northeastern liberals who identify themselves as Catholic but probably haven’t darkened the door of a church outside of Christmas and Easter in decades, if ever.

There are then a large portion who are conservative. Those are the ones who voted for McCain.

And then there’s the middle, who fell for Obama’s alleged charm in 2008 (and probably wanted to brag about voting for the black guy), but are pissed about the HHS mandate and aren’t about to get fooled again. Those are the ones who are ripe for the taking.

crazy_legs on May 3, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Pompous a$$. I rest my case.

Vince on May 3, 2012 at 10:09 AM

The stimulation worked, I see.

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 10:11 AM

angryed on May 3, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Right, like 8% is the magic number and 7.9% or so is just dandy?

Mr Ed, that’s weak even for you.

CorporatePiggy on May 3, 2012 at 10:11 AM

@Archivarix:

“My case is that atheists are, at average, more intelligent than believers. I know, any statement is awfully tough to prove scientifically but American politics does provide ample anecdotal evidence to it.”

“Is it your God’s teaching to resort to personal insults when arguments fail?”

Is it your policy to make condescending “arguments” based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence?

c’mon- I don’t have a religion, but that doesn’t mean that people who do are necessarily more or less intelligent than me.

You can’t make any sort of sweeping generalization about a correlation between intelligence and spiritual belief- as you yourself admit in the first quote above, there is no way to empirically prove your assertion- or rather, it would be “awfully tough”.

Well actually you could make such a misguided statement, but then you’d be a leftist.

GrassMudHorsey on May 3, 2012 at 10:12 AM

That’s the view that emerges from an Associated Press survey of 32 leading economists who foresee a gradually brighter jobs picture. Despite higher gas prices, Europe’s debt crisis and a weak housing market, they think the economy has entered a “virtuous cycle” in which hiring boosts consumer spending, which fuels more hiring and spending.

angryed on May 3, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Was Paul Krugman among those “leading economists”? You know, the guy who said we need an alien invasion to recover? He probably thinks we already have one.

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 10:13 AM

A lot of my fellow Catholics are Catholic for Easter and Christmas purposes only. Or they are grocery store Catholics, who pick the teachings they wish to follow off the shelf and ignore the rest. Which is why they can vote for the party of death. It won’t change until the Pope and bishops underneath him start excommunicating people who don’t follow the teachings of the Church.

search4truth on May 3, 2012 at 9:46 AM

There would be no Catholics if the Pope did that. We are a Church of sinners. Excommunication — locking away from the Sacraments and apostolic authority — has been reserved as an ecclesiastical punishment against the clergy — a way to prevent errant clerics from claiming that something is Catholic doctrine/dogma when it is not, or from forming schism.

Maybe the Church needs to rethink this position with respect to lay politicians.

I’ve always wondered what Nancy Pelosi hears in the homily at Mass, and whether some form of correction might be needed to her teachers.

unclesmrgol on May 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM

The Vatican has started to crack down on some of the national nun organizations in this country. These nun organizations have put a lot of emphasis on social justice issues, but little to no emphasis or attention is paid to the church’s teachings on abortion, homosexuality, marriage, etc. as per the results of an in-depth review by the Vatican of these organizations begun in 2008 and completed recently. The nuns are furious and are determined to fight back. That in itself gives you an idea of how far Catholics have strayed from the teachings of the church–even the nuns are rebelling. Good grief.

KickandSwimMom on May 3, 2012 at 10:14 AM

That testimony by Sebelius is revealing. It seems to back up the premise that the Administration really didn’t think much about how Catholics would react to the contraception mandate, and was surprised by the backlash. I would like to see Congress do some more digging here. Did anyone at HHS or the White House read or discuss the Supreme Court precedents and legislation that Rep. Gowdy referred to? I think the GC at HHS needs to be hauled before the Committee and grilled good and hard.

rockmom on May 3, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Is it your policy to make condescending “arguments” based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence?

c’mon- I don’t have a religion, but that doesn’t mean that people who do are necessarily more or less intelligent than me.

You can’t make any sort of sweeping generalization about a correlation between intelligence and spiritual belief- as you yourself admit in the first quote above, there is no way to empirically prove your assertion- or rather, it would be “awfully tough”.

Well actually you could make such a misguided statement, but then you’d be a leftist.

GrassMudHorsey on May 3, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Well, you cannot absolutely prove, for example, that Obama is a Marxist, even though it is kinda obvious. Sometimes, anecdotal evidence is all you have – but it is just too good to resist making a conclusion.

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 10:16 AM

angryed on May 3, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Let me know when we are projected to get back to Bush-era unemployment.

