Slate’s Melinda Henneberger and the Carpetbagger Report’s Steve Benen are still mulling over why Democratic voters prefer Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama.
As previously noted, Obama speeches and rallies have a more evangelical vibe that does not particularly resonate with Catholics, as Mike Huckabee discovered earlier this year.
However, it is an over-generalization that Obama struggles with Catholic voters.  For example, he split the Catholic vote with Clinton in Wisconsin, and edged her out with Catholics in Vermont. Thus, it is possible, perhaps probable, that Obama’s bad numbers with Catholics in states like Pennsylvania reflect the influence of ethnicity as well as religion — or differences in how Catholicism plays out within various cultural traditions.  The Scots-Irish-American Catholics of Appalachia are not necessarily the same as the German-, Italian- and Slavic-American Catholics of Wisconsin.
Karl,
The only demos where Mr. Usedtobeshinypenny is holding are blacks and empty headed progs AFAICT. If he’s dropping faster among Catholics than non-Catholics one might suppose that his affirmation of infanticide may have become more widely known. That or they find BLT (and hold that damn mayo) not quite to their taste. The reinforcement of Clinton negatives really makes it difficult to discern a clear pattern (aside from the observation that BHO seems to have achieved apogee just a tad early).
Well, I think Karl hits it on the head… we kind of go crossed-eyed (I mean we as in RCCs) when we hear folks like Hagee or Wright, or Born-Agains try to argue that we aren’t Christians… Believe me, I feel no kinship with the Evangelical Right… they have no love of Catholicism, but they sure do love our votes.
I have yet to see a single one of these polls show that the Democratic primary voters of any demographic (old, young, Catholic, working-class, white, black, brown, elitist, woman, man, cat-lover, dog-owner, rural, suburban, or urban) will go in droves to McCain if Candidate A or Candidate B is not the nominee. There’s certainly some polling information that each candidate has some additional hurdles to deal with race or sex, but not much to suggest that Dems aren’t going to vote for the Dem. Just six months ago, wasn’t there going to be a run on hairshirts if Giuliani didn’t get the nomination?
“German-, Italian- and Slavic-American Catholics of Wisconsin.”
How are they different from the German-, Italian- and Slavic-American Catholics of western PA( Pittsburgh)?
Here you go, Jon.
Now you’ve seen a nice poll indicating that a minimum of 12% of the Dems promise to be at least MIA in November, if not voting for the Geezer. Not to worry though, it will all change as more people come to realize that TUCC was actually a big Rick Warren/Alpha style, SBC lovin’ evangelical hub. That’ll drive the Catholics right into BHO’s arms in droves.
For better or worse, Catholics are just not monolithic. Culturally, economically, they just can’t be counted on to vote in any predictable way. Even on issues central to the catechism, there are varying degrees of agreement.
BTW, Doug is right to point out that Obama got crushed in Pittsburgh also, though we don’t have crosstabs by religion. But I think that shows his problems in PA were not just a Catholic thing.
Cowboy,
McCain’s attempt to use Hagee to to finish off the Huckster indicates that the SBC isn’t considered to be monolithic by political pros either – and rightfully so. I believe that an age/gender/income composite would probably produce the most accurate predictive model. Religion would be a bit further down the list of markers that I would pick. Karl’s post on the falloff in the under 30 turnout in PA illustrated BHO’s “shiny penny” problem. He just ain’t that shiny anymore and it’s only May. The “frontload the primary” idea may need a little revision.
why Democratic voters prefer Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama.
Because for party faithfuls, it is about beating the other team, not winning a victory they can be proud of. They may hate Senator Clinton, she may stand for everything they despise, but she’s not a Republican, and they don’t think Obama can win at this point. Guess what, Democrats, I don’t think she can either.
we kind of go crossed-eyed (I mean we as in RCCs) when we hear folks like Hagee or Wright, or Born-Agains try to argue that we aren’t Christians
Don’t feel bad, the Roman Catholic Church (and some pressure within it is still there to go back to it) used to declace everyone who isn’t Roman Catholic to be not Christian.
If they’re voting for Democrats, how can they even consider themselves to be Catholics? They’re not. They should be excommunicated.
I think that the difference, succinctly put, is that since the early primaries a lot of shit has come out about His Hopeychangeyness.
Harvard used not to let in teh Jews, Christopher. What else? I mean, we can go on and on this way, but suppose you go get yourself the best estimates of the numbers of folks killed by the European Inquisitions throughout the entire span of their functioning, and then compare that with the best estimates of the number of “witches” executed within Great Britain in the 17th c., and we can begin to have a discussion on how it is that Rome has gotten the rap it has.
I think it is a mix of being Catholic and the Union culture. Union homes are heavy on the idea that you put in your time before you get to call any shots – Obama is a “Hello, I’m here to run this mofo, because I’m entitled – Did I mention that I went to Harvard?” kind of guy. Plus, the men especially, I think, look at his skinny little neck and boney hands and know that he hasn’t ever used his body to earn his bread.
