Does Obama Have a Catholic Problem?
A provocative headline, to be sure, but I was looking at some exit poll data tonight and noticed how Obama was performing significantly lower among Catholic Democrats than among Democrats generally. Obviously there are a lot of other factors at work here–race, ethnicity, gender, class, etc.–but the results were still interesting:
All Data from CNN Exit Polls
State/Obama’s Share of Catholic Democrats/Obama’s Total Share of Democrats
NM 37(42)
CA 27(34)
CT 39 (47)
NJ 28 (44)
NY 30 (40)
DE 35 (53)
TN 40(41)
MO 50(49)
MA 33(41)
IL 48 (65)
Again, this is a complicated issue and it’s been clear for some time that it is very hard to speak of a cohesive “Catholic” vote among the electorate. But the fact that Obama did much more poorly with Catholic Dems relative to all Democrats in states that he won like DE, CT, and even his home state of IL is interesting.
Many are skeptical of the idea that, given the diversity of American Catholics, that there is any distinct message that will appeal to us. I think that’s probably right. But I remember back in 2000 and the early years of the Bush Administration how deliberate he was in trying to invoke certain Catholic themes (remember the Dorothy Day reference?).
Any thoughts? As for me, it’s time I turned in.
It’s an interesting point, Peter, and certainly needs more parsing as it could be due to any number of factors. But I wonder–esp given the California outcome–whether Obama will have more difficulty getting traction in the Latino community, perhaps due to longstanding issues bewteen Latino and African-American communities. All polls on Catholics now break out Latino Catholics from Anglos (just as African-Americans are broken out from white evangelicals) because their voting patterns are so distinct. It bears watching. And from the looks of the resuls, we’ll have plenty to watch and comment on!
This is one of those questions that seems to need a weighing of all the variables. David has mentioned the distinctiveness of the Hispanic vote. There is the older white woman vote. There is the blue-collar vote–to which add the union vote. (A lot of Catholics wrapped up in those demographics.) And did I hear last evening that the Asian-American vote went for Clinton in CA? (Vietnamese and Fillipinos have a significant proportion of Catholics.) Is this a push or pull phenom? Does Clinton simply have more pull with these groups? Or is their avoidance of Obama. And lest we forget: The race card that Nixon played not only put the South in Republican pockets, it also drew urban, ethnic whites.
Another subject along these lines: speaking style. I am not a big fan of Hillary’s wonky speeches and she has the general woman problem of her voice pitch rising as the speech wears on. However, there is something of the Protestant (Baptist?) preacher in Obama. Though it can inspire, there are times when my eyes glass over.
Wow! Really the best election since 1960!
I am curious about what MA cwlbloggers make of Peter’s observations. The hype of Kennedy’s endorsement seemed to point to an Obama inroad, if not victory. It didn’t happen. Obama also had Duval Patrick’s endorsement (the mayor of Boston went for Hillary). Any observations?
Could it be that one of the reasons Obama earned the title of “the most liberal” member in Congress is his support of all types of abortion, including the so-called partial-birth abortion, which is nothing more than the murder of a child as he/she is being born?
Committed Catholics could not, in good conscience, vote for such a politician. Winning the support of the Kennedy family means nothing; since when are any of them good, committed Catholics? They have supported abortion for political expediency.
As a registered Massachusetts voter, I was very surprised to see Clinton win MA. I thought that the support of multiple Kennedys would make Obama a shoe-in. The Catholic vote in MA generally follows the Kennedys. On top of the Kennedy endorsement is the huge number of college students who live in Boston and seem to be primarily Obama supporters, although not necessarily Catholics. Perhaps though, many of them are registered in their home-states or didn’t make it out to the polls. I grew up in Wellesley, where Clinton went to college, and whenever she would come to town to visit her alma mater people didn’t seem to get overtly excited but neither was there a sense of Hillary-hatred. Duval Patrick has seen his share of hard-times in his first year as governor but I doubt his endorsement worked against Obama. Mayor Menino is often hard to understand when he is speaking so his endorsement probably didn’t help Hillary much either. Its a puzzler…
Perhaps though, Kerry was the problem. Kerry’s endorsement of Obama might remind some Catholics of how Kerry was banned from the Eucharist during the 2004 election.
How about the analogy of the Duval Patrick political trajectory: great campaign, a not so great governorship–at least so far?
