Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Parsing the (Tracking) Poll: The White Catholic Weathervane

Looking for a bellwether group to focus on in the final week of the presidential race?

Look no further than white Catholics, who have gone for the winner in every single presidential election for which exit polling exists. That means that since 1972, the candidate for whom the majority of white Catholics cast their votes has -- like clockwork -- claimed the presidency. For the non-math majors out there, that's EIGHT straight elections. (Looking for the exact numbers? Check after the jump.)

For months, the Washington Post/ABC News poll, has shown John McCain holding a wide lead over Barack Obama among this key swing group, which in the past eight elections has comprised between 20 and 25 percent of the electorate as a whole. Back in mid-June, McCain was at 60 percent, with 34 percent for Obama -- a margin that fluctuated somewhat as the summer wore on but by the end of the Republican National Convention had returned to a 19-point McCain edge.

And yet, since the Post/ABC began its daily tracking poll (interviews are conducted each night with the results combined into a three-day rolling average) on Oct. 19, Obama has been making steady gains on McCain among white Catholics.

On the 19th, McCain led 54 percent to 41 percent. By Oct. 24, that lead has shrunk to 51 percent to 46 percent. And then, in the tracks released on Monday night and Tuesday night, for the first time Obama actually moved ahead -- taking 48 percent of the white Catholic vote to McCain's 47 percent in each track.

Now, it's important to note that Obama's "lead" is not statistically significant. But, the trend line among white Catholics is clearly moving in the right direction for the Illinois senator. He has erased a double-digit lead among this critical voting bloc in the space of 10 days time.

Will white Catholic voters keep their 32-year streak alive next Tuesday?

White Catholic Vote (1972-2004)
2004: George W. Bush 56 percent, John Kerry 43 percent
2000: George W. Bush 52 percent, Al Gore 45 percent
1996: Bill Clinton 48 percent, Bob Dole 41 percent
1992: Bill Clinton 42 percent, George H.W. Bush 37 percent
1988: George H.W. Bush 56 percent, Michael Dukakis 43 percent
1984: Ronald Reagan 57 percent, Walter Mondale 42 percent
1980: Ronald Reagan 52 percent, Jimmy Carter 39 percent
1976: Jimmy Carter 52 percent, Gerald Ford 46 percent
1972: Richard Nixon 57 percent, George McGovern 42 percent

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 29, 2008; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008 , Parsing the Polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: RNC Borrows $5 Million For Senate Races
Next: Is McCain Coming Back? (Revisited)

Comments

catholic:
1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.
2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.
3. pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.

Definition is from dictionary.com

A lot of people are not familiar with the meaning of the word catholic.

catholically, catholicly, catholicalness, catholicness

definition from freedictionary.com:

1. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive.
2. Including or concerning all humankind; universal.
3. Catholic
a. Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church.
b. Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
c. Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church.
d. Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church.

catholic - free from provincial prejudices or attachments

Posted by: SuzanneVesely | November 1, 2008 12:40 AM | Report abuse

I am catholic, not Catholic. How strange the word "clockwork" is used in this blog--a door hanger for Clockwork pizza was left on my door today.

Posted by: SuzanneVesely | November 1, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

A few comments on these comments (and there goes 40 minutes of my life):

1- I wish there were more thoughtful and unbiased opinions put forth.. but, alas, our country has become the most divided I've seen since the civil rights movement - or perhaps the civil war? (OK, that's too extreme)

2- Despite all the blabbering and worrying we still live in the greatest country in the world.

3- I truly appreciate that we can put forth our opinions - and not be persecuted.

4- 37thandOst comments add nothing of value to the conversation save entertainment (like watching a home video of a person getting kicked in the groin)and I now have to skip these when I see them..

thanks!

Posted by: DocShark | October 30, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

.


.


Voted One Of America's Top 5 Political Blogs for the Election of 2008


.


BOOKMARK IT NOW !!!!


http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet


.


.


.


.


Voted One Of America's Top 5 Political Blogs for the Election of 2008

.


BOOKMARK IT NOW !!!!


http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet


.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

God bless you, Toritto. I'm glad you're living a happy life.

Posted by: jerilynburgess | October 29, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Jerilynburgess: Thanks for your kind words. Along with the sorrows I have had good times. I was married happily for 40 years to my high school sweetheart and prom date. I have two successful daughters whom I see regularly and who call me everyday.

I have family that loves me and nieces and nephews who invite me to every holiday. I am never alone.

I had a successful career, live comfortably in the South and want for nothing.

I am content and happy, which is something many cannot say.

Thanks again.

:-)

Posted by: toritto | October 29, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Jerilynburgess: Thanks for your kind words. Along with the sorrows I have had good times. I was married happily for 40 years to my high school sweetheart and prom date. I have two successful daughters whom I see regularly and who call me everyday.

I have family that loves me and nieces and nephews who invite me to every holiday. I am never alone.

I had a successful career, live comfortably in the South and want for nothing.

I am content and happy, which is something many cannot say.

Thanks again.

:-)

Posted by: toritto | October 29, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

I am surprised that my post generated so many comments. My thanks to those expressing good wishes.

Let me try to clear up a couple of issues.

My wife and I loved our son Michael and we cried many a tear when he died. Michael was born a long time ago when there was for all practical purposes no help or assistance to a family such as ours. We were on our own.

We found a "school" for the handicapped in New England which basically cared for him several hours a day. Once a year we would arrange "respite" care for him while we took our other kids on a vacation. Once in our own neighborhood we were asked to leave a restaurant because other customers were "disturbed" by Michael's presence.

We received no financial assistance of any kind except for free diapers from Depends. Usually he was in hospital once or twice a year - more as he got older.

He was however profoundly developmentally disabled. He could not turn over if he was lying on his back Luckily for us he had a good swallow reflex and would eat soft food if fed.

I don't know how aware he was of anything other than pain. There was never any indication that he knew us, could see us or hear us. There was never a moment of recognition.

One day he simply died.

I know that everyone that came to his funeral thought that his passing was a blessing - both for him and for us, although we did not think so at the time.

Was he a "blessing" to us? Its easy to say yes if your not the parents. In a sense that he changed our lives and made us more human and humane, then the answer is yes. He certainly made my daughters much more sensative to the needs of others.

Finally, my wife and I were not aware that Michael was going to have problems. Hers was a normal pregnancy.

Technology is much more advanced today.

IF YOU KNEW THAT A MICHAEL WAS COMING YOUR WAY.....and you were in for a lifetime of caregiving.......WOULD YOU WANT A CHOICE??

After Michael was born, my wife became pregnant again. She thought about abortion. The doctors told her however that she was carrying a girl and that everything seemed fine. She had the baby and later another girl.

But she had a choice.......I would not withhold that choice from her nor any other woman. Make your own choice and answer to your own god yourself.

Posted by: toritto | October 29, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

bevjims1, let me tell you a little secret --CANADA TOP TAX RATE IS 29%.

========================================

lazyboy wrote: "BTW, Sen. Obama wants to tax penalize wealthy. If he does this, then the wealthy and educated will move abroad."

I doubt it. The wealthy abroad pay about as much in taxes as Americans do (see http://www.worldwide-tax.com/index.asp#partthree). Go ahead and try to find a place as nice as America to live in where the wealthy pay less in taxes than Obama is proposing (ok, maybe Singapore). And remember that income tax is only one part of the tax Americans pay. We also pay social security, medicare, sales, property, capital gains and many other taxes. Taxes in other nations are equally complex. But you only need to see where the wealthy of the world are living (including before the Reagan/Bush tax cuts) to know that American taxes are not as high as republicans make them out to be when compared with the rest of the world.

And Obama has said the wealthy under his plan will pay what they paid under Reagan. Now how can republicans argue with that, unless anything above zero is too much.


Posted by: bevjims1 | October 29, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: lazerboy | October 29, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

bevjims1, let me tell you a little secret --CANADA TOP TAX RATE IS 29%.

========================================

lazyboy wrote: "BTW, Sen. Obama wants to tax penalize wealthy. If he does this, then the wealthy and educated will move abroad."

I doubt it. The wealthy abroad pay about as much in taxes as Americans do (see http://www.worldwide-tax.com/index.asp#partthree). Go ahead and try to find a place as nice as America to live in where the wealthy pay less in taxes than Obama is proposing (ok, maybe Singapore). And remember that income tax is only one part of the tax Americans pay. We also pay social security, medicare, sales, property, capital gains and many other taxes. Taxes in other nations are equally complex. But you only need to see where the wealthy of the world are living (including before the Reagan/Bush tax cuts) to know that American taxes are not as high as republicans make them out to be when compared with the rest of the world.

And Obama has said the wealthy under his plan will pay what they paid under Reagan. Now how can republicans argue with that, unless anything above zero is too much.


Posted by: bevjims1 | October 29, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: lazerboy | October 29, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

bevjims1, how about across the north border, CANADA --TOP TAX RATE 29%.

========================================

lazyboy wrote: "BTW, Sen. Obama wants to tax penalize wealthy. If he does this, then the wealthy and educated will move abroad."

I doubt it. The wealthy abroad pay about as much in taxes as Americans do (see http://www.worldwide-tax.com/index.asp#partthree). Go ahead and try to find a place as nice as America to live in where the wealthy pay less in taxes than Obama is proposing (ok, maybe Singapore). And remember that income tax is only one part of the tax Americans pay. We also pay social security, medicare, sales, property, capital gains and many other taxes. Taxes in other nations are equally complex. But you only need to see where the wealthy of the world are living (including before the Reagan/Bush tax cuts) to know that American taxes are not as high as republicans make them out to be when compared with the rest of the world.

And Obama has said the wealthy under his plan will pay what they paid under Reagan. Now how can republicans argue with that, unless anything above zero is too much.


Posted by: bevjims1 | October 29, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: lazerboy | October 29, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

bevjims1, how about across the north border, CANADA --TOP TAX RATE 29%.

========================================

lazyboy wrote: "BTW, Sen. Obama wants to tax penalize wealthy. If he does this, then the wealthy and educated will move abroad."

I doubt it. The wealthy abroad pay about as much in taxes as Americans do (see http://www.worldwide-tax.com/index.asp#partthree). Go ahead and try to find a place as nice as America to live in where the wealthy pay less in taxes than Obama is proposing (ok, maybe Singapore). And remember that income tax is only one part of the tax Americans pay. We also pay social security, medicare, sales, property, capital gains and many other taxes. Taxes in other nations are equally complex. But you only need to see where the wealthy of the world are living (including before the Reagan/Bush tax cuts) to know that American taxes are not as high as republicans make them out to be when compared with the rest of the world.

And Obama has said the wealthy under his plan will pay what they paid under Reagan. Now how can republicans argue with that, unless anything above zero is too much.


Posted by: bevjims1 | October 29, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: lazerboy | October 29, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

I am surprised that my post generated so many comments. My thanks to those expressing good wishes.

Let me try to clear up a couple of issues.

My wife and I loved our son Michael and we cried many a tear when he died. Michael was born a long time ago when there was for all practical purposes no help or assistance to a family such as ours. We were on our own.

We found a "school" for the handicapped in New England which basically cared for him several hours a day. Once a year we would arrange "respite" care for him while we took our other kids on a vacation. Once in our own neighborhood we were asked to leave a restaurant because other customers were "disturbed" by Michael's presence.

We received no financial assistance of any kind except for free diapers from Depends. Usually he was in hospital once or twice a year - more as he got older.