I think that would account for Obama’s poor showing (against his expected showing) in Philadelphia and the “collar counties,” as well as where he was expected to do poorly (Scranton, Erie, etc.).
Christopher – I wouldnt go that far in the past couple hundred years at least. There is the little issue of primacy… that is, saying a Catholic is other-than-Christian is like a leaf saying the remainder of the tree isnt a tree. If you get my meaning.
Funny, but I’ve seen a surprising number of people using the term “Scots-Irish” lately, probably having been warned at some point in their lives that Scotch is a drink. In this case, however, the proper usage, is, in fact, Scotch-Irish. Saying “Scots” instead is rather like substituting “I” in a mistaken abundance of caution where “me” is actually correct.
The Scots-Irish or Scotch-Irish were the people –mostly lowlander Scots– the Brits sent to Ireland as settlers to subdue the Catholics, whose descendants comprise the majority of the present Northern Ireland, and who in part eventually emigrated throughout the Eastern and Southern mountain frontiers of the US in the 18th and 19th centuries. They were Protestants, almost invariably. There are certainly some Catholics in Appalachia but they are not likely from this lineage.
jeyi has the right of it… and in fact they donned the moniker Scotch-Irish when the first waves of Irish Catholics started coming to the States, so as to distinguish themselves from the sub-human Irish-Papists in the eyes of their Protestant brothers.
I wouldn’t go that far in the past couple hundred years at least
Until Vatican II in the 60s I believe it was, the official church doctrine was: no salvation outside the church. If you weren’t Roman Catholic, you were lost. I don’t know how many Catholics shared that perspective, but the official doctrine was clear.
Christopher – citations pls.
There are a few places you can find information on this, but if you’re Roman Catholic, ask your priest, or someone familiar with church history. Cardinal Ratzinger (now pope) restated the clear position of the Roman Catholic church: the RC church is the only true church. Vatican II reversed some of this position by redefining “outside the Church there is no salvation” (Augustine) to include other denominations as they take with them portions of the church when they split away from the one true church, as the RC puts it.
Christopher – I think you are confusing the term “Church” w “church”. You will note that even the Protestants still recite the Nicene Creed: “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church”. Which church are they referring to? The reference is to the ENTIRE church on earth, including the schismatic denominations. And in fact, it was the Christ who said he was the only narrow gate to salvation. So, the position stands: no one can have salvation outside of the church. In fact, Vatican II did not change its position on this fact, but rather reiterated that clearly souls that do not come into contact with the Word cannot be held culpable. And that given the Mercy at work, we assume God has made arrangements of some kind. What about the good souls who came before the advent of Jesus? What about the good souls of those who have never been exposed to the Word through no fault of their own? Again, given God’s infinite Mercy and desire to see all souls in fellowship with Him, we must trust that He is ultimately Just.
Christopher – speaking to your point about the Pope’s insistence on the RCC and Primacy. He (the Pope), as Vicar of Christ, Successor to St. Peter, cannot say anything different. Regardless of whether it assails the sensibilities of non-Catholics. The fact stands that even in the Apostolic Letters, we find that schisms were erupting. These gave us the heresies which represented mistaken interpretations of Scripture. Nonetheless, we know from Scripture that Christ likened us to His Body on earth. And we cannot imagine that God intends anything but a unified Body on earth. The schismatic protestants cause scandal for all Christians on earth as the divisions represent division amongst the very body which is called to promote unity. One cannot say that God intended His own flock to be divided… or that He intended there to exist a Preeminent Theology with an assortment of new-theologies to exist which to one extent or another represent rebellion in thought to the Authority He established. The fact stands that the early schismatics who followed Luther had reason to be rebellious. However, it was not until later in life that Luther’s rebellion became not about correcting the Church from within, but rather about himself. We accept that all manner of organizations made up of men are exposed to abuse (as all men are flawed). Nonetheless, I believe an examination of Luther’s conscience at the time he responded to the fallen nature of “leadership” and their scandalous behavior and erred motives, would expose that Luther had no intent, initially, of splitting off permanently from the Church he (at the time) loved to the extent that he fought for Her by splitting from Her. And, well, since then, we know what has happened. And, again, it is scandalous. And, as you know… Christianity is about killing the selfish ego… to sublimate one’s self to the will of authority. As the Roman soldier said re authority. We all answer to Authority. There is no escape from the mater of Primacy. And all Christians, of all denominations, are called home to Mother Church.
And, for the record, the sometimes awful leadership within the RCC Herself leaves it wide open to criticism… and deserved criticism in many cases. So, I don’t want to give the impression that She has not contributed to this mess of rogue theologies invented in the vacuum of Authority. Nonetheless, the Goal is one of complete reconciliation. And that needs to start with the wonderful Orthodox brother and sister churches around the world. Once we have achieved full Communion with them, then we can worry about the TUCC… okay, so maybe that will have to wait a couple hundred years… good thing the Church will not be prevailed against.
[…] prior Democratic nominees among non-Hispanic Catholics by about five percent. This group has been problematic for Obama from the outset, and the Obama campaign can be touchy about it (in retrospect, this […]