Washington Nearsider on May 3, 2012 at 10:16 AM

A lot of Catholics are blue collar union members. Wouldn’t matter what religion they are, they’re hard-wired to vote for the Democrat even if the Dem nominee was Lucifer himself. Religion is a far, far, distant second place to the almighty union. These people aren’t Catholics. They’re union members first and foremost.

There’s the “Kennedy Koolaiders” who will always vote for the Democrat because JFK was Catholic and he was President 50 years ago.

Then there’s a large chunk of affluent Northeastern liberals who identify themselves as Catholic but probably haven’t darkened the door of a church outside of Christmas and Easter in decades, if ever.

There are then a large portion who are conservative. Those are the ones who voted for McCain.

And then there’s the middle, who fell for Obama’s alleged charm in 2008 (and probably wanted to brag about voting for the black guy), but are pissed about the HHS mandate and aren’t about to get fooled again. Those are the ones who are ripe for the taking.

crazy_legs on May 3, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Excellent post that sums up nicely the diverse groups of Catholics that exist in this country.

KickandSwimMom on May 3, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Might I ask-what’s a conservative doin’ in ELCA?

annoyinglittletwerp on May 3, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Seriously.

steebo77 on May 3, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Most of my Scandinavian Lutheran family has left ELCA because of its left-wing ideology and have joined LCMS. I was the first to depart for LCMS, which made me the black sheep of the family, but eventually my family started to see where ELCA was going and joined me. Which actually makes sense, because before the big merger in 1988, we were all part of a more conservative branch of Lutheranism. I’ll never understand why some of those branches decided to join ELCA.

Hat Trick on May 3, 2012 at 10:16 AM

angryed on May 3, 2012 at 10:08 AM

You really think America is going to be celebrating a 7.9% unemployment rate? Just a reminder, the average rate under President Bush was less than 6%, with a sharply higher labor participation rate. Most Americans would be very happy to go back to those bad old days.

rockmom on May 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM

I’m FB friends w/ a young orthodox couple living in Israel. He was born/raised in London and she’s from CA but came to Israel w/ her parents and sibling when she was-I’m guessing- a teenager and they can’t stand Zero.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 3, 2012 at 10:06 AM

And who could blame them?
- Obambi promoting 1967 borders as a starting point of talks.
- The regime pitching a fit when Israelis build in East Jerusalem (Obambi wants divided Jerusalem on the table).
- Obambi’s latest embrace of his new bestest buds – the Muslim Brotherhood.
- The regime leaking to the world Top Secret Israeli plans to strike Iran.
- The regime throwing Israeli ally Hosni Mubarek under the bus, and enabling Obambi’s great friends, the oh-so-moderate, Muslim Brotherhood to come to power.

TarheelBen on May 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM

As a practicing Catholic and a conservative in Raleigh, this poll blows my mind. You cannot be a Catholic and a supporter of Marxist policies at the same time. It’s impossible. You’re either a Catholic or a Marxist. Not both.

A few years back my parish Priest gave his homily about the evils of Communism in Cuba. He should know, he spent some years there. It was one of the best homilies I’ve ever heard and the one I remember most vividly from the past 10 years.

I’m hoping this poll is weighted towards the New England states and all the “Catholics” up there, because I can’t fathom to think that half my parish are Marxists and are voting Marxist this year. It actually really gives me the heebie-jeebies.

mapper on May 3, 2012 at 10:19 AM

My case is that atheists are, at average, more intelligent than believers. I know, any statement is awfully tough to prove scientifically but American politics does provide ample anecdotal evidence to it.

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 9:46 AM

You can’t even make that case anecdotally! What arrogance to make the claim that athesists are sooooo much smarter than us “bitter clingers.” As if those with faith are somehow intellectually inferior to idiots who have convinced themselves there is no such thing as a higher being greater than themselves.

Happy Nomad on May 3, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Remember there are “Roman Catholics”, those that take their faith seriously by attending mass and understand what it means to be Catholic and then there are the “Pelosi Catholics…”

jjjdad on May 3, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Has anyone found a group that overwhelmingly votes Republican? Seems the party of death and deception has a lock on almost every group there is. Does not bode well for our future.

sdbatboy on May 3, 2012 at 10:20 AM

The archaic Constitution was written by a bunch of dead white men. Occupy the Constitution Progress! That’s what Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Eric Holder, Kathleen Sebelius and the President believe anyway.

MTF on May 3, 2012 at 10:20 AM

You cannot be a Catholic and a supporter of Marxist policies at the same time. It’s impossible. You’re either a Catholic or a Marxist. Not both.

Sure you can the same way cafeteria Catholics pick and choose what part of doctrine to support and/or ignore.

Happy Nomad on May 3, 2012 at 10:21 AM

“Congressman, I’m not a lawyer and I don’t pretend to understand the nuances of the constitutional balancing tests,” Sebelius answered.

