The MSM is already starting the spin (Unbelievable!)

[ProSense]

The CSM today:

How inclusive the church should be is a topic many Catholics are pondering, and it extends beyond the gay-rights issue. Catholics have aligned with the Democratic Party since the Great Depression, but Republicans have been assertively courting Catholics in recent years. In 1996, Bill Clinton carried the white Catholic vote by 7 percentage points. In 2004, Democratic contender John Kerry lost that group by 13 points - a 20-point swing.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0503/p01s01-ussc.html

Notice the 20-point swing! That's the number they want people to remember. (Edited to add: On top of that, the 13 points isn't even accurate.) Friggin incredible!


Now here is the reality:

How did all of this play out on Election Day? In the National Election Pool (NEP) exit poll conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, Catholics made up 26 percent of voters last year, the same as in the 2000 Voter News Service exit poll. And as in 2000, Catholics were a swing group. Nationally, they voted 47 percent for John Kerry and 52 percent for George W. Bush, statistically identical to the overall vote. Catholics also split their votes for House of Representatives, with 47 percent voting for the Democratic candidate in their district and 48 percent voting for the Republican. Likewise, they are virtually split in party identification, 36 percent say they are Democrats, 38 percent Republicans, with the remainder having no party allegiance. In addition, a majority of Catholics, 52 percent, consider themselves political moderates.

An important division exists between white and minority Catholics, particularly Hispanic Catholics. While they are a swing group overall, white Catholics voted decidedly for George W. Bush in 2004, 56 percent to 43 percent, and Hispanic Catholics strongly supported John Kerry, voting 65 percent to 33 percent in his favor. In this year’s exit poll, Hispanics made up 17 percent of Catholics, a jump of 4 percent from 2000. It will be interesting to see if this rift deepens over time as the makeup of the American Catholic church continues to change.

Catholics played a key role in almost all of this election’s closely contested states. Of the eleven states decided by 5 percent or less, only Oregon has a Catholic population of less than 20 percent, furthermore 32 percent of the nation’s Catholic voters (compared to 27 percent of non-Catholics) reside in these eleven states.

http://www.edisonresearch.com/home/archives/2005/05/religious_voter.html

[karynnj]

1. Also interesting that they use 1996

When Clinton was a sitting President with a lackluster opponent. The other thing is that in 1996, the Supreme Court was less an issue than in 2004 - so the church in some areas did push for Bush because of abortion. If it were not near certain that 2 or more justices would be picked, the practicing Catholic would likely have done better than Clinton. (Teresa would have helped too.)

[ProSense]

2. Edited the OP re the inaccuracy of the 13 points.

Where did they get that number?

[karynnj]

5. They are taking white Catholics

"While they are a swing group overall, white Catholics voted decidedly for George W. Bush in 2004, 56 percent to 43 percent," So that their 13%.

[ProSense]

6. I missed that. Thanks! n/t

[wisteria]

4. Not a little push , a BIG push for Bush because of the Abortion issue

and the possibility of changing the make-up of the Supreme Court thus overturning Roe va Wade.The 2004 election was the stringent, vocal anti-abortion Catholics moment of truth, what they had been praying for for so long. They were instructed to vote their morals, to vote for what was right. Notice that both new justices are of the Catholic faith too. I have very religious friends who were pushing everyone to vote for Bush and if they weren't leaning that way, they were constantly needling them to do the right thing and vote the right way. It wasn't Kerry per say, any candidate up against "Bush the Pro-life" would have received the same treatment. Clinton being Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with it. The Pro-lifers just thought their time had come to claim the high ground. Now look where we are. Every time I think about Bush going into the Catholic churches and making promises about ending abortion I just hate him all over again.

[fedupinBushcountry]

3. Thats ridiculous

John Kerry also got 10 million more votes then Clinton, how can you even compare. I think they think we are stupid. Just keep on dividing us, hell I'm ready to write a letter to the Pope and tell him how much the conservative Catholics have turned me off to the church. Hell of a lot of good it did for me to go to Catholic school for 12 years, have a nun as my aunt.

