That seems to set the bar too low! I understand the example of the Baptist, but I don't see that it transfers to the socialist. If it did, they'd be admitting that socialism is a religion ... and if they're believers in the religion of Socialism, they can't be believers in the religion of Catholicism.
Isn't the support of socialist policies, when it's been shown that these are not beneficial to those in need, really a form of idolatry ... worship of the State, just like Rome's emperor cult?
What's crystal clear to me and you may be very unclear to them. After all, this is not strictly a matter of logic. It is also a matter of sin. My sins prevent me from seeing certain truths clearly.
We all like to think we are nice people. Let's say I am an alcoholic. I am predisposed to consciously think of myself as a good person. I may admit that I drink, even sometimes to excess, but I won't admit that my drinking puts my life and the lives of others in danger. My sins prevent me from seeing the reality of what I'm doing to myself and everyone else.
I might have an underlying discomfort with the way I act, but the dissonance between the fantasy I'm insisting on and the reality I'm living is probably not strong enough to rise above the level of discomfort. As long as that is true, it doesn't matter what graphs and charts you show me - I am convinced they don't apply to me.
The same goes for the socialist. Sure, socialism is a proven failure, never worked anywhere. But the socialist has a specific, distorted understanding of himself and the world that he needs to retain in order to maintain the fantasy that he's basically a good person. Thus, he will insist that those "proofs" don't apply to the particular situation he has in mind, that this time it will be different, etc.
The difference between an alcoholic and a socialist is mostly in the spelling.