He was however profoundly developmentally disabled. He could not turn over if he was lying on his back Luckily for us he had a good swallow reflex and would eat soft food if fed.

I don't know how aware he was of anything other than pain. There was never any indication that he knew us, could see us or hear us. There was never a moment of recognition.

One day he simply died.

I know that everyone that came to his funeral thought that his passing was a blessing - both for him and for us, although we did not think so at the time.

Was he a "blessing" to us? Its easy to say yes if your not the parents. In a sense that he changed our lives and made us more human and humane, then the answer is yes. He certainly made my daughters much more sensative to the needs of others.

Finally, my wife and I were not aware that Michael was going to have problems. Hers was a normal pregnancy.

Technology is much more advanced today.

IF YOU KNEW THAT A MICHAEL WAS COMING YOUR WAY.....and you were in for a lifetime of caregiving.......WOULD YOU WANT A CHOICE??

After Michael was born, my wife became pregnant again. She thought about abortion. The doctors told her however that she was carrying a girl and that everything seemed fine. She had the baby and later another girl.

But she had a choice.......I would not withhold that choice from her nor any other woman. Make your own choice and answer to your own god yourself.

Posted by: toritto | October 29, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

I am surprised that my post generated so many comments. My thanks to those expressing good wishes.

Let me try to clear up a couple of issues.

My wife and I loved our son Michael and we cried many a tear when he died. Michael was born a long time ago when there was for all practical purposes no help or assistance to a family such as ours. We were on our own.

We found a "school" for the handicapped in New England which basically cared for him several hours a day. Once a year we would arrange "respite" care for him while we took our other kids on a vacation. Once in our own neighborhood we were asked to leave a restaurant because other customers were "disturbed" by Michael's presence.

We received no financial assistance of any kind except for free diapers from Depends. Usually he was in hospital once or twice a year - more as he got older.

He was however profoundly developmentally disabled. He could not turn over if he was lying on his back Luckily for us he had a good swallow reflex and would eat soft food if fed.

I don't know how aware he was of anything other than pain. There was never any indication that he knew us, could see us or hear us. There was never a moment of recognition.

One day he simply died.

I know that everyone that came to his funeral thought that his passing was a blessing - both for him and for us, although we did not think so at the time.

Was he a "blessing" to us? Its easy to say yes if your not the parents. In a sense that he changed our lives and made us more human and humane, then the answer is yes. He certainly made my daughters much more sensative to the needs of others.

Finally, my wife and I were not aware that Michael was going to have problems. Hers was a normal pregnancy.

Technology is much more advanced today.

IF YOU KNEW THAT A MICHAEL WAS COMING YOUR WAY.....and you were in for a lifetime of caregiving.......WOULD YOU WANT A CHOICE??

After Michael was born, my wife became pregnant again. She thought about abortion. The doctors told her however that she was carrying a girl and that everything seemed fine. She had the baby and later another girl.

But she had a choice.......I would not withhold that choice from her nor any other woman. Make your own choice and answer to your own god yourself.

Posted by: toritto | October 29, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

I apologize in advance if I offend by reposting toritto's comments without permission... I hope not... but there is so puerile, shallow nonsense in the comments, generally, and this is SUCH a contrast... I've never heard a wiser, more powerful explanation of the critical importance of the freedom of choice, nor from anyone with better authority, grounded in personal experience, upon which to offer an opinion on the matter.

Thank you, toritto, for posting this:

"My wife and I had a profoundly retarded son - he never spoke a word or walked - he never sat up - he never looked at me - for all I knew he was deaf and blind as well.

Every meal he ever ate we fed him. Every diaper he ever wore we changed him. Every foot he ever moved from where he was lying we carried him. Every time he went to bed we carried him upstairs. Every morning we carried him downstairs.

We became a test marketing project for Depends adult diapers - we got 'em free and had to let the manufacturer know what we thought of them.

He lived to be ten years old. We did nothing but worry about what was going to happen to him. Then one day he simply woke up and died.

My wife gave up the best ten years of her life caring for Michael. We got no help from any government agency except our local school for handicapped kids. No medicare ; no medicaid; no state assistance. You see I "made too much money" - what a joke that was.

Michael is gone now. So is my wife. She never went to church. She was not a believer. If there is a God in his heaven then she is sitting under a massive oak watching her perfect 10 year old son play with his 12 year old brother (yes - we lost two boys) in the green grass under a sunny sky with a cool breeze moving through his hair mop - "Mommy look at me!! Look at my kite!!" and she will wave and smile.

There was no Catholic priest at her funeral - a local female Methodist minister who knew my wife, a woman who never went to church, as woman who lived Christian values in her daily life . I will not forget her kindness. She spoke without being asked of how this woman made a lunch hour appointment for an abortion and changed her own mind at the last minute and went on to have two fine daughters. She was glad she had a choice.

Talk is cheap. It’s a lot easier talk about having a kid like Mike than to be the parents. Too many of you fine religious folk feel so good about yourselves for being “pro-life”, then you smile and go on to your next “Fellowship” meeting or casserole supper..

No one should have to bear a Michael at age 30 if they don’t want to.......that’s choice.
Those who advocate the opposite should be prepared to urge society to provide care for that child for its entire life, even if you have to raise taxes. It’s the cost of being pro-life. Think of that the next time you see two old people pushing an adult retarded child in a wheel chair in the mall."

"

Posted by: Iconoblaster | October 29, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

I apologize in advance if I offend by reposting toritto's comments without permission... I hope not... but there is so puerile, shallow nonsense in the comments, generally, and this is SUCH a contrast... I've never heard a wiser, more powerful explanation of the critical importance of the freedom of choice, nor from anyone with better authority, grounded in personal experience, upon which to offer an opinion on the matter.

Thank you, toritto.

"My wife and I had a profoundly retarded son - he never spoke a word or walked - he never sat up - he never looked at me - for all I knew he was deaf and blind as well.

Every meal he ever ate we fed him. Every diaper he ever wore we changed him. Every foot he ever moved from where he was lying we carried him. Every time he went to bed we carried him upstairs. Every morning we carried him downstairs.

We became a test marketing project for Depends adult diapers - we got 'em free and had to let the manufacturer know what we thought of them.

He lived to be ten years old. We did nothing but worry about what was going to happen to him. Then one day he simply woke up and died.

My wife gave up the best ten years of her life caring for Michael. We got no help from any government agency except our local school for handicapped kids. No medicare ; no medicaid; no state assistance. You see I "made too much money" - what a joke that was.

Michael is gone now. So is my wife. She never went to church. She was not a believer. If there is a God in his heaven then she is sitting under a massive oak watching her perfect 10 year old son play with his 12 year old brother (yes - we lost two boys) in the green grass under a sunny sky with a cool breeze moving through his hair mop - "Mommy look at me!! Look at my kite!!" and she will wave and smile.

There was no Catholic priest at her funeral - a local female Methodist minister who knew my wife, a woman who never went to church, as woman who lived Christian values in her daily life . I will not forget her kindness. She spoke without being asked of how this woman made a lunch hour appointment for an abortion and changed her own mind at the last minute and went on to have two fine daughters. She was glad she had a choice.

Talk is cheap. It’s a lot easier talk about having a kid like Mike than to be the parents. Too many of you fine religious folk feel so good about yourselves for being “pro-life”, then you smile and go on to your next “Fellowship” meeting or casserole supper..

No one should have to bear a Michael at age 30 if they don’t want to.......that’s choice.
Those who advocate the opposite should be prepared to urge society to provide care for that child for its entire life, even if you have to raise taxes. It’s the cost of being pro-life. Think of that the next time you see two old people pushing an adult retarded child in a wheel chair in the mall."

Posted by: toritto

Posted by: Iconoblaster | October 29, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Torrito, I appreciate your candor and I can understand your pain and reservations. I am sorry that you felt that there was no one to help you and your wife during those years.

From your description, I am not sure whether you regret having Michael...it does appear that way. However your comments at the end, insult millions and thousands of people who are giving their lives caring for the sick, elderly, retarded, handicapped individuals. Perhaps you or your wife saw no use caring for Michael.

Growing up in India, I saw many "happy" retarded children who had no one but were cared for by nuns and priests at our local school. I have seen many people give up their lives and I personally know them.

These people don't boast about what they do and write articles in the Washington Post for everyone to see.

Don't get sucked up in the political pro-choice, gay rights lobbying people in this country. These people care nothing about people like you except their own agenda. They are using Catholics and all kinds of people only to further what they want - a life without anyone telling them what they do.

You can see that from all the venom that comes out on these pages - venom against Catholics, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, whoever. They try to make everyone else look like culprits except themselves.

They misrepresent Catholic teaching and then try to turn Catholics against Catholics by talking about social issues, the death penalty, etc. Catholics care about all these issues, but have always put the issue of "life" foremost above all things - especially life in the womb that cannot speak for itself! They also try to turn Catholics against their own Church.

Watch out for these wolves in sheep's clothing. They care nothing for the Church or Christians anyways.

God Bless.

Posted by: c_mat | October 29, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

The best guide to whether McCain's campaign really believes it has a shot is the behaviour of its professional political operatives. These guys make their living running campaigns - being associated with defeat threatens their future financial security.

If at all possible, they want a victory. Only if that seems completely impossible will they reach for the next best option: blaming others on the team.

Public infighting in a campaign, and sniping between ticket partners, is sure to demoralize your own side's voters and keep them home. No politico would ever do that before election day if he (or she) thought the race was close with a chance of victory. They would only do it if they were certain of defeat and looking to position themselves for the coming party purge.

Well, they are doing it, because they are certain of defeat. And the one doing it most of all is Sarah Palin. She may be ignorant, but she's not completely stupid. She can read an electoral map.

When she briefs the press that she's not happy about her "rollout", that's not campaigning for the presidency in 2008. It's campaigning for the nomination in 2012.

Posted by: bourassa1 | October 29, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"Our economy is structurally sound for the long term"
-George W Bush - Feb 11, 2008


"The American people can remain confident in the soundness and the resilience of our financial system"
-Henry Paulson - Sept 15, 2008


"The economy is fundamentally sound"
-Herbert Hoover - October, 1931


"The fundamentals of our economy are strong"
-John McCain - Sept 15, 2008
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcdLO3jKkPo
.


McCain does not have the ability to fix this economic crisis. After declaring the fundamentals of the economy strong, he created a political circus in Washington by mucking up bailout negotiations; a deplorable campaign stunt, considering he and his political cronies helped cause the current meltdown.


It was McCain and his economic adviser Phil Gramm who pushed for the deregulation that helped lead to the banking crisis, and it was McCain's crony Rick Davis who had deep lobbyist ties to Freddie Mac. Don't let others be fooled by McCain's economic grandstanding because the reality is his policies and principles will only exacerbate our financial hardships.


McCain is being deceitful with his sudden populist message and support for regulation; his economic policies still favor our nation's wealthy elite.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4egXbhSOhk
.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 29, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Toritto, I am in tears reading your post. I am so sorry for the losses in your life. Thank you for giving all of us the perspective of someone who's been there. And finally, I believe that your wife has been reunited with your two children in a far better place.

Posted by: jerilynburgess | October 29, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Toritto, I am in tears reading your post. I am so sorry for the losses in your life. Thank you for giving all of us the perspective of someone who's been there. And finally, I believe that your wife has been reunited with your two children in a far better place.

