Posted on 11/06/2016 5:15:16 PM PST by GilGil
So, there’s a poll out from Investor’s Business Daily/TIPP that shows Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in a statistical tie. Interestingly, however, that’s not the biggest news from the poll. As the title suggest, it’s the religious breakdown of the poll that should be raising eyebrows.
Christians overall support Donald Trump a whole lot more than Hillary Clinton. Catholics prefer him by twenty points (54-34). Protestants, meanwhile, like him a wee bit more (56-34).
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Just as effective as the Church’s stance against contraception. Zilch.
I think, no I KNOW she hates Christians more than muslims and Jews more than both.
She’s just pure evil.
That article her statements are VERY straightforward. I’ve never seen a politician be so blunt about it.
25% of Americans identify themselves as “Catholic”, including people such as HRC staffer Jennifer Palmieri. However, this group includes — no joke — people who were baptized as infants and never stepped foot again in a Catholic church except of (other peoples’) weddings, baptisms, etc. Break Catholics down according to how often they go to Mass (daily or weekly versus monthly versus only on Christmas/Easter versus never) and ethnicity (white versus Hispanic), etc. and you'll see big differences in voting trends.
“I agree. Landslide.”
I’m not arguing with you, but I’ll be doing cartwheels if Trump wins by even just one electoral vote!
Most illegals already registered would likely be voting with or without odumbo telling them it is okay. For those not registered, it is too late unless they are in one of the few same day registration states. Trump was likely going to lose those states anyways on no small part to being fast and loose with voter registration requirements.
Still an illegal thing for him to say and if we had House leaders with balz, he would be spending his remaining two plus more the fighting off impeachment for aiding, abbetting and encouraging voter fraud (felony). But for Obama to suggest they vote shows they are losing and getting desperate!!
Too funny I was just about to post same thing about red state being banned along with hot air
Couldn’t have said it any better.
You can’t get a reliable poll reading on minority groups within a poll of only 1000 people. How many Catholics are they actually polling? 200? Unless you saw this happening over and over again in polls you can’t begin to draw a conclusion.
| Yr | D | R | ||
| 1952 | 56% | 44% | ||
| 1956 | 51% | 49% | ||
| 1960 | 78% | 22% | Kennedy | |
| 1964 | 76% | 24% | LBJ | |
| 1968 | 59% | 33% | ||
| 1972 | 48% | 52% | ||
| 1976 | 57% | 41% | Carter | |
| 1980 | 46% | 47% | ||
| 1984 | 39% | 61% | ||
| 1988 | 51% | 49% | ||
| 1992 | 47% | 35% | Clinton | |
| 1996 | 55% | 35% | Clinton | |
| 2000 | 52% | 46% | ||
| 2004 | 52% | 48% | ||
| 2008 | 53% | 47% | Obama | |
| 2012 | 56% | 44% | Obama |
Pope endorsed Trump about 3 weeks ago.
I though total Protestants made up more than 50% of the electorate.
Link:
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/11/07/how-the-faithful-voted-2012-preliminary-exit-poll-analysis/
Where did the 29% figure come from? Was it just evangelicals?
Nate’s map appears to have Trump at 265 EVs, even though his estimate below the map shows worse. The EV estimate seems to be a projected average estimate, not a count off the map.
Strangely, he has Trump winning NV but losing CO. CO been overrun with that many potheads? It was 2 points closer to Romney in 2012 than NV. I know Nate said he looks more at polls than early voting, but he’s also tweeted that if the polls are wrong in NV, it could be a bad sign for Trump overall, with polls elsewhere possibly overestimating his support.
My concern is the whole busing Mexicans to the polls problem. Just like with blacks for Obama, it’s easy for the Democrats to identify what voters they need to carry to the polls, because they only have to look at what color they are, or go into their ghetto. And there is enough negative about Trump they can use to fire them up to go to the polls just like they had Obama’s skin color to get blacks fired up. I don’t want the results to be the story of how Dems drove up hispanic turnout and the pollsters didn’t see it coming, like it was with blacks in 2012. Right now the NV polls vs. early vote are leading Nate to see that as a possibility.
You should post that up on a thread then. Seriously.
Non white Catholic votes won’t be that high this time.
My mom said her Asian American priest told the packed Asian American congregation that if anyone plans to vote Hillary they need to leave the Catholic church now and don’t even bother to come back.
Could not be better worded.......well, maybe add II Chron. 7:14 and add the important first thing required......”humble themselves....”
Hey I was thinking (it happens) that a 20 point spread HAS TO include hispanic Catholics! A lot of them.
That’s a GREAT sign.
That’s all :)
They were probably dismal. I will admit that I live in Austin, Texas and the parish where I go to Mass is so far left I need a telescope to see most of the other parishioners. I think my wife and I were the only people in that parish who voted for Romney. Today about three in five of the parishioners realize that Clinton is anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, and pro-Lucifer as was her mentor Saul Alinsky. But it will not be the Catholics in Texas who decide this election. It will be the Catholics from the Northeast, the Midwest, and the Atlantic Coast states.
Likely you are looking at the category "Protestant/Other Christian" which made up 53% of the voters in 2012.
Take out the "Other Christian" and you have Protestants making up 29% of the 2012 voters.
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.