[berned]

"Catholics keep voting Democratic. In 1996, 54% of Catholics went for Bill Clinton, 38% for Bob Dole. They were among the few groups whose 1996 support for the president increased over its 1992 level. To be sure, the percentage of Catholics who identify themselves as practicing has declined quite sharply, from 73% in 1960 to 46% in 1996.

But even among "active" Catholics, who attend Mass weekly, 44%, a hefty plurality, supported Clinton, while 47% voted for Dole. (These figures are taken from a Crisis magazine survey of Catholic voting patterns in November 1998 and June 1999.) "

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/48/story_4816_1.html

[Campion]

But even among "active" Catholics, who attend Mass weekly, 44%, a hefty plurality, supported Clinton, while 47% voted for Dole. (These figures are taken from a Crisis magazine survey of Catholic voting patterns in November 1998 and June 1999.) "

So, so far we have active Catholics going 47% to 44% for Dole over Clinton in 1996, and 57% to (less than) 43% for Bush in 2000. Care to post any more evidence that proves you wrong?

[Right Wing Professor]

But even among "active" Catholics, who attend Mass weekly, 44%, a hefty plurality, supported Clinton, while 47% voted for Dole.

So your definition of 'overwhelming majority ' is 'fewer than the other guy got'?

[Antoninus]

But even among "active" Catholics, who attend Mass weekly, 44%, a hefty plurality, supported Clinton, while 47% voted for Dole. (These figures are taken from a Crisis magazine survey of Catholic voting patterns in November 1998 and June 1999.) "

So by your own statistics you prove that your 'overwhelming' statistic was at best an exaggeration, and at worst an outright lie.

Tell me, when factoring in voting patterns for evangelicals, do you count fallen-away types who are now satan worshipers? I know some evangelicals who fall into that category. If not, why do you insist on lumping non-practicing Catholics in with our figures?