Posted by: jerilynburgess | October 29, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

The best guide to whether McCain's campaign really believes it has a shot is the behaviour of its professional political operatives. These guys make their living running campaigns - being associated with defeat threatens their future financial security.

If at all possible, they want a victory. Only if that seems completely impossible will they reach for the next best option: blaming others on the team.

Public infighting in a campaign, and sniping between ticket partners, is sure to demoralize your own side's voters and keep them home. No politico would ever do that before election day if he (or she) thought the race was close with a chance of victory. They would only do it if they were certain of defeat and looking to position themselves for the coming party purge.

Well, they are doing it, because they are certain of defeat. And the one doing it most of all is Sarah Palin. She may be ignorant, but she's not completely stupid. She can read an electoral map.

When she briefs the press that she's not happy about her "rollout", that's not campaigning for the presidency in 2008. It's campaigning for the nomination in 2012.

Posted by: bourassa1 | October 29, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

The best guide to whether McCain's campaign really believes it has a shot is the behaviour of its professional political operatives. These guys make their living running campaigns - being associated with defeat threatens their future financial security.

If at all possible, they want a victory. Only if that seems completely impossible will they reach for the next best option: blaming others on the team.

Public infighting in a campaign, and sniping between ticket partners, is sure to demoralize your own side's voters and keep them home. No politico would ever do that before election day if he (or she) thought the race was close with a chance of victory. They would only do it if they were certain of defeat and looking to position themselves for the coming party purge.

Well, they are doing it, because they are certain of defeat. And the one doing it most of all is Sarah Palin. She may be ignorant, but she's not completely stupid. She can read an electoral map.

When she briefs the press that she's not happy about her "rollout", that's not campaigning for the presidency in 2008. It's campaigning for the nomination in 2012.

Posted by: bourassa1 | October 29, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

dbeno1: You made me laugh ... and cry.

The Scrooge quote was one of my wife's favorites......:-)

"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

Posted by: toritto | October 29, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

dbeno1: You made me laugh ... and cry.

The Scrooge quote was one of my wife's favorites......:-)

"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

Posted by: toritto | October 29, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Many thanks for the kind remarks.

Toritto

Posted by: toritto | October 29, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Many thanks for the kind remarks.

Toritto

Posted by: toritto | October 29, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

dbeno1 and Torrio:
Excellent posts both.

One item has rarely been discussed: what would happen to a woman's rights if control over her body were taken away?

If a fetus were to be granted legal rights, the government would begin legislating what a woman could or could not do ..regulate her diet, her activity, her habits. Anything that could be seen as threatening the life of the fetus would be regulated. Women would lose all control of their lives and be subject to government fiat for 9 months.

Abortion is a personal moral choice for every woman. It is her body. Hers to choose.

It should never be under government's control. And certainly never under any man's control.

It remains between her and her God.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 29, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Me- white catolic and voting for Obama
Husband - white catholic and voting for Obama
oldest daughter - white catholic and voting for - you guessed it
parents - white catholic for Obama
children who go to Catholic school - grade school and highschool say that most everyone is hoping that Obama wins. I hope that the catholics pick this election correctly!

Posted by: clives | October 29, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

"Talk is cheap. It’s a lot easier talk about having a kid like Mike than to be the parents. Too many of you fine religious folk feel so good about yourselves for being “pro-life”, then you smile and go on to your next “Fellowship” meeting or casserole supper"... toritto

Toritto, I am heartbroken to tears from knowing of your sorrow, and I find no fault in you for harboring a measure of resentment to us (Christians). I left Islam for Lord Jesus 22 years ago, and today can find little of the Christian charity expound from pulpits. Indeed I stopped attending church having become wearied by sermons sounding too much like a political rally and the litmus test of one's faith reduced to which candidate was vote cast. My voice on preventing abortion went unheard or met with the retort, my ideas were anti-family, socialistic or further encourages irresponsible behavior. It was baffling the same people crying for the millions of unborn are quite willing to let millions more go unborn; since anything less than legislation does not meet their religious criterion on abortion. Perhaps the end came when the same type of people suspicious of Senator Obama's faith became suspicious of sincerity of my Christian faith. People who have known me for years and know of my Muslim background now struggled to express a genuine greeting and have conversation. I would be a lair to say, I am not hurt; my faith is shaken to the depth of my soul. When I left Islam, I gave up more than many Christians will ever know. I am not intending to make this post about me, but rather what has become of us.

I can say with great of certainty your lack of belief will not be judged, and your sorrow is known. It is we, Christians, who will be judged for failing to obey the commands of our Lord. We did not take a personal interest in you nor demand government action to help families enduring unimaginable hardships. We have failed miserable to keep our first command, to love; and we will pay dearly for the failing.

May you have peace, Mr. Toritto.

Posted by: JohnDebba | October 29, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Toritto:

The post regarding Michael reminds me of a cartoon that I saw about 20 years ago, when I was in college. I cut it out and still have it. It is a single panel divided into 4 squares. The first is labeled "First trimester" and has a young black woman with 1 or 2 people around. Second is "second trimester" with the woman now slightly showing, and a number of people around, some with signs against abortion. The third was "third trimester" with the now quite pregnant woman surrounded by a crowd, many with signs against abortion, all patting her on the back. The fourth was "fourth trimester", with the young black woman with a baby, no-one around, and selling pencils from a cup Great Depression-style.

To me this cartoon sums up the debate, the dilemma and the challenge to this country regarding abortion: Are we, as a nation, willing to put our selves out to truly support that which we say we do? If we collectively and as a nation are willing to outlaw the killing of the unborn (which I would do hope to see), are we all also willing to collectively and as a nation raise our taxes and help support those children and parents directly affected?

Not every biological mother or father is fit nor willing to be a Mom or a Dad. Is it better for the child to have been born, unloved and unwanted, and then to live through 5 years of hell on earth to eventually die due to parental abuse or neglect? That is an extreme example, but one sees reports of it once a week or so in the newspapers.

I honor you, Toritto, for your service to Michael, and I challenge the rest of the pro-life movement: Are each of you willing to raise your taxes and to support in a meaningful way unwanted children in order to give life a chance? If you are not, or just tend to rely on the idea that there are many people looking to adopt, then you should examine your conscience and decide whether life is really as important to you as you say it is.

I leave you with a quote from Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol:

"Mr. Scrooge, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time.

Ebenezer: Why? Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

Portly Gentleman: Many can't go there; and many would rather die.

Ebenezer: If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

It is easy to support in words, but much tougher in deeds. Upon which does God look more kindly?


Posted by: dbeno1 | October 29, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

.


.


Voted One Of America's Top 5 Political Blogs for the Election of 2008


.


BOOKMARK IT NOW !!!!

http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

.

.


.


.


Voted One Of America's Top 5 Political Blogs for the Election of 2008

.


BOOKMARK IT NOW !!!!

http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

.

.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"I am a Roman Catholic. I know the rules about abortion. The Church is against it and always has been. If you are going to be a Catholic follow it's doctrine."

-------

What does the Church say about preemptive war? About the death penalty? About charity for the downtrodden? And which party's candidates are closer to the Church's position on these issues?

Posted by: spotfoul | October 29, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"I am a Roman Catholic. I know the rules about abortion. The Church is against it and always has been. If you are going to be a Catholic follow it's doctrine."

--------------------

Historically, the Roman Catholic Church has allowed for abortions. It all had to do with whether or not the fetus was "animated." This goes back to Aristotles definition of life as having "movement."

From the church's Document on Procured Abortion (1974):

It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 29, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Poptoy: Its really easy. If you believe abortion is wrong then don't have one.

That's choice.

:-)

Posted by: toritto | October 29, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

"I am a Roman Catholic. I know the rules about abortion. The Church is against it and always has been. If you are going to be a Catholic follow it's doctrine."


I was raised Roman Catholic. I decided an elected man in Rome is not the voice of God on earth. So I left the church. I literally couldn't be happier with my decision.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 29, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

I am a Roman Catholic. I know the rules about abortion. The Church is against it and always has been. If you are going to be a Catholic follow it's doctrine. So you Chris, you WOP, what is your problem.

Posted by: poptoy1949 | October 29, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I am a Roman Catholic. I know the rules about abortion. The Church is against it and always has been. If you are going to be a Catholic follow it's doctrine. So you Chris, you WOP, what is your problem.

Posted by: poptoy1949 | October 29, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I am a Roman Catholic. I know the rules about abortion. The Church is against it and always has been. If you are going to be a Catholic follow it's doctrine. So you Chris, you WOP, what is your problem.

Posted by: poptoy1949 | October 29, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Can someone please tell me the fascination with bellweather groups and states? Bellwether change, and the only time you'll know that is after the fact. Wasn't Maine a bellweather for many years, maybe we should let that state decide the election? It'll save me time on Tuesday and let me go to sleep earlier.

Posted by: wildwest | October 29, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I love all the chatter about “reverse racism” and how blacks have “a chip on their shoulders” and should “get over it”.

I’m an old retired “wop”. When I was a kid I lived in an Italian neighborhood in New York and never saw a black face. In public school every kid’s name ended in a vowel. I learned nothing in school of Jim Crow or segregation in the South. I learned nothing of black history other than they were slaves before the Civil War and Booker T. Washington. I learned nothing of my own history. The “history of America” was quite sanitized.

I got a job in a bank mail room when I was 16 and met my first black man up close and personal. I’ll call him J. J. He was a grown man doing the same job as a high school kid.

I cringe to this day when I think of the fact that I called him “boy” more than once. Why? Because I had seen it in the movies and didn’t know any better. I was totally ignorant..

After I did it several times he quietly but firmly asked that I not call him that. His name was “John”. His dignity made me understand that I had done something dreadfully wrong. He looked at me like a disapproving father.

As we worked toogether I learned from that man his struggles and his family’s struggles and what it meant to be a black man in America.

I left that job and went on to college in the South and learned. I spent four years in the Army during Vietnam and learned some more.

Then came the murder of civil rights workers in Mississippi and the death of Viola Liuzzo.

:Liuzzo was one of “my people”.. She left her home to travel to Selma because she had been horrified by the TV coverage of the march over the Edmund Pettus Bridge. She went to help.

While driving marchers home she was spotted by Klan members, chased 20 miles and shot dead in her car. Her funeral was held in Detroit attended by many prominent members of the civil rights movement and the Michigan state government, including Dr. King, James Farmer and Roy Wilkins.

It was later revealed that there was an FBI informant in the car with the Klan during the shooting. He did nothing to stop the murder. J. Edgar Hoover didn’t care for the civil rights movement.

Two weeks later a burning cross was placed in front of Viola’s old home.

We have come along way since those days. We still have a long way to go.

If you want to know what 1940 America (not 1860s America) was really like for black people read Gunnar Myrdal’s 1944 masterpiece “An American Dilemma - The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy”.

Walk a mile in another man’s shoes.


Posted by: toritto | October 29, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Single issue voters infuriate me especially when they are based on mythical texts taken verbatem.

Posted by: davidmc1 | October 29, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112:

Thank you for the kind thought. At the end of the day, this is one of the main reasons why I have such faith in the Catholic Church. There are liberals, conservatives, autocrats, libertarians, and people from just about every nation on the planet in the Church. Any idea must be vetted for years and looked at from every side before it can come to be doctrine / dogma. When, after 30 years and thousands of knowledgable and prayerful people have reviewed an issue, and the Church says "this is how we as a Church feel", I have good faith in the decision and the process it went through.

