I did not say your first sentence was inaccurate, I said it was a bag full of snakes. I said so because you admit the South has always been very conservative in their voting. I agree, but that seems to conflict with your assertions in which you say evangelicals, Baptists and protestants vote more liberal than Roman Catholics. Southerners are predominantly non-Catholic Christians. Or is it now your assertion the Southern Bible belt is predominantly Roman Catholic?
“you say evangelicals, Baptists and protestants vote more liberal than Roman Catholics. Southerners are predominantly non-Catholic Christians. Or is it now your assertion the Southern Bible belt is predominantly Roman Catholic”.
I have never said about evangelicals, baptists and protestants vote more liberal than Roman Catholics. I made the point that Romney almost won the overall Catholic vote, and that was with him receiving hardly any support from hispanics, which allowed Obama to claim he “won” the majority of Catholics. 50% to 48% is not exactly a smashing victory. With the Republicans caving over immigration, look for their numbers to improve with hispanics in 2016. If Rubio or another hispanic is on the ticket they could carry the hispanic vote and with it the Catholic vote. Would that shut up the FRs that continually attack the Catholic “voter” for being a “liberal” voter. Of course not. As sure as the sun coming up in the morning, the Catholic haters will always be around. If Newt Gingrich were elected president half of his supporters on FR would automatically abandon him because he’s now a Catholic.
And I have never said the Bible Belt was Catholic, just the opposite.