[sandnsea]

7. Now that just doesn't add up

Because we were also told that the Catholic hispanics were where the New Mexico and Florida vote came from. Hispanic Catholics jumped 4%, but voted for Kerry. How does that add up to losses?

Oregon doesn't have a Catholic vote to swing and Oregon's numbers were exactly the same as in 2000, once you throw the Nader voters to Kerry.

Have we been looking in the wrong place to get proof of election theft? :shrug:

[karynnj]

8. The biggest flaw is that all of these numbers come from the exit polls

The same exit polls that showed Kerry with a very considerable win. After the "actual" result was in, the results from the the exit poll sample were adjusted so that the total results were "correct".

This is done mathematicly by inflating the Bush numbers in each segment and deflating the Kerry numbers. It is easy to know how to do this and in the past these correction were small and could be defended as correcting a small flaw in the sample design, there is a real problem correcting what I think was a five percent difference. The reason they do it is because of questions like Sannsea's - how did Kerry lose when he won so many groups.

The problem is that it is absolutely counter intuitive to analyze the underlying numbers with a fine tooth comb when in aggregate they showed a significant Kerry win.

[ProSense]

9. That's it!

How did Kerry lose when he won so many groups? To Sandsea's point, New Mexico was one of the states brought into question election night. Florida, certainly, but also Alaska, Nevada and others were scrutinized by various groups because of such discrepanicies.

[karendc]

10. New Mexico and Florida...

IMO, both crime scenes, based on information I have heard. If only someone would TALK...

[ProSense]

11. Now

that's a tease if I ever heard one. What's new? Can you share?

[karynnj]

12. You've also got Kerry winning 9 of the 10 most Catholic states

Louisiana being the only one in the top ten he lost.

I suspect that the Catholics Kerry lost were likely in more conservative areas of the country, where Kerry likely lost the white Protestant vote as well. The issue was clearly abortion.

[TayTay]

13. The Catholic vote is changing

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/31/democrats_courting_catholics/

Catholics are more in line with the rest of the country across the board.

Again, I was told by people who worked on the Kerry campaign that the Senator carried Massachusetts Catholics, a group that should be very familiar with him, by 51-49. That is too close and points up a big problem.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2003/11/02/the_crusaders/

We have opposition that wants to take the Catholic vote away. They are motivated and well-funded and have been greeted by amny elements in the Church as friends.

[JohnKleeb]

14. 51-49!??!?

I heard that Gore carried Massachuetts Catholics with like 60% of the vote. What the hell is going on here?

[TayTay]

15. There has been a concerted, well-funded and organized

effort to take the Catholic vote away from the Democrats based on issues like Gay Marriage and Abortion. That effort has been making big headway in states like Massachusetts.

No voting block is safe forever. We have very well-funded and determined opposition. They must be continually opposed.

From a critical Boston Globe article of 8/05:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/28/groups_church_role_questioned?mode=PF

Board member L. Brent Bozell III runs the Media Research Center, a self-described watchdog for liberal bias. Bozell's website says he is the executive director of the Conservative Victory Fund, a political action committee that has raised money for congressional candidates. He did not answer two messages seeking comment. Another board member, Connaught Marshner, was an executive with the Free Congress Foundation, run by conservative activist Paul Weyrich.

In an issue of Crisis magazine, which focuses on Catholic issues, Reilly wrote an article stating that professors and staff at 10 top Catholic colleges gave disproportionately to the presidential campaign of Senator John F. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat. The January 2005 article said personnel at Boston College donated $17,000 to Kerry, who is Catholic and supports abortion rights, but gave nothing to President Bush, who is Methodist and opposes abortion rights.