---------------------

I just wish more people actively engaged with their religion's history and actual teachings as you have.

Just as I wish citizens engaged with this country's history and actual documents as Obama has.

As Aquinas wrote, God is known not only through revelation but through reason. In the church and in this country, we need to regain our respect for reason.

Anything less is blasphemous.

Thanks again for that wonderful post.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 29, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse


.


.


If there was a white Presidential candidate who was found to be a member of a racist church, same as the Rev. Wright's church except substitute "white values" for "black values" and visa vera, THE MEDIA WOULD BE IN TOTAL ATTACK MODE AGAINST THAT WHITE CANDIDATE.


OBAMA IS A RACIST - OBAMA HAS GIVE $20,000.00 TO A RACIST CHURCH IN ONE YEAR.


Washington Post - there are a lot of Churches in Chicago which are black and which are not racist - Obama did not have to give $20,000.00 to this one Church - STOP GIVING OBAMA A PASS ON HIS RACISM AGAINST WHITES.


WAKE UP WASHINGTON POST WAKE UP MEDIA.


WAKE UP AMERICA.


.


.


Exactly right he's racist. Just listen to Irreverend Wrong, his pastor for many, many years.


Exactly right he's socialist. Just listen to him admit it to Joe the Plumber, or his interviews in the past.


Exactly right he's a rotten human being. Just look at his abortion voting record.


Exactly right he has questionable judgment. Just look at his associations with people in his past.


Exactly right he's corrupt. Just look at the Rezko land deal.


Exactly right he's a liar. Just look at what he says about taxes vs. how he's actually voted.


Exactly right he has no executive experience. Just look at his resume -- or lack thereof.


Exactly right he's secretive. Just look at his lack of birth certificate, SAT scores, grades, etc. etc., etc.


Exactly right he'll be challenged in his first 6 months of office if elected. Just look at what he says about meeting unconditionally with world leaders.


We cannot be SERIOUS about electing this guy!! Obama in charge of nukes?! What. The.


Sorry George Washington, we messed everything up.


We stopped demanding the best people in the White House.


.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

My wife and I had a profoundly retarded son - he never spoke a word or walked - he never sat up - he never looked at me - for all I knew he was deaf and blind as well.

Every meal he ever ate we fed him. Every diaper he ever wore we changed him. Every foot he ever moved from where he was lying we carried him. Every time he went to bed we carried him upstairs. Every morning we carried him downstairs.

We became a test marketing project for Depends adult diapers - we got 'em free and had to let the manufacturer know what we thought of them.

He lived to be ten years old. We did nothing but worry about what was going to happen to him. Then one day he simply woke up and died.

My wife gave up the best ten years of her life caring for Michael. We got no help from any government agency except our local school for handicapped kids. No medicare ; no medicaid; no state assistance. You see I "made too much money" - what a joke that was.

Michael is gone now. So is my wife. She never went to church. She was not a believer. If there is a God in his heaven then she is sitting under a massive oak watching her perfect 10 year old son play with his 12 year old brother (yes - we lost two boys) in the green grass under a sunny sky with a cool breeze moving through his hair mop - "Mommy look at me!! Look at my kite!!" and she will wave and smile.

There was no Catholic priest at her funeral - a local female Methodist minister who knew my wife, a woman who never went to church, as woman who lived Christian values in her daily life . I will not forget her kindness. She spoke without being asked of how this woman made a lunch hour appointment for an abortion and changed her own mind at the last minute and went on to have two fine daughters. She was glad she had a choice.

Talk is cheap. It’s a lot easier talk about having a kid like Mike than to be the parents. Too many of you fine religious folk feel so good about yourselves for being “pro-life”, then you smile and go on to your next “Fellowship” meeting or casserole supper..

No one should have to bear a Michael at age 30 if they don’t want to.......that’s choice.
Those who advocate the opposite should be prepared to urge society to provide care for that child for its entire life, even if you have to raise taxes. It’s the cost of being pro-life. Think of that the next time you see two old people pushing an adult retarded child in a wheel chair in the mall.

Posted by: toritto | October 29, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

wpost4112:

Thank you for the kind thought. At the end of the day, this is one of the main reasons why I have such faith in the Catholic Church. There are liberals, conservatives, autocrats, libertarians, and people from just about every nation on the planet in the Church. Any idea must be vetted for years and looked at from every side before it can come to be doctrine / dogma. When, after 30 years and thousands of knowledgable and prayerful people have reviewed an issue, and the Church says "this is how we as a Church feel", I have good faith in the decision and the process it went through.

Posted by: dbeno1 | October 29, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

I'm unsurprised that you find me fascinating.
-------------------

No doubt.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 29, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

limping snorts:

So is Pelosi. That is why the church is losing influnece.

-----------------------

LOL. So, Pelosi is the cause of the Catholic Church's weakening influence on national affairs?

Just like she caused the vote failure on the big bailout?

Cantor got slammed, even by his own party, for creating and spreading that lie.

I guess lies just come easier to a losing party.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 29, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: hclark1 | October 29, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

"The right-to-life vote has become an irrational and destructive force in our country's politics and the issue of abortion should be taken off the table.

If Obama can accomplish that, he will have done a great thing."

This issue will never be completely off the table unless BO and the supreme court limit freedom of speech.

Posted by: leapin | October 29, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Your hypocrisy is fascinating.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 29, 2008 11:30 AM

I'm unsurprised that you find me fascinating.

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 29, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

dbeno1:

Brilliant post. Clear and concise argument for Catholics everywhere. Wish more priests were as well-spoken and well-read.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 29, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

"Don't forget, Joe Biden is Catholic."

So is Pelosi. That is why the church is losing influnece.

Posted by: leapin | October 29, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

"so Aspergirl-poser so you are belittling voters because they are pro-life?"
Posted by: 37thandOS

I think it's wrong to vote for an incompetent and loser like Bush always clearly was, just for religious reasons in particular issues. It puts the whole country at risk for voters to elect bad leaders to high office, because of a religious litmus test.

There are reasons why separation of church and state is healthy. You wouldn't pick the worst idiot to drive the schoolbus out of a pile of applicants, just because they are the most convincing about how they are passionately against abortion. Why pick someone to be the Republican nominee on that basis?

Bush should never have been nominated over McCain 8 years ago, but the social conservatives were never comfortable with his centrist tendencies. And McCain's support among that same base this year is so weak that he was never able to pivot to the center to win the general election, like Obama's base allowed him to do.

If Obama appoints the right judges to end the right-to-life controversy once and for all, it will do the Republican party -- and the country -- a lot of good. People's votes should not be so focused on religious issues that they elect a man to run the country who can't even function as a competent manager. Yet that is what happened with Bush's nomination and election and re-election. The right-to-life vote has become an irrational and destructive force in our country's politics and the issue of abortion should be taken off the table.

If Obama can accomplish that, he will have done a great thing.

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 29, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

As a Catholic myself, who is voting for Obama, I find the trend of Catholics voting for the winner not at all significant. Abortion was used previously to bring Catholics in line with Republicans but there are more social justice issues that the Catholic hierarchy is coming back to. By embracing only the issue of abortion as a litmus test for voting the church I think was hoping to get a voice on other issues within the right. And just like so many other times the right used those votes to get their way win an election then pretty much ignored all the other social justice issues. This time around the catholic leadership has realized that playing to the right will not address issues like the death penalty and the Iraq war.

Also as a Catholic who has lived in the South I am reminded by a consersation I had that has influenced my votes ever since. I was talking to a born again christian and he told me in no uncertain terms that I was not a christian because I was Catholic. I still don't understand how as a believer in Christ that I am not a christian. Until Catholics are accepted as christians universally there is no place for my vote for a group that would deny this and the party they have co-opted.

Posted by: christm1600 | October 29, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Maybe you should try putting up a blog that no one visits, if attacking other posters is all you have to say and if that is the content of your comments?

-------------------

37 and O Street has already taken care of that. But continue on with your ad hominem attacks. Your hypocrisy is fascinating.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 29, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I know Sarah Palin did not think much of Obama's experience as a community organizer but that organization was in a large part funded by the Catholic Church. Obama speaks the language of the social justice ministry of the Catholic Church. I know this is a mystery to evangelic Protestants but Obama is taking the Catholic vote. This is because Catholics are taught the ministry of social justice. Democratic policies follow that tradition. Obama speaking the language of social justice is pealing off the Catholic value voters who are about 50% of those voters.

Posted by: bradcpa | October 29, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I'm a white Catholic and I am voting for Obama. This whole pro-life argument has been used by the Republicans for far too long. For other Catholics who are at odds with it, just think of all the other pro-life stances....an unjust war, embryonic stem cell research, the death penality, etc. You'll see that John McCain is for these things. No matter what happens to Roe versus Wade, there will still be abortions...legally or illegally.

Posted by: pattycakes90 | October 29, 2008 10:53 AM

_______________________________________

To follow on this, 4.5 years ago the head of Church dogma, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) issued a letter to Catholic Bishops regarding candidates, which included a codicil for voters. Basically he said that abortion should be a paramount issue. However, he also said that (a) it was not the only issue and (b) that if, in the balance, other issues between the two candidates outweighed each candidate's stance on abortion, then it was not a sin to vote for the candidate not in favor of outlawing abortion. You all can look it up.

http://www.tldm.org/news7/Ratzinger.htm (first place from Google that I found it, this is no comment one way or the other on the rest of the content of the website).

During the 2004 election it was my argument (against most of my family and the majority of my friends and co-communicants) that it was OK to vote for Kerry because I did nto think that George Bush would do a darned thing regarding abortion -- that as usual, the Republicans would make a big issue of it until the first Tuesday in November, and then forget the issue entirely the next day. And I was sure proven right.

It is OK to (a) be Catholic and (b) vote for Barack Obama, as long as you do not vote for him strictly BECAUSE of his stance on abortion. I wish he would change that stance, but I will be voting for him anyway because of the rest of what he stands for.

Exact language = "[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]"

Posted by: dbeno1 | October 29, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

wpost4112, I rest my case.
-----------------
Oh, if only you would.
Posted by: wpost4112 | October 29, 2008 11:12 AM

My comments belong here. Yours don't. If you look at your comments on this page, you're an attack-troll. They're empty of political interest or real thought. You just clutter up space with your empty, interpersonal stabs.

Maybe you should try putting up a blog that no one visits, if attacking other posters is all you have to say and if that is the content of your comments?

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 29, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

wpost4112, I rest my case.

-----------------

Oh, if only you would.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 29, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

I wonder how the "Catholic" vote is counted. My family left the Church 10 8 years ago, and my mother has asked to not be sent envelopes to tithe, but the church keeps us on their rolls, sends us the envelopes, and sends us the Diocesan newspaper, so obviously, we're counted as Catholics in that diocese. If that's the case, obviously the bellweather polls don't apply to my family, and I would assume to many others. Also, the Pew Reports on religion showed last year that Catholicism lost a tremendous percentage of members - I think it was about 20%? - over the last twenty years or so. How many of those people identify as Catholics and are counted by the Church? I would self-identify as Catholic when asked, but obviously, I am not the voter the Church would desire.

Also the poster above who remarked that one priest said Catholics had to vote for the anti-abortion candidate and this priest did not - that's a huge issue in the local parishes, and many priests simply try to stay out of it, because they are the ones faced with emptier pews every Sunday. But the way to a political position in the Church, since the late 80s and the rise of the current Pope, has been to be psychotically anti-abortion and nothing else.