TRANSLATION: I’m Her Majesty of Health Care, I MAKE THE RULES.

GarandFan on May 3, 2012 at 10:22 AM

You cannot be a Catholic and a supporter of Marxist policies at the same time. It’s impossible. You’re either a Catholic or a Marxist. Not both.

Sure you can the same way cafeteria Catholics pick and choose what part of doctrine to support and/or ignore.

Happy Nomad on May 3, 2012 at 10:21 AM

My dad believes the Church should be forced to allow women to be priests, perform gay marriages and drop it’s pro-life stance.

He calls himself a Catholic and you can guess how he votes. Question his faith and he’ll explode on you. (He will on me, anyway)

Washington Nearsider on May 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Hat Trick on May 3, 2012 at 10:16 AM

One of my friends is a member of the Lutheran Church of the Reformation. The LCR broke away from the LCMS because the LCR people thought that that the LCMS…was too LIBERAL.
The LCR are also BIG TIME Jew-Israel haters.
My friend is great-but her family are loyal children of the ‘Nazi Church of the Reformation’.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM

@angryred:

“Hiring through the rest of 2012 will lag the brisk pace set early this year. But it will be strong enough to push the unemployment rate below 8 percent by Election Day.”

Bzzzt. Wrong. The only thing that will push the unemployment rate below 8% by election day is the continued elimination of millions of unemployed from the numbers used to figure the rate. Real unemployment is currently running about 15% (u6).

Here’s a question for the audience-

in the bizarro amusement park world of “6 Flags Over Earflaps”, how can an unemployed person be dropped from the ranks of the unemployed?

Nope, the answer isn’t “They get a job”, but good guess anyway.

The correct answer is: “They stop looking for work”- and hey presto, they’re no longer unemployed, and not a part of the unemployment figures. This has happened only several million times in the last couple or three quarters, so no big deal.

More of that there “reality based community” thinkin’.

So “clever”, yet so delusional.

Go back to your crayons and paste eating, dunce.

GrassMudHorsey on May 3, 2012 at 10:24 AM

@Archivarix

Sometimes, anecdotal evidence is all you have – but it is just too good to resist making a conclusion.

And I shall give your conclusion all the credence it deserves, based on said anecdotal evidence- which is to say, just about none.

GrassMudHorsey on May 3, 2012 at 10:26 AM

If you’re near a Mitt-bot, remove all sharp items from the room before he/she reads this….

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120503/D9UH39VO0.html

WASHINGTON (AP) – Hiring through the rest of 2012 will lag the brisk pace set early this year. But it will be strong enough to push the unemployment rate below 8 percent by Election Day.

That’s the view that emerges from an Associated Press survey of 32 leading economists who foresee a gradually brighter jobs picture. Despite higher gas prices, Europe’s debt crisis and a weak housing market, they think the economy has entered a “virtuous cycle” in which hiring boosts consumer spending, which fuels more hiring and spending.
angryed on May 3, 2012 at 10:08 AM

You’re an idiot. The same economist surveys have been predicting big declines in unemployment ever since mid-2009, none of which has materialized. They are chronically wrong. They were wrong in 2009. They were wrong in 2010. They were wrong in 2011. They are still wrong in 2012. You would know that if you actually paid attention to anything over a long period of time, instead of searching out the rare kernels of data that exclusively favor your Dear Leader.

steebo77 on May 3, 2012 at 10:28 AM

That testimony by Sebelius is revealing. It seems to back up the premise that the Administration really didn’t think much about how Catholics would react to the contraception mandate, and was surprised by the backlash.

rockmom on May 3, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Let’s remember that Sebelius is a “good Catholic” like Biden, Pelosi, Patty Murray or Jim Moran.

Happy Nomad on May 3, 2012 at 10:28 AM

And I shall give your conclusion all the credence it deserves, based on said anecdotal evidence- which is to say, just about none.

GrassMudHorsey on May 3, 2012 at 10:26 AM

That’s your inalienable right. You’ll stick to your conclusions and I’ll stick to mine. Works for me.

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Thanks to the socialist bishops for allowing this horrendous state of affairs. In bed with social services way too much, it seems.

paul1149 on May 3, 2012 at 10:30 AM

rockmom on May 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM

CorporatePiggy on May 3, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Archivarix on May 3, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Washington Nearsider on May 3, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Please don’t feed the troll. Ed gets away with threadjacking when he’s fed.

Trafalgar on May 3, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Those catholics don’t go for abortion, infanticide, contraception, divorce, or, ah, well, ah, all of em voted for Obamacare Ben Nelson Traitor D the dude from WI all of em.
What a joke…Catholics…principles…convictions…convenience?

ConcealedKerry on May 3, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2