You can pretend that we don’t collect voting data and have been for over a 100 years, and that all the billions of dollars of campaigns and strategies and voting studies, and history books and analysis based on the data is all an illusion, but why?
Do you think that blacks and homosexuals and Jews and atheists and Catholics are actually voting pro-liferepublican?
“You can pretend that we don’t collect voting data”
How nice it would be just once to get an honest answer out of a certain cadre.
I didn’t say people weren’t collecting something; I pointed out, clearly enough for anyone to understand, that these “data” are collected for the most part by extremely untrustworthy organizations, that they are based on self-reporting, and that the sample is self-selected. If you don’t know enough about research to understand the implications of the foregoing, look it up.
“all the billions of dollars of campaigns and strategies and voting studies, and history books and analysis based on the data”
Neither all that, nor all the king’s horses and all the king’s men, were unable to get algore, bob dole, Ensign Band-Aid, or Romney elected.
“Do you think that blacks and homosexuals and Jews and atheists and Catholics are actually voting pro-liferepublican?”
If your own data are to be trusted, it is very probable that a large percentage of Catholics are.
Prejudice is an ugly thing.
“over a 100 years”
You can say “over 100 years” or “over a hundred years,” but “over a 100 years” is just wrong. Makes the writer look semi-educated, at best.
I don’t know why I’m even trying to help you, since it’s virtually certain that my reward will be a shitstorm of abuse.
Anyway, you’re welcome.
You are forgetting the rules of RC apologetics.
1. Rome determines reality: The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, pp. 228
2. Evidence must conform to Roman claims: Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law;..Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church. (Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)
3. Consistent with this, RCs are not to engage in objective examination of evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching: "The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers." - (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals Chapters , XXII)
4. Which rejection of objectivity carries over into evidence that impugns Rome, all of which must be dismissed by RCs as the work of anti-Catholic bigots or liberal Catholics, regardless of evidence of objectivity by the authors, and the weight evidence to the veracity of their claims. However, RCs never are guilty of anti-Protestant bigotry or attacking Prots first.
5. All liberal RCs must be disallowed as being RCs, despite the fact that Rome treats them as members in life and in death.