Religious Voters Favor McCain, Poll Claims

EWTN.com ^ | 15-July-2008 | EWTN.com

[Salvation]

15-July-2008 -- Catholic News Agency

Religious Voters Favor McCain, Poll Claims

Princeton, Jul 15, 2008 (CNA).- A new Gallup Poll claims to show that registered voters who say religion is important in their lives tend to support presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain by a margin of 50 to 40 percent, while those who say religion is unimportant to their lives tend to support presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama by a margin of 55 to 36 percent.

About two-thirds of the registered voters surveyed by Gallup said that religion is important to them.

According to the Gallup Poll, which surveyed 95,000 registered voters from March through June 2008, the divide in voting preference is not confined to white Protestants but is manifested among non-Hispanic white Catholics as well.

Non-Hispanic white Catholics who say religion is important in their daily lives support McCain over Obama by 53 percent to 37 percent. Those who say religion is not important slightly favor Obama by a margin of 47 percent to 45 percent.

Hispanic Catholics, black non-Catholic Christians, and those who do not have a specific religious identity reportedly tend to support Barack Obama, but their support apparently is little affected by the importance of religion in their lives.

Hispanic Catholics who say religion is important in their lives support Obama over McCain 57 to 31, while those who say religion is not important support Obama by a margin of 63 to 30 percent.

Among non-Catholic Christians, those who say religion is important in their daily lives support McCain 63 percent to Obama’s 27 percent. Those who say religion is not important are split between the candidates, with 46 percent support McCain and 45 percent supporting Obama.

About 12 percent of Americans who say they have no specific religious identity strongly support Obama. Those among this group who say religion is not important in their lives support Obama over McCain by a margin of 65 to 26 percent.

Among those with no specific religious identity who say religion is important in their lives, Obama wins by a margin of 61 to 28 percent, according to Gallup.

[Salvation]

I know that sometimes I’m a pain. LOL!

[Salvation]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2061350/posts?page=36#36

Did you see the link in that post?

[Salvation]

Yes, too bad we didn’t catch it last month! Better late than never, I guess.

[BOBWADE]

Muslim terrorists favor Barak Hussein Obama? Who would have thunk it?

[Biggirl]

Not suprising.

[magisterium]

This reflects a situation where the choice among "religious" Americans is clearly restricted to the lesser of two evils. McCain is a bad candidate, in almost every respect. Obama is even worse. But this is what it has all come down to in America for quite a while now. The Republicans have long since abandoned true conservatism, and seem to be more concerned about gaining crumbs of favor from the MSM via "moderation" in their platform than they are interested in keeping their base and standing for their (alleged) principles. The Party is broken. So is the election process overall. That these two mediocre candidates have risen to the top only proves my contention. Neocons and religious Christians, who are unthinking enough to go along with the Republican charade, have a lot to answer for because they allow the Republican Party to get away with this mediocrity in order to "keep someone even worse from getting elected." That is not a strategy! That is merely backpedaling!

It's getting past the time when Christians, who are tired of holding their noses time and time and time again in order to vote for the "lesser of two evils," need to seriously consider putting an effort into the creation of a new party, or giving their support to an existing party like the Constitution Party, that is truly conservative and strictly constructionist in its Constitutional philosophy. This might involve the effective concession of elections to a high proportion of Democrats for a term or two in places where the tide could go either way. But, at the rate we are going, it is quickly getting to the point where there is no real difference between candidates anyway. If we could reform under honest principles, a real impetus for change would be driven into the hearts of the machine Republicans, since they could not win an election anywhere without the Christian base they've smugly taken for granted for decades.

But, sadly, the chances of this happening are next to nil. Most of the conservatives who bother to vote will put on their happy-smiley faces when asked about McCain, and will vote for him "to stop Obama." Stopping Obama, in and of itself, is a laudable goal! But continuing to let the Republican Party front these terrible candidates will, over time, only serve to ensure that nothing but Obama-types get the nod from either party.

Eight years. I give this country eight more years before all of the stuff that naive Christians have been trying to forestall takes root as normative, never again to even have a chance at being uprooted. Christian ideals are dying in this country because next to no one is willing to take bold action to wake up the beltway Republicans who collect their paychecks and don't give a rat's tail about principles. Eight years. On the outside...four wouldn't be out of the question.

[Norman Bates]

This is from a month ago after the Gallup from June you cited. I am confident it has continued to move in McCain’s direction since. While Zogby’s methodology may be “sloppy” - no I am not a big fan of his - the trend is clear.