Count me in as a died-in-the-wool Obama Catholic. Then again, I’m 21, so I’m a shoe-in for Barack anyways. I think that he has to overcome a lot of misconceptions among voters, such as the idea that he’s muslim (In case anyone was wondering, he isn’t).
I am a registered voter but I am Catholic and vote for the pro-life party.This year I am faced with a dilemma .I do not trust any of the candidates that are running for President,the candidates can claim to be pro-life or pro-choice but most will when interviewed and are asked the question what if your daughter was raped Bush answered the question in 2000 on national TV by giving the same response most politicians give by saying their daughters are adults and would allow them to handle this type of problem in other words they do not commit them selves.Now we here that abortion rates are going down but at the same time we read that schools are allowed to dispense birth control pills to girls with out their parents knowledge in the public school system .Now there is one more reason why I am not happy with this years election and that is not with the candidates but the 2 parties and the media and that is the omission of any questions to the candidates concerning the proposed North American Union.For those readers who are not familiar with this the following is a short and concise .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA
Massachusetts had its own version of “Woman vs. Black Man” during the 2006 gubernatorial race. Duval Patrick (Dem.) beat Kerry Healey (Rep.). This was also strange since MA often has a Republican governor (ex. Romney). You’re right though, Peggy. The Obama & Patrick campaigns are similar. Perhaps Patrick’s support has hurt Obama’s campaign and MA thinks they should have gone with the woman last year. Maybe voting for Hillary is MA’s way of making up for what they think was a mistake.
in the Boston Globe:
“Added House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi: “There are show horses and workhorses. We’re the workhorses.”
The workhorses beat the show horses. Clinton won.”
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/02/06/a_loss_for_kennedy/
The initial metaphor was a contrast of the state leaders — Kennedy, Kerry, Patrick — with the more local workers who supported Clinton. At least in Mass., all politics is still local.
Michael,
So you want the candidates to say: “I am completely pro-life, no exceptions. If my daughter were raped, I would expect her to have her rapist’s baby, and if she somehow managed to obtain an illegal abortion, I would want to see her prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” (Of course, the trend among pro-lifers appears to be in favor of punishing the abortionist, but not the woman who procures the abortion. For those who believe abortion is murder, that appears to me to imply hiring a hit-man to kill someone you don’t like should not be a crime, although the hit-man should be prosecuted.)
Among the pro-life candidates for president, none believes in a total ban on abortion, but Huckabee comes close. Both McCain and Romney believe in exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Huckabee is adamantly opposed to abortion in cases of rape and incest, but he would allow abortions to save the life of the mother. I am wondering, Michael, if Huckabee is not pro-life enough to get your vote. If not, you will probably never be able to vote for a Democrat or Republican in a presidential election, because I don’t think anyone is going to take a more extreme position than Huckabee.
Here is a link to an article in which Obama speaks at length, and thoughtfully, on abortion. I don’t believe Catholics vote any differently that non-Catholics when it comes to abortion, so if Obama does have a “Catholic problem,” I doubt that abortion has anything to do with it.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/obama-explores-abortion-issue/
Here in NM, e don’t know yet who won due to the ineptitude of insufficient ballots and polling places by our State Dem party.
A statistical tie this morning.
But… the Latino (mainly Catholic) vote strongly for Clinton. The Anglo, (including women) for Barack.
I don’t think that life issues were what’s on most folks minds here, so, at least for NM, race was a big question, and I’d argue it was in lots of other places.
Evangelical issues (note, not specifically “Catholic”) probably played a big role in States where evangelicals have a lot of juice.
It strikes me that if there is a Catholoic impact, it’s over how important bread and butter issues are perceived (afte the race factor.)
Catholics have been staunch Bill Clinton supporters so it is no surprise that many are voting for Hillary. They supported Gore and opposed Kerry in 2004. The pro life Catholic vote does not seem to be a factor except in very isolated places. http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2007d/112307/112307a.htm
Notable is the large Hispanic and Asian vote for Hillary while women (not african american) remain staunchly for her.
Race and gender loom large in this primary.
I am guessing that the Catholic factor is masking other more pertinent lurking variables, and it’s there because you are predisposed to look for it.
1. If someone is voting in a Democratic primary and trying to choose between HRC and Obama, I don’t think restricting abortion is at the forefront of their matrix of issues (or if it were, that HRC would be the clear choice). Just a guess.
2. Most Catholic voters are either (1) in the machine states that, with the exception of Illinois, favored HRC or (2) Hispanic, with whatever demographic dynamic that brings to the mix. (Just FYI, the raw number of Democrats voting in Arizona is around 350,000, and in NY it’s 1.7 million.)
