Posted on 10/15/2008 4:29:13 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
“Catholics change course, now back Obama by 10 points!”
Okay now that I have your attention let’s look at the demographics that make up the headlines we have been reading.
Since 1964 no Democrat has won the White male vote. White males have been steadily backing away from the party of high taxes and low patriotism year after year. In 1964 very few people had heard of Ronald Reagan except for his work as an actor. The White males who started to move away from the Democrats were not Reagan Democrats. They were men who tired of the continued leftward drift of their party. They’re gone and not coming back.
This year the Democrats are running a man who is a Black socialist with a Muslim name.
In 2000 Al Gore got 36% of the White male vote. Four years later John Kerry got 36% of the White male vote. Does it seem likely Barack Obama will do even as well with White males as the two White males before him?
Clearly it’s a good bet that the poll numbers showing Obama ahead are not coming from the 43% of voters who will be White males.
Catholic vote
In 2000 Gore won among Catholics, 50/47. In 2004 there was a strong grassroots effort to win Catholic votes for George Bush. He beat Kerry, who is a Catholic, by six points.
This year Catholic bishops have taken an active part in explaining the grave error of voting for a supporter of abortion, let alone allowing abortion survivors to slowly die in a closet to “meet the original intent of the procedure” as Obama put it.
Catholics will be 26% of voters. Obama was down 56/37 at last look. Does anyone think the bishops’s statements have closed the gap?
(Excerpt) Read more at Collinsreport.net ...
Omen? 0bama loses 57 states to 0.
This honkey papist won’t be voting for Obama.
The Catholic thing notwithstanding, the author really seems to be saying Obama CAN’T win.
Hey, who’s got the time?
/s
This overlooks the several million fraudulent Dem votes to be cast in the swing states. Unfortunately.
You called??? WW- the original flying pig.
Inflammatory head to get a rise out of people, not worth much.
The flys are all over this one ,,,,, PPPPEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
head = headline
Wow. Seems like just 1 in 3 posters actually read the article.
What we’re witnessing here is Republican social conservative policy being done in by Republican “spend but don’t tax” economic policy - the handwriting was on the wall once it became clear that Iraq was going to be extended effort and the decision was made to finance the war on credit card instead of raising taxes.
The Democrats were complicit in this decision, but the responsibility lies primarily - as it has throughout the Bush administration in its refusal to face the results of its spending and tax policies - with Republicans, and voters who put economic issues first are justified in punishing that iresponsiblity - it’s impossible at this point to take seriously any promises made by Republican candidates to act in a fiscally responsible manner.
It appears likely that two “moderate” Supreme Court justices will be included in the result, and that’s pretty much the end of pro-life hopes for a dramatic change in the situation for the next decade or two.
So ACORN signed up 10 percent more patrons in Irish bars they think they’ve got the Catholic vote?
It won’t happen but I think its hard to deny that Obama has momentum and would likely win if the election were today.
Did he really say that?
Collins says 0bama is down 56-37 among Catholics. I don’t know which poll shows that but I hope it is correct. Other polls show obama leading among Catholics. Pretty sad since he is 100% pro abortion. I wonder what these Catholics for 0bama will say when he forces that Freedom of Choice Act on the nation as his first act, which he pledged to do. So much for finding common ground.
“So much for finding common ground.”
There is no common ground on this one: in an era where abortions are increasingly performed pharmaceutically, and where there were obviously be a very active and efficient black market in such means, effective attempts to prohibit abortion would mean enforcing severe criminal sanctions against women who abort, as is the case for example in parts of Central America.
Given that around a third of Americans would be somewhere between angry and outraged over the enforcement of such laws and would actively or passively participate in subverting them, and that meanwhile around a third of Americans have equally strong feelings about the current legality of abortion, I don’t see this issue as being anything other than a permanent running sore in American politics. About the best you could hope for would be that the issue was returned to the states, and even then it would be remain divisive, for example as one state attempted to prohibit the movement of its citizens to another to obtain abortions.
Needless to say, this is not a desirable state of affairs in a country that badly needs a unified sense of national identity to face an increasing array of domestic and international challenges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.