[LadyNavyVet]

Apples and oranges. Your claim on the other thread was that the so-called “Catholic vote” has moved in McCain’s direction. This says the churchgoing vote, including the churchgoing Catholic vote, is McCain’s.

The Catholic vote, as defined by pollsters, is not the same as the religious vote, as this article clearly states. As I posted to you on the other thread, and as this article highlights, churchgoing Catholics tend to vote like other churchgoers, while non-churchgoing CINOS tend to vote like other non-religious people.

That churchgoing Catholics support McCain is not to say that Catholics overall will. Sadly for McCain, fewer than half of self-identified Catholics attend mass.

[Norman Bates]

So McCain leads among churchgoing Catholics 53-37 and trails among non-churchgoing Catholics by 47-45, how exactly is he not leading overall among Catholics? Fewer than half may attend Mass but he is overwhelmingly winning that group and very close with those who don’t. And this is July 15. It is August 15. It’s moving further in our direction and will continue to do so as Catholics will overwhelmingly support mainstream issues such as drilling and reject PBA and anything approaching infanticide.

[LadyNavyVet]

“how exactly is he not leading overall among Catholics?”

Only about one-third of self-described Catholics attend mass every week, and only about 40% attend mass at least once during the year. Sixty-percent, therefore, attend mass only to get married and buried. My numbers are from Georgetown University, BTW. Yet they will tell pollsters they are Catholic since by the Church’s own definition, if one has been baptised Catholic, one is a Catholic. I have plenty of CINOs in my own family. They consider themselves Catholic even though they only attend mass to witness my children receiving sacraments, if then, and yes, they are Democrats. Rabid, Bush-hating, Obama-voting Democrats.

[Norman Bates]

Those numbers are baloney. First, consider the source. Georgetown is a liberal, practically ex-Catholic university. Second, do you expect me to believe only 7% more attend Mass only once or a few times as opposed to the weeklies? Easily over half attend at least once a year. You underestimate the CINOs. Many may be rabid Bush-hating pro-Obama Democrats but not as many will come out for Obama when his votes come under scrutiny after the conventions.

[LadyNavyVet]

“Georgetown is a liberal...”

And yet you quoted Zogby to me as authoritative. Double standard much?

[Norman Bates]

I didn’t quote it as authoritative. I said it supported a trend. So does this Gallup.

But enough.

[LadyNavyVet]

Enough is right. I can’t debate with someone who thinks “because I saw it somewhere” is a persuasive argument, and says flat out that he will not do research to support his assertions. Have a nice weekend.

[Norman Bates]

Oh spare me the drama. McCain’s going to win the composite Catholic vote. Hide behind whatever June poll you like, Zogby and Gallup show the vote moving in McCain’s direction. How’s that for research?

[LadyNavyVet]

“How’s that for research?”

Lousy. Bad sources make for bad assumptions, and Zogby’s online poll is poorly designed and error-prone. My statistics and probability professors in graduate school would have had a cow at the very thought of using online polling with the same respondents over and over again, respondents who had volunteered to be polled in the first place. Random sampling, my butt.

If the Catholic vote swing had been toward Obama you’d be disparaging Zogby instead of quoting him to me, you know you would. Hang your hat on Zogby. Go ahead. Have you actually looked at Zogby’s polling other than cherrypicking one crosstab from one poll? Of course not, how silly of me to ask.

Zogby’s polling has Obama winning the electoral vote by such a margin that even if McCain won all the remaining purple states, he couldn’t win the election. You’d better hope Zogby’s methodology is as bad as I’ve been trying to tell you it is, ‘cause he’s got McCain losing, big.

And I’ve alredy posted to you the only item on Gallup’s website re the Catholic vote, and it didn’t say McCain was winning them.

But, like I said, enough. We’re not going to convince each other. I’m done responding to you.

[Norman Bates]

So you are telling me Zogby can’t even poll a trend. Ridiculous. And I said Gallup too. But you ignore that. READ THIS ARTICLE.

[Norman Bates]

No one in recent elections has won the Catholic vote and lost the election. Did you watch the debate last night? It’s moving. Once again. Towards us.

Cheer up. We are going to win.

[P-Marlowe]

How did I reach age 58 and never get asked my opinion about presidential candidates?

Call screening.

[Salvation]

What did you think of the evangelicals’ reactions to Obama and McCain at the Rick Warren church?