Posted by: elamb | October 29, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

so Aspergirl-poser


so you are belittling voters because they are pro-life?

.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin writes
"It would bear more statistical significance if a group so large - 1/4 of actual voters - were always voting other than for the winner. This "parse" is not a lot more instructive than noting that the popular vote usually predicts the electoral vote."

I was thinking along those lines. The numbers at the end of The Fix's post would be more interesting if accompanied by numbers showing white catholics' percentage of both the population as a whole & voters.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 29, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

67 million Catholics in the USA
(22% of the population).


60% are Caucasian
35% are Hispanic
3% are African American
2.5% are Asian Pacific Americans
.5% are Native American

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 29, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse


.


.


If there was a white Presidential candidate who was found to be a member of a racist church, same as the Rev. Wright's church except substitute "white values" for "black values" and visa vera, THE MEDIA WOULD BE IN TOTAL ATTACK MODE AGAINST THAT WHITE CANDIDATE.


OBAMA IS A RACIST - OBAMA HAS GIVE $20,000.00 TO A RACIST CHURCH IN ONE YEAR.


Washington Post - there are a lot of Churches in Chicago which are black and which are not racist - Obama did not have to give $20,000.00 to this one Church - STOP GIVING OBAMA A PASS ON HIS RACISM AGAINST WHITES.


WAKE UP WASHINGTON POST WAKE UP MEDIA.


WAKE UP AMERICA.


.


.


Exactly right he's racist. Just listen to Irreverend Wrong, his pastor for many, many years.


Exactly right he's socialist. Just listen to him admit it to Joe the Plumber, or his interviews in the past.


Exactly right he's a rotten human being. Just look at his abortion voting record.


Exactly right he has questionable judgment. Just look at his associations with people in his past.


Exactly right he's corrupt. Just look at the Rezko land deal.


Exactly right he's a liar. Just look at what he says about taxes vs. how he's actually voted.


Exactly right he has no executive experience. Just look at his resume -- or lack thereof.


Exactly right he's secretive. Just look at his lack of birth certificate, SAT scores, grades, etc. etc., etc.


Exactly right he'll be challenged in his first 6 months of office if elected. Just look at what he says about meeting unconditionally with world leaders.


We cannot be SERIOUS about electing this guy!! Obama in charge of nukes?! What. The.


Sorry George Washington, we messed everything up.


We stopped demanding the best people in the White House.


.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps White Catholics have learned in the past 8 years, what it costs the country when you elect an idiot because of religious, ideological litmus tests.

They helped George Bush beat John McCain in the 2000 primary 8 years ago, when McCain was clearly the better candidate. And then they helped Bush beat Gore. And let's not forget the right-to-life bishops coming out against Kerry's candidacy in 2004, when we had a chance to get rid of Bush after the first 4 years.

One positive thing I look forward to in an Obama Administration (if he wins) is that he'll appoint enough of the right kind of judges to put an end to this Roe v. Wade and abortion controversy once and for all.

If Obama can do that, the country can get the agendas of the stupid right-to-life vote off from around its neck, that has put so many destructive idiots into leadership positions in government in the past couple of decades. And religious crowd might then try using their votes to elect good managers instead of ideologues who run on being "for life".

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 29, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Heehee! Reading some of the wacko right wing comments on these boards is a perfect way to demonstrate exactly what is wrong with modern Republicanism.

Want to rise from the ashes of defeat? Here's the program:

1. We will dfend the U. S. A.

2. We will be careful with the taxpayers money and control spending.

3. We will not tell you how to live your life.

4. All Americans are welcome to our tent.

Get rid of the nutjobs, outright bigots, neo-fascists, the purposely ignorant those with a high tatoo to tooth ratio and those waiting the rapture candidates. (They'll vote for you anyway).

Build a center-right fiscally conservative, socially moderate coalition and Americans will respond.

Are there any real Republicans left?

Your nation needs you.

Posted by: toritto | October 29, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Mccain not doing to good in his Miami speech. When he talked about drilling off Florida he got boos and then his group tried to drown it out with their chants. He also said he will never sit down with Castro till there are democratic elections there. That is exactly "NOT" what they want to hear. Doesn't Mccain even have an advisor?

These people want normalized relations with Cuba so they can visit and send money to relatives and maybe get Cuba on a different track. Mccain is an Idiot. He just made a reference to civil rights that if you listen was racist. It was an anti black reference and he was to stupid to realize it.. Except for some boos the only sound coming from the crowd are from Mccains group who are coached before the rally begins. (I have been there) If this is any example, Florida has no interest in Mccains message.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 29, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

.


.

Response to bevjims1 at 10:46am:


Are you sitting at Obama headquarters saying that Congress should consider reparations for slavery ???


.

.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

.


.

Response to bevjims1 at 10:46am:


Are you sitting at Obama headquarters saying that Congress should consider reparations for slavery ???


.

.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

I'm a white Catholic and I am voting for Obama. This whole pro-life argument has been used by the Republicans for far too long. For other Catholics who are at odds with it, just think of all the other pro-life stances....an unjust war, embryonic stem cell research, the death penality, etc. You'll see that John McCain is for these things. No matter what happens to Roe versus Wade, there will still be abortions...legally or illegally.

Posted by: pattycakes90 | October 29, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

KatherineWelsh wrote:
"The difference is that in 2004, my priest said from the pulpit that he couldn't endorse, but all Catholics had to vote for the anti-abortion candidate. This year, my priest (different person from the previous) said that the literature was in no way affiliated with the Church, and that anyone who said your status as a "good Catholic" depended on voting on one issue was completely wrong."

I am a Catholic from PA and I noticed much the same thing. 2004 it was that you cannot vote for the pro-abortion candidate (even though he was a catholic) complete with literature and a scathing sermon or two. This year it was pretty much just be sure to vote...(We have a different priest this time around as well).

Posted by: Maxwell_Smart | October 29, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

AsperGirl:

Did you know that most strippers will actually get a tax cut under Obama's plan?

Unless of course, they buy the strip club, and the club takes in more than $250,000 a year, then they'll have to pay a bit more (but only on the revenue they bring in ABOVE $250,000).

Most strippers feel that's reasonable.

Posted by: Bondosan | October 29, 2008 10:17 AM

_____________

Bondosan, you're on message and disciplined!

I hope that strippers do well in the next few years. And all the rest of us, too. The people in our society, like strippers, doctors and engineers, focus on their skills and trust in our leadership to take care of running the things that government is responsible for, like the money supply, banking industry and keeping us supplied with energy and raw materials to do our jobs. The leadership in Washington hasn't been doing its job in the past 8 years.

Whomever wins this Fall, I'll be glad to see Bush go.

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 29, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

37th wrote: "Chris, you speak the TRUTH about White Catholics. They already have allegiance to the POPE, and are sworn to follow his instructions, to the death."

You know little about Catholicism.

37th wrote: "There is no room for OBAMA in their Catholic Liberation THEOLOGY."

More proof.

37th wrote: "OBAMA has promised reparations for AFRICAN-AMERICANS."

That would be a decision of Congress, not the president.

37th wrote: "OBAMA has promised reparations for HAWAIIANS."

Again, the president is not a dictator, Congress would make this decision.

37th wrote: "OBAMA has promised to produce his MALAYSIAN driver's license."

Where in god's name are you getting this all from?

37th wrote: "But all Obama-bots can do is focus on Sarah Palin's UNDERWEAR."

It seems the only one who focused on anythng about Palin was McCain. he picked this unqualified pretender with little vetting or knowing much about her. My guess is he had little to do with the decision. If he did, it just helps show he is not qualified to fill the "deciders" shoes.

37th wrote: "We have instructed Fix readers on the ABOVE MATTERS for months now, but no one has paid any heed to THE TRUTH. But there is still one week."

"We" ?

Posted by: bevjims1 | October 29, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

If you're all so educated that you can sneer at this person, then you should know that people use ad hominem attacks on other debaters when they can't deal with the arguments themselves.

Clearly 37th is striking a nerve.

--------------------------

LoL. Oh,please.

His arguments are too nonsensical and fictional to bother with.

Your own history of ad hominem attacks undercuts your self-righteous stance.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 29, 2008 10:24 A

--------------------------

wpost4112, I rest my case. You're a troll whose best contributions are to harass and attack other posters. People argue at the level of their intellectual ability. You can attack 37th and other posters for their points if you want, sneering at their intellectual ability. But your attack-the-messenger tactics in and of themselves reveal your own limited ability.

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 29, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Chris, you speak the TRUTH about White Catholics.

They already have allegiance to the POPE, and are sworn to follow his instructions, to the death.

-----------------------


LOL.

Obviously, someone is living in the 15th century.

The final moral arbiter for all Catholics, even when the Pope speaks "ex cathedra" is their individual conscience.

I can see 37/O right now, hunched at his computer, dressed in his Inquisitional Robes awaiting the Rapture.

I think he's in for a big surprise.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 29, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

What mark_in_austin said. Whites are the largest ethnic group in this country; Catholics are the largest single denomination. It's silly to say we vote with the majority -- we are the majority.

Posted by: arielibra | October 29, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

"Chris,
There seems to be some real differences in polls here. According to Tim Rutten's LAT piece today, in "a recent New York Times/CBS poll, Obama holds a commanding 59% to 31% edge over McCain among Catholics nationwide." (He also points out that Catholics always go for the winner.) That's a lot different than the 48%-47% you're quoting for the WaPo poll. What gives?
Can you get back to us on that?"

Not all Catholics are white. For instance, Hispanics. and a reasonable number of blacks, Asians, and Injuns (I intend to get that word into the dictionary eventually) They certainly can drag the numbers up quite a bit.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 29, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

I'm a white Catholic (New Hampshire), and one thing I've noticed: both this year and in 2004, campaign literature (mainly about abortion) is being put on cars at churches. The difference is that in 2004, my priest said from the pulpit that he couldn't endorse, but all Catholics had to vote for the anti-abortion candidate. This year, my priest (different person from the previous) said that the literature was in no way affiliated with the Church, and that anyone who said your status as a "good Catholic" depended on voting on one issue was completely wrong. Very interesting difference, I thought.

Posted by: KatherineWelsh | October 29, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

.

.

.

Chris, you speak the TRUTH about White Catholics.

They already have allegiance to the POPE, and are sworn to follow his instructions, to the death.

There is no room for OBAMA in their Catholic Liberation THEOLOGY.

OBAMA has promised reparations for AFRICAN-AMERICANS.

OBAMA has promised reparations for HAWAIIANS.

OBAMA has promised to produce his MALAYSIAN driver's license.

But all Obama-bots can do is focus on Sarah Palin's UNDERWEAR.

We have instructed Fix readers on the ABOVE MATTERS for months now, but no one has paid any heed to THE TRUTH. But there is still one week.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0St | October 29, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Please, let's not discuss the topic at hand and instead go off some barely tangental subject.
Somewhat seriously, if there was a moderator who could send all the unrelated the Caps Locks and 'Important Message about Candidate X" non sequiturs to, say, a special Rant and Rage section, these discussions would be more readable.

Posted by: arielpoly | October 29, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

.

.


Response to chlind

First it sounds like you are at Obama headquarters


How much is the Obama campaign paying you to lie to the American public ???