David–
I promise this will be my only comment in this thread, which may or may not involve life issues as a factor that explains the statistics Peter provided about Obama and the Catholic vote.
To his credit, Obama had obviously given prior thought to the question he was asked about abortion in the NYT’s article you linked. However, his understanding of biology needs some correcting:
Obama: “There’s the principle that a fetus is not just an appendage, it’s potential life.”
Obama: “If you believe that life begins at conception, then I can’t change your mind.”
A fetus is not “potential life.” Of course it has life, and human life at that. And it’s axiomatic that human life begins at conception. If it didn’t begin then, then each one of us was another form of life when we were conceived. The debate is over when an embryo or fetus becomes a ‘person’ entitled to the full protections of the law. For a lawyer, Obama seems surprisingly unaware of the terms that are being debated.
Here from the WashPost is another cut on the divide. It offers some non-religious support for the Hispanic vote for Clinton (they like Bill) and speculates that if Obama is the Dem presidential nominee, Hispanics will go for him. Meaning the religion factor may be very much in the background, though the author suggests race is not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020600044.html?hpid=topnews
And here is David Ayon of LMU on what concerns Hispanic voters:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/15408/
Race plays a role in this beacause only a small fraction of african americans are Catholic. That skews the picture.
I looked at NJ: 28% of Obama voters were Catholic, much lower than the 37% of all voters. If you exclude african american voters, 28 of 77 Obama voters were Catholics, or about 37%. So, if only a minimal number of NJ african americans are Catholic, that explains the whole of the discrepancy.
Looking at cnn.com exit polls, did anyone notice that in several states the African-American numbers were n/a, meaning what? That their numbers fall below the point of statistical validity.
I don’t think it is possible to talk about the Catholic vote unless it is broken down, as some polls do, according to frequency of church attendance. Except for myself, the Catholics I know who attend church once a week or more often are all registered Republicans and have been for years. They would not be voting in a Democratic primary. People who have not been to church for years when asked their religion at an exit poll will say Catholic rather than go into a long explanation. These non-attending Catholics are motivated by the same factors as others in our society for whom religion is not an important issue when voting.
Based on what I see and hear at my parish, peopled mainly by regular attenders, the political sympathies are strongly Democratic, and specifically, for Obama.
#1. Obama is against pro-life. He voted against saving any infants who might be born alive following an abortion or partial-birth abortion procedure. It’s very troubling that Obama seems to have a view that human babies made in God’s own image are due zero respect or right to life. The people once said Hitler, too, was a good speaker and inspiring. For someone to earn the right to have presidential power, they should start by respecting life and liberty!! #2. Added reasons Obama does not have the majority of Catholic vote is because he does not have a enough experience or have a concrete platform or plan. His debates and speeches are all fluff, rhetoric, and hot air. Because Obama did not vote “yes or no” – he voted ‘present’ on many issues that were brought up for his vote, it is really unclear where he sits on the issues.
There they go again! Right to lifers making the Hitler analogy, which, turns a lot of folks off because lots of folk in the US share Obamas view,
I thought Bill Collier made the right to life point nicely and I wish folks in that movement would not sometimes act as their own worst enemy in makin the case.
I do not see at this point that pro=life issues are where mosdt of the American votin gpublic are at and part of the problem lies with the consensus that change (no matter what you mean by that) is needed.
Obviously a reaction against GWB who the pro-lifers firml;y supported, that master of “compassion” and “uniter.”
While pro-life got Roberts and Alito, in buying neocomisms, will they create a backlash?
Another piece of the parsing of this question is the role of religious practice in general in Democratic primary voting. According to CNN.com’s exit polls (see: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#CADEM) Clinton won among those who attend church anywhere from “a few times a year” to “more than weekly.” Obama wins only among those who report going to church “never.”
‘Tis true, though, that there’s a substantial difference between Catholics and Protestants: the percentage of Catholics who voted for Clinton ran in the high 60′s (averaging different levels of attendance,) while she carried 47-48% of Protestants, still more than Obama, but not such a dramatic difference.
In California.
Most of these blogs are missing the point. These numbers have little to do with religion. This is about social class. In our stratified society ethnic whites and latinos are just a step above the ladder from blacks. They are unlikely to support a black candidate for President that would obscure this well established hierarchy. Could we be seeeing the growth of a new powerful coalition of white catholic, hispanic and perhaps Asian voters?