A fourth Boston College professor, the Rev. James Keenan, is targeted in a separate fund-raising letter, which alludes to ''heretics and dissidents" teaching at Catholic colleges and accuses him of testifying against a Massachusetts initiative that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

In an e-mail interview, Keenan said he ''explicitly upheld church teachings on chastity and on social justice, and I never supported gay marriage." He said he testified against a proposal that would have taken away social benefits from same-sex partners.

''There is something terribly indicative here of the degree of contentiousness in the United States Roman Catholic Church today," Keenan said about the Cardinal Newman Society. ''Hopefully, someday our bishops will call us to end this awful conduct, which hurts not only those of us targeted, but more importantly, the unity of the church itself."

Kleeb, we have opposition. They want the Catholic vote. They will do anything to get it. And they have made some successful inroads into the Dem/Catholic connection and have severed a lot of Catholics from the Dem Party. We have to recognize this. Even in Boston.

The group mentioned above in the excerpt is specifically targeting academics at BC who gave money to John Kerry. They want these people barred from teaching and kicked out of the Catholic colleges. It's how they fight in this game. They seek to burrow into an organization and destroy it from within by using it's own rules against it.

[JohnKleeb]

16. I knew it was a problem don't get me wrong but in Massachuetts

even. Since I had a longtime Democratic voting family member who voted for Bush in 2004 because of the abortion issue which is weird since my grandmother said her sister who is who I am talking about supported Gore in 2000 and Clinton too. This is why I think we should use economic issues to appeal to people more. It's fucking sick especially if you consider that the GOP used anti Catholicism against Al Smith and Jack Kennedy not Hoover and Nixon themeslves but their campaigners did.

[TayTay]

17. Massachusetts has a huge Catholic population

and is very susceptible to this. Even here, even among people who have been voting for a liberal Catholic pol for 20+ years.

[JohnKleeb]

18. I can imagine so

My aunt had been voting democratic since the early 50's. Granted Pennsylvania Democrats aren't like Massachuetts Democrats but she was brought up with the same values of my grandmother. I am telling you the key to the more conservative states in elections is focusing on economic issues. If we talk to them about things like education, wages, and the like I think they'd be more likely to go Democratic. I ain't saying abandon social liberalism but I think economic populism would be a wise thing. Not the extremeist populism mind you but genuine populism which stands up for the little guy. Elections have become not about economics but about social issues. That's why in my opinion that Roosevelt's great New Deal coaltion has been split.

[ginnyinWI]

21. What liberals have lost and need to get back

is FDR's vision that everybody in the country should get together behind what is for the common good of the people (According to The American Prospect). From FDR through JFK (the 1st) being liberal had been mainly about that call to working for what was best for all. Do something for your country, because we are all in this together.

Since the late 60s, the left has been mainly fighting for individual rights of minority groups, which had definitely less appeal to the average voter not in one of those groups. We need to get back to being the party of the common good--like when JFK said "Ask not..." and it inspired so many people. A lot of today's Dem politicians were first inspired by JFK's vision.

The Right is all about "me-ism"--what is good for myself and my own family and friends, and we have seen where that's gotten us since Reagan became president and the 80s were all about "me". Because of this, our environment is going to hell, the deficit is skyrocketing, and big business has been allowed to take over the country. The Dems need to once again expand their vision beyond "rights" and "fairness" and go back to FDR and JFK. Give people a sense of purpose, a vision that whatever cause we are fighting for is for the good of all of us and our descendents.

I do think that John Kerry is a JFK Dem and does see that same vision. But unfortunately, most of the party lacks this very effective way to frame what we most care about.

for more, go to TAP and read their series called, "The Politics of Definition." http://www.prospect.org/web/index.ww

[JohnKleeb]

22. You got it

Got it down perfectly. Right to be honest I don't want democrats to run as being the next Clinton, they should of course set their own legacy however the FDR, JFK, and I'd say the Truman defination of liberal was doing what is right for the common good of all people. I think that's why the Democratic part was at its strongest in the 30's-mid 60's. Liberalism to me has always been about standing up for hte common good of all people. Yes, we need to fight and protect minority rights but at the same time protect regular people. There's a lot of undeserved amonsity towards the middle class that I've seen. People get middle class mixed up with upper middle class, they're not hte same. I think you got the idea down on how to gain a Democratic coalition back. We need to tell voters that our policies will help them all. I agree with you about Reaganism and it's really sad to realize how prophetic my dad's dad was about him.