.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Chris,
There seems to be some real differences in polls here. According to Tim Rutten's LAT piece today, in "a recent New York Times/CBS poll, Obama holds a commanding 59% to 31% edge over McCain among Catholics nationwide." (He also points out that Catholics always go for the winner.) That's a lot different than the 48%-47% you're quoting for the WaPo poll. What gives?
Can you get back to us on that?

Posted by: wmw4 | October 29, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Response to chlind

You are a complete fool - look at the website for that Church - and listen to Rev. Wright on CSPAN at the National Press Club this past spring.


.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

What's the difference between Sarah Palin and parasailin'?

One involves wafting on currents of hot air, far from solid ground.

The other is a sport.

Posted by: bokonon13 | October 29, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

If you're all so educated that you can sneer at this person, then you should know that people use ad hominem attacks on other debaters when they can't deal with the arguments themselves.

Clearly 37th is striking a nerve.

--------------------------

LoL. Oh,please.

His arguments are too nonsensical and fictional to bother with.

Your own history of ad hominem attacks undercuts your self-righteous stance.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 29, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Chris,
There seems to be some real differences in polls here. According to Tim Rutten's LAT piece today, in "a recent New York Times/CBS poll, Obama holds a commanding 59% to 31% edge over McCain among Catholics nationwide." (He also points out that Catholics always go for the winner.) That's a lot different than the 48%-47% you're quoting for the WaPo poll. What gives?
Can you get back to us on that?

Posted by: wmw4 | October 29, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

AsperGirl:

Did you know that most strippers will actually get a tax cut under Obama's plan?

Unless of course, they buy the strip club, and the club takes in more than $250,000 a year, then they'll have to pay a bit more (but only on the revenue they bring in ABOVE $250,000).

Most strippers feel that's reasonable.

Posted by: Bondosan | October 29, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

White Catholics, Ohio, and other "indicators" aren't really what they seem. White Catholics, being mainstream middle class, reflect elections the way certain statistical groups reflect general population trends. The fact that they are splitting more evenly than otherwise suggests that the white, regularly voting, electorate is splitting more evenly than otherwise, and that, therefore, the minority and non white male voting blocks will, when they swing to Obama, be the telling difference. Since apparently the NON regularly voting population has awakened and is going to vote this time around, (estimates of up to an 80% voter turn out are floating around) and they aren't voting for the status quo, the meaningful cohort this time around is the logical complement of White, Catholic voters.

Ohio, by the way, has never been the swing state instrumental in electing a Democrat. Kennedy didn't carry us, for instance. Generally, if Ohio goes Democrat, (like this year), the election is a blow out for the Democrats.

Obama carries 400+ electoral votes, the Dems get filibuster proof insurance, (they really need only eight Senate seats, Lieberman being a lonely figure if he doesn't vote cloture when needed) and they get a massive majority in the House.

Now if Mitikaides can only take down that twit Turner...

Posted by: ceflynline | October 29, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse


Response to ArchieHaase at 8:42am:

Its not just Obama's association with Wright, it's that Obama brought his children to a hate-filled Church.


AND he gave the hate Church $20,000.00.


There are many black Churches in Chicago which are not racist and do not promote hate - Obama could have joined one of those Churches, brought his children there and given that Church $20,000.00.

Yes That Makes Obama a RACIST.

It also goes to Obama's judgement, which he lacks.


.


.


Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse
-----------------

Well since Obamas daughters are 10 and 8 and Obama has not gone to that church in like 8 years you will not have to worry about that anymore. In fact in an interview a while back, Rev. Write said that Obama rarely came to his church and then joked he was going to get on him about that.
Either way, months ago people decided they didn't care about the guilt by association thing.

If they did, they would be looking into all the communists who often visit and stay at the Mccain ranch. This is all public knowledge, people know these communists Mccain has decided to make his friends is probably to deal with his PTSD to get rid of the demons of viet nam. Mccain. He is even friends with a few of the same ones who tortured him and killed other American POW's. He has many times visited them in viet nam and there is even a display in viet nam with a flight suit and memorabilia about Mccain. He is a celebrity there.

When it comes to guilt by association Mccain may be one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever seen. I doubt I would want to count among my friends, those who tortured and murdered other Americans, even some who were my friends. We won't even get into Mccains collaboration with the enemy, known to be a fact. Mccain is nothing but a traitor to his country and others have been executed for the same kind acts done by Mccain. But then his father was an Admiral. He hid everything his son did.

Only this week a report has come out that John Mccain killed someone with his car in 1964 and his father was able to make it all go away. I would suspect Mccain was drunk at the time since those that knew him say he was almost never sober back then. People he flew with said he would show up on the flight line drunk. He was most likely drunk the day he was shot down since he didn't fly the correct flight pattern. Enough said, he isn't gong to be elected anyway and good ridders to this piece of trash.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 29, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

37thandObamaSt:

Jesus wants you to vote for Obama.

If you don't believe me, just ask Him yourself.

That's why the Catholic vote has been moving in Obama's direction.

Posted by: Bondosan | October 29, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

"ComoPark said: First, as a proud graduate of Georgetown I am consistently embarrassed by 37thandO's drivel"
---------------------
"Please do not associate 37Gutter with Georgetown. There is no link whatsoever."
Posted by: wpost4112 | October 29, 2008 9:56 AM

If you're all so educated that you can sneer at this person, then you should know that people use ad hominem attacks on other debaters when they can't deal with the arguments themselves.

Clearly 37th is striking a nerve.

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 29, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

wpost4112


I see you have no standards at all for public officials.


Friends with William Ayers ? OK with you


Friends with Rev. Wright? OK with you.


Friends with Rezko - $300,000.00 discount in transaction when Obama bought his house? OK with you.


Emil Jones ? OK with you.

How do you feel about Dorothy Tilman?


Your standards are a disgrace to this country - I am shocked that so many people are going to overlook this issues and still vote for Obama.


.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

I am a white Catholic, age 60,who already voted for Obama.
I do not consider Rev White's church in Chicago a racist church. I consider it a Christian church that did a lot of good for the neighborhood. A minister is only one member of the congregation.

Posted by: chlind | October 29, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Hey, 37thandObamaSt: I did it. I actually went to your "blog." ... So, aside from it being a rather pathetic MySpace page, am I mistaken, or are the majority of your "friends" listed there (along with their photos)...STRIPPERS? Now I'm starting to understand what an intellectual heavyweight you really are.

Posted by: Bondosan | October 29, 2008 9:35 AM

It doesn't matter who 37thandObamaSt is, and whether he/she is a stripper or all his/her friends are strippers. I'm frankly sick of the stupidity of professors, cynical lies and propaganda of professional journalists and the hypocrisy of the liberal left in their biased op-ed pieces, blatant sexism and attempts to disguise their infatuation with Obama as real professional opinion.

The best opinions are those from real people. And realest people are usually not the ones trained in rhetoric and posturing.

Frankly, the way a stripper postures is no less meaningful than the way some hyperverbal, narcissistic freak like Maureen Dowd postures in her opinion pieces in the New York Times. If you can call her writing professional art, then frankly I think the stripper plays a more constructive role in our society.

The best thing about political opinions is that everyone is entitled to them. Not just the professional chattering class.

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 29, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

.


.


Response to ComoPark at 945am:


You may be proud of yourself however other people are not proud of you if support a RACIST SOCIALIST to lead this economy out of this economic mess.


I am shocked that the media has given Obama a pass on so many issues such as Obama's racism against whites and his financial support of a racist church.


I feel sorry for you that you do not find this issue important.


Apparently you did not take economics at Georgetown - or you would be against Obama's high-tax proposals.


I am concerned that you are willing to overlook the BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY in Obama's background.


Did anyone get involved in the transaction when you bought your house so that you would come out with a $300,000.00 discount?


How can you overlook this corruption and this entaglement with now-convicted-federal-felon Rezko ???


What would Jesus say about your comments.


Did you see the interview with the guy who was 9 years old when William Ayers bombed his house? The idea that William Ayers had no victims is nuts.

What about the people killed in Nyack, NY when the Weatherground members robbed the Brinks Truck?


William Ayers was not there for those killings however he was close enough to those who were there for the killings to agree to raise their children when they were in jail.


I wonder if Obama knows those kids and the people who went to jail for those killings.

How could Obama be friends with these people and still believe that he should be considered fit for office?


It is people like you who demand so little from their public officials - you have no standards - you are a disgrace to this great country.

It is your moral standards which should be called into question Sir, not anyone's writing skills.

.

.


Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse


.


.


Response to ComoPark :


I am shocked that the media has given Obama a pass on so many issues such as Obama's racism against whites and his financial support of a racist church.


I feel sorry for you that you do not find this issue important.


Apparently you did not take economics at Georgetown - or you would be against Obama's high-tax proposals.


I am concerned that you are willing to overlook the BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY in Obama's background.


Did anyone get involved in the transaction when you bought your house so that you would come out with a $300,000.00 discount? How can you overlook this corruption and this entaglement with now-convicted-federal-felon Rezko ???


What would Jesus say about your comments.


Did you see the interview with the guy who was 9 years old when William Ayers bombed his house? The idea that William Ayers had no victims is nuts. What about the people killed in Nyack, NY when the Weatherground members robbed the Brinks Truck?


William Ayers was not there for those killings however he was close enough to those who were to agree to raise their children when they were in jail.


I wonder if Obama knows those kids and the people who went to jail for those killings.


It is your moral standards which should be called into question Sir, not anyone's writing skills.

.

.


Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

ComoPark said:
First, as a proud graduate of Georgetown I am consistently embarrassed by 37thandO's drivel

---------------------

Please do not associate 37Gutter with Georgetown. There is no link whatsoever.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 29, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

This might be true in the past, but as the news services knows that this election is bring more then catholics to the polls. I think there is going be huge jump in voters which is going to kill many prediction methods from the past.

Posted by: ccrowley | October 29, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

I just want to add, again, that this is a volatile and novel election year.

Whomever wins faces a really, really tough situation and a lot of problems they will be trying to solve for the benefit of us all.

Whomever is elected needs our support to take the lead, in whatever style is their particular strengths, so that they can do the best job they can. It's not a good time in history for partisan attackers and ideological fanatics to undermine and drag down a new President. That's true whether the president is a young, first black president that the establishment distrusts or another Republican jeered at by the entire liberal left (especially the media).

The next few years can be really hard for the next president and we don't need to make the job impossible.

So I urge people to think about overcoming their partisan passions on Nov. 5th and supporting the next president, whomever he may be.

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 29, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse


.


.


Bondosan

We have thousands of supporters - the girls are gorgeous and beautiful - we do not vet them by profession.


Apparently it's OK with you for Obama to be friends with William Ayers, Rev. Wright and Rezko.

What would Jesus say about your comment?


.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

First, as a proud graduate of Georgetown I am consistently embarrassed by 37thandO's drivel. All of my professors, both conservative and liberal, taught me a much more constructive manner for creating an argument. I guess 37thandO slept through those classes.
As to The Fix’s post. I think the move of White Catholics (of which I’m one) is a response to a few factors. First, the members of the Church have been increasingly calling for more teaching and advocacy in the areas of social justice, and not just pro-life measures. The sanctity of life is the preimminent issue, but issues like poverty, health care, progressive taxation, and education have grown in importance. I can’t indentify exactly why that is, though commentators have suggested many different reasons. Second, I think many White Catholics would self-identify themselves as moderates or center-right. I think the recent move of the Republican party to the hard-right has not created a welcoming feeling for this demographic. Finally, I don’t think most White Catholics are use “all-or-nothing” approach to choosing their candidate, primarily because I can’t think of an “all-or-nothing” candidate that meets all of the Church’s litmus tests.

