First, I object to you lumping the demographics together--there are specific demographics which vote one way, and others which do not. You do a disservice to the multitude of Conservative Catholics with your generic branding.
Furthermore, this does nothing to address the issue. Complain as one will, unless the motivations for voting contrary to Church Doctrine are more fully understood, then those motivations not only cannot be addressed, but the problem cannot be rectified through means secular or sacred.
Again, I reiterate: Caucasian Catholics voted in the majority for the Republican, despite the fact that in the last race, the Republican had signed off on legislation in his past which also flew in the face of Church Doctrine. Given the choice, then between a candidate who is perceived as putting food on the table and going against the Church versus one which is perceived as being hostile to the very organizations which protected the means of putting food on the table and is contrary to Church Doctrine, the choice is for many is for the prospects of a full belly.
The GOP gets the nod for that one--they blew it.
The perception in the other major demographic involved, the Hispanics, is that the GOP is hostile to them as well, and again, there was no clear moral choice, as both candidates had a track record of advocating or at least signing off on policy against Church Doctrine.
You want praise from the pulpit, better get someone on the ticket who won't put a priest in the position of supporting someone who has shown they are antithetical to the Church's position on the issues--because that isn't likely to happen.
Again, the GOP. The election was the Republicans' to lose, and they did a fine job.
As for a minor demographic, votes were again along lines that had nothing to do with the Church, but other considerations.
The vote was similar in Protestant congregations with that demographic.
Blaming Catholics for the failures of the political parties will only guarantee those failures will continue. Address the underlying issues with a more (socially) conservative candidate, and there might be some change. Surely, even Evangelical Protestants could agree.
The problem with all your reasons for this and that, is that it is an almost perfect record of voting against the republicans for 150 years, not just recently, or because of unions, or whatever, and we know that it will always remain that way, we can predict the Catholic vote of the future, today, it is what the left bases a future without conservatism on.
Voting for Clinton, Clinton, Al Gore, Obama, Obama, wasn’t because they and their party’s platform were more socially conservative.
We can educate conservatives and pro-lifers, and the many Catholics here on the truth of the Catholic vote, and what Catholic immigration means in regards to saving the lives of the unborn and preserving conservatism in America if that is our goal.