[ginnyinWI]

24. This article really does point to a key change we need to make

Yes, Truman should also go on that list.

That is why our party was strong during those years, because people want to sign on when they see they will benefit along with all the rest of the country. This is how we're going to differentiate ourselves from the Repubs--they have very strong messages of Social Darwinism, a winner-take-all mentality and the idea that a government should not be there to solve social problems and only be there for defense. They despise governmental solutions--that's why they're so bad at it.

We believe that government can be a force for good. Time to stop running away from this idea because it's a winner.

[JohnKleeb]

25. Exactly

I really got a lot of admiration for Truman personally. I think perhaps we need more "citizen politicans". What made Harry Truman such a great campaigner was how he was able to relate to people. He had been a soldier in the first world war, a farmer, a failed businessman, etc. You nailed the biggest problem I have with conservative economics it is social darwinism to the core. Basically if you're poor, fuck you. Reagan got elected on his hatred of big government but yet at least in the DoD he greatly expanded it.

[TayTay]

27. But the Roosevelt coalition fell apart (sort of) because it was time

for it to fall apart. Liberalism worked. FDR and post-war propserity worked. America in the 50's - 70's was one of the most prosperous places in human history with more people achieving a comfortable life than ever before on the planet. That high curve led to the coalition falling apart.

Remember the expression that if you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic? Well, that is true in certain times. However, when prosperity is humming alone and there are union jobs available at great wages and union folks are able to afford the house, the boat, the college education for the kids and so forth, ahm, well, the ties to 'the poor and the disadvantaged' sort of fall away. There is a divide between the poor and the middle class and usually only really bad economic events can cause the two groups to need each other again. (We may be heading toward that real quick.)

[JohnKleeb]

28. Perhaps it was inevitable however

We need a big Democratic tent again if we want to succeed on a larger level than we have I think as a party.

[beachmom]

23. Question, though: Who is deemed a Catholic?

I was born and raised Catholic in New England. But I left the Church. Now I am nondenominational Christian and live in Virginia. Are Catholics those who are that ethnically, or are they people who at least belong to a Catholic Church?

A LOT of people are leaving the Church (white people) for a variety of reasons, yet we still feel that we are Catholic, ethnically speaking.

[sandnsea]

19. But not hispanic Catholics

Which is specifically where they said the big change in New Mexico and central Florida came from. I remember reading an article where Domenici or someone like that was quoted as saying he was talking to his hispanic voters and had been hearing they were going to vote because of either abortion or gay marriage. So he wasn't surprised by the movement in New Mexico. Well, hmmm. That would put them in a different category than the rest of the hispanic voters apparently.

[TayTay]

20. Yeah, KarenDC said there was something fishy in NV & FL

That well could be.

[ProSense]

26. Now this is spin!

A Man Who Won't Sell His Soul

By David Ignatius
Wednesday, May 3, 2006; Page A23

BRUSSELS -- Sen. John McCain likes the moral high ground, and he takes palpable pleasure in delivering zingers to errant Russians, Iranians and Europeans, as he did at a conference here last weekend. But as the apparent front-runner in the 2008 presidential race, McCain is spending more of his time in the bog of American politics, and it's no picnic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050201482.html

WSJ op-eds are so predictable

BY JAMES TARANTO
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 4:38 p.m. EDT

Snip...

What the Left Believes

We have often suggested that the left in America doesn't really stand for anything. Well, we stand corrected. Evidently the left in America stands for one thing: the proposition that Stephen Colbert is funny, or at least that he was at the White House Correspondents Association dinner over the weekend.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008326