Posted by: ComoPark | October 29, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

First, as a proud graduate of Georgetown I am consistently embarrassed by 37thandO's drivel. All of my professors, both conservative and liberal, taught me a much more constructive manner for creating an argument. I guess 37thandO slept through those classes.
As to The Fix’s post, I think the move of White Catholics (of which I’m one) is a response to a few factors. First, the members of the Church have been increasingly calling for more teaching and advocacy in the areas of social justice, and not just pro-life measures. The sanctity of life is the preeminent issue, but issues like poverty, health care, progressive taxation, and education have grown in importance. I can’t indentify exactly why that is, though commentators have suggested many different reasons. Second, I think many White Catholics would self-identify themselves as moderates or center-right. I think the recent move of the Republican party to the hard-right has not created a welcoming feeling for this demographic. Finally, I don’t think most White Catholics are use “all-or-nothing” approach to choosing their candidate, primarily because I can’t think of an “all-or-nothing” candidate that meets all of the Church’s litmus tests.

Posted by: ComoPark | October 29, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Don't forget, Joe Biden is Catholic.

Posted by: soonerthought | October 29, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

First, as a proud graduate of Georgetown I am consistently embarrassed by 37thandO's drivel. All of my professors, both conservative and liberal, taught me a much more constructive manner for creating an argument. I guess 37thandO slept through those classes.
As to The Fix’s post, I think the move of White Catholics (of which I’m one) is a response to a few factors. First, the members of the Church have been increasingly calling for more teaching and advocacy in the areas of social justice, and not just pro-life measures. The sanctity of life is the preeminent issue, but issues like poverty, health care, progressive taxation, and education have grown in importance. I can’t indentify exactly why that is, though commentators have suggested many different reasons. Second, I think many White Catholics would self-identify themselves as moderates or center-right. I think the recent move of the Republican party to the hard-right has not created a welcoming feeling for this demographic. Finally, I don’t think most White Catholics are use “all-or-nothing” approach to choosing their candidate, primarily because I can’t think of an “all-or-nothing” candidate that meets all of the Church’s litmus tests.

Posted by: ComoPark | October 29, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Hey, 37thandObamaSt:

I did it. I actually went to your "blog." You know, the one that you've been hawking here:

***

Voted One Of America's Top 5 Political Blogs for the Election of 2008

BOOKMARK IT NOW !!!!

http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

***

So, aside from it being a rather pathetic MySpace page, am I mistaken, or are the majority of your "friends" listed there (along with their photos)...STRIPPERS?

Now I'm starting to understand what an intellectual heavyweight you really are.


Posted by: Bondosan | October 29, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Well, I think that the Fix is probably right. The White Catholics are probably also moving toward Obama.

It's funny because someone here recently accused me of cynically moving toward Obama because McCain is losing. I'm a former Clinton supporter who switched to McCain after McCain picked Palin. I think there's a lot of things wrong with Obama and my opinion of his economics and other policy problems hasn't changed.

But I've not "abandoned a sinking ship" (which I think a lot of Republicans have done to McCain). In reality, I'm part of a trend that I think began when McCain demonstrated economic incompetence and incoherence back a few weeks ago when the Wall Street meltdown struck.

I'm not going to repost my discussions since then of the implications of McCain's lack of preparation on economic problems we face, his incoherent mishandling of Sarah Palin's rollout and other campaign mistakes he's made. But I think that McCain has shown he really doesn't have a vision and leadership that we need going into really tough times. There are a few things that he will just not be able to claim he can do, after all his unnecessary and incomprehensible missteps after what was his great convention in early September.

Obama does appear to be a closet socialist and does appear to be hiding that. He has the same problems that I disliked about him before. But we're down to a choice between two candidates and he has something McCain is missing: leadership and an army of supporters who are prepared to stand behind him.

On the other hand, McCain appears to have no coherent vision, no real strategic leadership sense after being an "outsider" "maverick" in the Republican party for most of his career, and, worst of all, at his back is an army of skeptical, unhappy conservatives who barely tolerate him, who withhold support when he needs defenders and money, and who get out the knives and start stabbing at him whenever he appears to drift back toward the center.

I do like McCain and Sarah Palin, but it appears to me that McCain's Administration would be like his campaign: incoherent, lacking real leadership and without real support even from Republicans.

There are many ways to discuss McCain's lack of coherence, lack of leadership and lack of a real support base evident in his campaign in the past few weeks. But however you discuss it, I think that many people like myself in the past few weeks, including Clinton holdouts, do think that Obama is the better choice.

You can look at the polling trends, or you can look at the reasons behind the trends. I think that my reasons for switching my vote to Obama may be similar to those of centrists and independents, even if they don't express them the same way I might.

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 29, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

So what happened in 1964 & 1968? If they voted for Humphrey & McGovern, then by how much? I'm darn sure they voted for Kennedy in 1960.

Posted by: cyberfool | October 29, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

.

.

Response to ArchieHaase at 8:42am:


Its not just Obama's association with Wright, it's that Obama brought his children to a hate-filled Church.


AND he gave the hate Church $20,000.00.


There are many black Churches in Chicago which are not racist and do not promote hate - Obama could have joined one of those Churches, brought his children there and given that Church $20,000.00.


Yes That Makes Obama a RACIST.


It also goes to Obama's judgement, which he lacks.

.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

John McCain has been acting erratically ever since he selected Palin for his running mate. When the economy failed his behavior became bizarre. Stresses on any president in the next few years are going to be extreme . They will be fatal for someone in McCain's health and mental state. When he steps down we will then inherit his Palin fiasco.

Now Colin Powell has recognized these facts and has endorsed Obama as being a cool-headed and logical leader who is more fit for the presidency.

Kipling said it best:

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings---nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much:
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And---which is more---you'll be a Man, my son!


He was talking about men like Obama.


Posted by: seemstome | October 29, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

I wanted to be a conservative but I could never remember if I was supposed to hate Catholics or Protestants. Then some guy called me conservative because I have no personal debt... Yikes, say it ain't so Joe. ..

http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/10/28/tell-me-i-am-not-conservative/

Posted by: glclark4750 | October 29, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2004).

Obama's tax plan is to return to the progressive form of the Clinton administration which would target to the largest degree the 1 per cent at the top
with one third of the wealth in the country.

Small business owners making over 250 thousand in profit would see the smallest increase.
No more than they paid in the Clinton era which was without a doubt the most prosperous in recent history.

The benefits of this system would take the burden off the middle class which has only
16 per cent of the wealth in this country. The wage earners and salaried employees like Joe the plumber would get instant relief.

This will encourage them to spend more and stimulate the economy.


Posted by: seemstome | October 29, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

I think Powell is a coward. I think Bush is a terrible president. I must hate both blacks and Whites! I think since 30 O something hates Obama he must be racist.

I am sure anti catholic bigot.

Posted by: ArchieHaase | October 29, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

lazyboy wrote: "BTW, Sen. Obama wants to tax penalize wealthy. If he does this, then the wealthy and educated will move abroad."

I doubt it. The wealthy abroad pay about as much in taxes as Americans do (see http://www.worldwide-tax.com/index.asp#partthree). Go ahead and try to find a place as nice as America to live in where the wealthy pay less in taxes than Obama is proposing (ok, maybe Singapore). And remember that income tax is only one part of the tax Americans pay. We also pay social security, medicare, sales, property, capital gains and many other taxes. Taxes in other nations are equally complex. But you only need to see where the wealthy of the world are living (including before the Reagan/Bush tax cuts) to know that American taxes are not as high as republicans make them out to be when compared with the rest of the world.

And Obama has said the wealthy under his plan will pay what they paid under Reagan. Now how can republicans argue with that, unless anything above zero is too much.

Posted by: bevjims1 | October 29, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

I think Powell is a coward. I think Bush is a terrible president. I must hate both blacks and Whites!

Posted by: ArchieHaase | October 29, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Is John McCain really George Bushes Third Term? I explain: http://www.hallstyle.blogspot.com

Posted by: anthonydhall | October 29, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse


.

.

Response to ArchieHaase at 8:42am:

Its not just Obama's association with Wright, it's that Obama brought his children to a hate-filled Church.


AND he gave the hate Church $20,000.00.


There are many black Churches in Chicago which are not racist and do not promote hate - Obama could have joined one of those Churches, brought his children there and given that Church $20,000.00.

Yes That Makes Obama a RACIST.

It also goes to Obama's judgement, which he lacks.


.


.


Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse


.

.

Response to ArchieHaase at 8:42am:

Its not just Obama's association with Wright, it's that Obama brought his children to a hate-filled Church.


AND he gave the hate Church $20,000.00.


There are many black Churches in Chicago which are not racist and do not promote hate - Obama could have joined one of those Churches, brought his children there and given that Church $20,000.00.

Yes That Make Obama a RACIST.

It also goes to Obama's judgement, which he lacks.


.


.


Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Good Lord. Is anyone moderating this thread at all? How many multiple posts must you scroll through just to find people who actually have something to say?

Anyway, this white Catholic voted for Obama, in Indiana. But then again, I've voted for every Dem. candidate since I could vote, anyway, so it's not like being Catholic matters so much. However, for the first time, I feel like my vote might actually mean something here.

Posted by: Mazarin | October 29, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

SEN. MCCAIN SEEMS TO BE LOOSING MANY MIDDLE CLASS AND INDEPENDENT VOTERS BECAUSE HE DOESNT REALIZE, IN ADDITION TO WEALTH SHIFTING, THESE PEOPLE ALSO CARES ABOUT JOBS AND MORE JOBS, SCHOOLING, MORALITY, HEALTH CARE, SAFETY AND OTHER AVERAGE JOE ISSUES.

* BTW, Sen. Obama wants to tax penalize wealthy. If he does this, then the wealthy and educated will move abroad. Then who will pay that 70% federal tax that the top 10% pays? Average Joe, Jailbird Joey, Welfare Mary? I don't think so. We have to protect all Americans.


Posted by: lazerboy | October 29, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Obama is a racist because of his past association with Wright?

If so, then McCain is a racist for his association with racists Haggee and Parsley. Furthermore, he aided and abetted Contra terrorism in Central America. Thousands died because of their terrorism. As there is no statute of limitations on murder, McLame deserves to go on trial for conspiracy to commit murder and terrorism!

Catholics are people who often work for justice. McCain's Contra terrorism victims in Central America deserve justice. All good Catholics should demand it for those innocents.

Posted by: lefty71

Thanks Lefty for not screaming!

Posted by: ArchieHaase | October 29, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

People who own pets and have spiders in their basements have predicted the outcome of every election every year since the inception of teh country.

Come on FIX, I know you are tired, but this crap - when you run out of ideas to post, just talk sports, or pottery......but this? Geesh

Posted by: J_thinks | October 29, 2008 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Today's polls:

Ohio

AP/GfK Obama +7
Quinnipiac Obama +10
.
.
.
Florida

AP/GfK Obama +2
Quinnipiac Obama +2
.
.
.
Pennsylvania

Quinnipiac Obama +12
AP/GfK Obama +12
Franklin & Marshall Obama +13

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 29, 2008 8:38 AM | Report abuse


.


.

It is NOT just that Obama had a "past association with Rev. Wright"


What Obama did was bring his CHILDREN to a HATE-FILLED church for years and years.

Obama and Michele BELIEVE Black Liberation Theology - they gave $20,000.00 in one year to a church which stated on its website that "white values" were different from "black values."

This is extremely serious.

What is more serious is the RUSH TO OVERLOOK THIS RACISM AGAINST WHITES - THE RUSH TO OVERLOOK THE CORRUPTION AROUND OBAMA WITH RESKO - THE RUSH TO OVERLOOK THE CLOSE MENTORING RELATIONSHIP WITH MEMBERS OF THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND - I WOULD SAY THE LIBERALS HAVE BEEN BLINDED BY THEIR OWN HATE FOR BUSH - DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR AMERICA AND BE POST-PARTISAN AND BE POST-RACIAL AND VOTE FOR THE WHITE GUY.

YOU GUYS ARE NOT GIVING THE WHITE GUY A FAIR CHANCE.

BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN SOUTH CAROLINA IN 2000 HE HATES GEORGE BUSH MORE THAT YOU DO.

.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 8:36 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure how relevant the White Catholic vote will be at predicting this year's election. Obama is expected to carry states that Democrats haven't carried in 40+ years pointing to a definite change in conventional political wisdom.

Posted by: RickJ | October 29, 2008 8:32 AM | Report abuse

.


.


If there was a white Presidential candidate who was found to be a member of a racist church, same as the Rev. Wright's church except substitute "white values" for "black values" and visa vera, THE MEDIA WOULD BE IN TOTAL ATTACK MODE AGAINST THAT WHITE CANDIDATE.


OBAMA IS A RACIST - OBAMA HAS GIVE $20,000.00 TO A RACIST CHURCH IN ONE YEAR.


Washington Post - there are a lot of Churches in Chicago which are black and which are not racist - Obama did not have to give $20,000.00 to this one Church - STOP GIVING OBAMA A PASS ON HIS RACISM AGAINST WHITES.


WAKE UP WASHINGTON POST WAKE UP MEDIA.


WAKE UP AMERICA.


.


.


Exactly right he's racist. Just listen to Irreverend Wrong, his pastor for many, many years.


Exactly right he's socialist. Just listen to him admit it to Joe the Plumber, or his interviews in the past.


Exactly right he's a rotten human being. Just look at his abortion voting record.


Exactly right he has questionable judgment. Just look at his associations with people in his past.


Exactly right he's corrupt. Just look at the Rezko land deal.


Exactly right he's a liar. Just look at what he says about taxes vs. how he's actually voted.


Exactly right he has no executive experience. Just look at his resume -- or lack thereof.


Exactly right he's secretive. Just look at his lack of birth certificate, SAT scores, grades, etc. etc., etc.


Exactly right he'll be challenged in his first 6 months of office if elected. Just look at what he says about meeting unconditionally with world leaders.


We cannot be SERIOUS about electing this guy!! Obama in charge of nukes?! What. The.


Sorry George Washington, we messed everything up.


We stopped demanding the best people in the White House.


.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 8:31 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure how relevant the White Catholic vote will be at predicting this year's election. Obama is expected to carry states that Democrats haven't carried in 40+ years pointing to a definite change in conventional political wisdom.

Posted by: RickJ | October 29, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse

.


.


If there was a white Presidential candidate who was found to be a member of a racist church, same as the Rev. Wright's church except substitute "white values" for "black values" and visa vera, THE MEDIA WOULD BE IN TOTAL ATTACK MODE AGAINST THAT WHITE CANDIDATE.


OBAMA IS A RACIST - OBAMA HAS GIVE $20,000.00 TO A RACIST CHURCH IN ONE YEAR.


Washington Post - there are a lot of Churches in Chicago which are black and which are not racist - Obama did not have to give $20,000.00 to this one Church - STOP GIVING OBAMA A PASS ON HIS RACISM AGAINST WHITES.


WAKE UP WASHINGTON POST WAKE UP MEDIA.


WAKE UP AMERICA.


.


.


Exactly right he's racist. Just listen to Irreverend Wrong, his pastor for many, many years.


Exactly right he's socialist. Just listen to him admit it to Joe the Plumber, or his interviews in the past.


Exactly right he's a rotten human being. Just look at his abortion voting record.


Exactly right he has questionable judgment. Just look at his associations with people in his past.


Exactly right he's corrupt. Just look at the Rezko land deal.


Exactly right he's a liar. Just look at what he says about taxes vs. how he's actually voted.


Exactly right he has no executive experience. Just look at his resume -- or lack thereof.


Exactly right he's secretive. Just look at his lack of birth certificate, SAT scores, grades, etc. etc., etc.


Exactly right he'll be challenged in his first 6 months of office if elected. Just look at what he says about meeting unconditionally with world leaders.


We cannot be SERIOUS about electing this guy!! Obama in charge of nukes?! What. The.


Sorry George Washington, we messed everything up.


We stopped demanding the best people in the White House.


.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse

What in God's name has happened to Catholics?

--------------------------

Priests sexually abusing children.

That scandal has effectively silenced the Catholic leadership. They have lost their moral authority.

The Catholics are as adrift as the Republicans because of this corruption among its leaders.

Nevertheless, Chris has under-reported the Catholic support for Obama. Today's AP poll shows Catholics support Obama by 10 points in PA.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 29, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

As much as I like the self important notion that white Catholics vote for the winner, it wasn't right in 2000. In 2000, a majority of my compatriots voted for Bush...

Posted by: theamazingjex | October 29, 2008 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Obama is a racist because of his past association with Wright?

If so, then McCain is a racist for his association with racists Haggee and Parsley. Furthermore, he aided and abetted Contra terrorism in Central America. Thousands died because of their terrorism. As there is no statute of limitations on murder, McLame deserves to go on trial for conspiracy to commit murder and terrorism!

Catholics are people who often work for justice. McCain's Contra terrorism victims in Central America deserve justice. All good Catholics should demand it for those innocents.

Posted by: lefty71 | October 29, 2008 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Obama is a racist because of his past association with Wright?

If so, then McCain is a racist for his association with racists Haggee and Parsley. Furthermore, he aided and abetted Contra terrorism in Central America. Thousands died because of their terrorism. As there is no statute of limitations on murder, McLame deserves to go on trial for conspiracy to commit murder and terrorism!

Catholics are people who often work for justice. McCain's Contra terrorism victims in Central America deserve justice. All good Catholics should demand it for those innocents.

Posted by: lefty71 | October 29, 2008 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Is this report supposed to give hope to McCain? As an educated White Catholic who reads. I wonder why Catholics are interested in McCain at all. Why does he refuse to keep a distance between Catholic hate groups such as Rev. Hagee? Hagee talks about death. Death to Muslims, and yes death to Israel. I am always confused why Zionists like him when he wants the destruction of Israel.

Catholics are for life. That includes being against all wars that could have other solutions other then bombing and killing. Notice Bush is only now talking to lower level Taliban. Lieberman McCain's shadow is always talking to Reverend Hagee. He talks about bombing Iran to save Israel. I think there could be another way we could secure Israel without bombing Iran.

Catholics are like the rest of Americans. If it does not entertain them they do not read the book or watch a television program. That is why this country has been lacking in real change since the Vietnam War. Americans have became brain dead by the means of mass media.

Posted by: ArchieHaase | October 29, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

2004: George W. Bush 56 percent, John Kerry 43 percent
2000: George W. Bush 52 percent, Al Gore 45 percent

Wow, I can understand the 2000 vote since we knew little about Bush's inability to lead, but after knowing Bush wasn't truthful about WMD, that he fudged Medicare numbers to get Medicare part D passed, and after watching the republicans swiftboat Kerry, 56% of Catholics have a good reason to go to confession and say a lot of not just Hail Mary's, but plenty of Our Father's as well for voting for him while knowing these things.

What in God's name has happened to Catholics? Have they forgotten they are required to stand up to liars, to thieves, to those who refuse to tell the truth? And now they are backing a ticket that has a VP who ignores a report that says she broke ethics laws and instead says the report vindicates her? Just what are Catholics standing up for these days? It doesn't seem to be truth and justice.

Posted by: bevjims1 | October 29, 2008 8:10 AM | Report abuse

Chris

You are correct about this demographic however your numbers are wrong.

.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 8:01 AM | Report abuse

.


.


If there was a white Presidential candidate who was found to be a member of a racist church, same as the Rev. Wright's church except substitute "white values" for "black values" and visa vera, THE MEDIA WOULD BE IN TOTAL ATTACK MODE AGAINST THAT WHITE CANDIDATE.


OBAMA IS A RACIST - OBAMA HAS GIVE $20,000.00 TO A RACIST CHURCH IN ONE YEAR.


Washington Post - there are alot of Churchs in Chicago which are black and which are not racist - Obama did not have to give $20,000.00 to this one Church - STOP GIVING OBAMA A PASS ON HIS RACISM AGAINST WHITES.

WAKE UP WASHINGTON POST WAKE UP MEDIA.


WAKE UP AMERICA.


.


.


Exactly right he's racist. Just listen to Irreverend Wrong, his pastor for many, many years.


Exactly right he's socialist. Just listen to him admit it to Joe the Plumber, or his interviews in the past.


Exactly right he's a rotten human being. Just look at his abortion voting record.


Exactly right he has questionable judgment. Just look at his associations with people in his past.


Exactly right he's corrupt. Just look at the Rezko land deal.


Exactly right he's a liar. Just look at what he says about taxes vs. how he's actually voted.


Exactly right he has no executive experience. Just look at his resume -- or lack thereof.


Exactly right he's secretive. Just look at his lack of birth certificate, SAT scores, grades, etc. etc., etc.


Exactly right he'll be challenged in his first 6 months of office if elected. Just look at what he says about meeting unconditionally with world leaders.


We cannot be SERIOUS about electing this guy!! Obama in charge of nukes?! What. The.


Sorry George Washington, we messed everything up.


We stopped demanding the best people in the White House.


.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 29, 2008 7:57 AM | Report abuse

It would bear more statistical significance if a group so large - 1/4 of actual voters - were always voting other than for the winner. This "parse" is not a lot more instructive than noting that the popular vote usually predicts the electoral vote.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 29, 2008 7:50 AM | Report abuse

White Catholics, Missouri, The Washington Redskins are all good and scientific indicators of the presidential race outcome.

Here are better ones:

Rasmussen - Obama +5
Zogby - Obama +5
Ipsos/McClatchy - Obama +5
GWU Battleground - Obama +3
IBD/TIPP - Obama +4

Posted by: seemstome | October 29, 2008 7:03 AM | Report abuse

"Will white Catholic voters keep their 32-year streak alive next Tuesday?"

Looks like white Catholics are trending less relevant as an indicator -- look at those wide gaps they gave W. in 2000 and 2004, yet those were real squeakers (and as Mets102 points out, Gore won the popular vote).

Still, white Catholics may pull off a squeaker themselves this election, now giving Obama the lead, however slight.

Posted by: jerseycape | October 29, 2008 7:01 AM | Report abuse

How does 2000's split decision play in to the analysis that White Catholics are to segments of the electorate what Missouri is to the electoral college?

While Bush might have won the electoral vote following the Supreme Court decision, White Catholics still voted against the nation as a whole, with the popular vote going to Gore. The same split was seen with Missouri that year, with Missouri carrying for Bush against the national popular vote.

Posted by: Mets102 | October 29, 2008 6:16 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company