I know there’s no CATHOLIC VOTE. There’s too many different kinds of Catholics. And I can’t say it surprised me a bit to see that Romney beat Santorum among Catholics in yesterday’s Michigan primary. (Ace has the poll breakdown.)
Romney beat Santorum among Catholics 44% -37%.
To get any meaningful breakdown of “Catholics” in a poll you have to ask specific questions about Mass attendance. I’d bet that among Catholic who attend Mass once a week or more, Santorum did a lot better. To ask Catholics to self identify as Catholics and just leave it there is about as effective as asking for self identified good looking people. There’s a lot of folks who say they’re good looking people who just aren’t just as there are a lot of folks who identify as “Catholic” and just aren’t -at least in any meaningful way that affects their decision making.
One surprising thing from the poll was that among those who self identified as “conservative” Romney won that group as well 43% – 41%. The only way I can see that is that they just think that Romney has a better chance to beat Obama and that’s their main goal.
It makes me think of Hunter S. Thompson who said he voted for Bill Clinton but said he never believed one word that came out of Clinton’s mouth other than that he could beat President George H.W. Bush. That was enough for him. I suspect that at least some of Romney’s support is the same.
I even heard someone on Philly talk radio the other day say they think Santorum would be a better President than Romney but Romney will be a better candidate than Santorum. If only we were voting for candidate in chief. Hey, isn’t that really what we did last time. How’d that turn out for the country?
February 29, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Considering the fact that Romney is likely not even the better general election candidate, it certainly makes you question these voters' judgment.
February 29, 2012 at 8:57 pm
"The only way I can see that is that they just think that Romney has a better chance to beat Obama and that's their main goal."
Um – yeah. 2nd term Obama would likely appoint multiple serve-for-life Supreme Court justices and, unbound by the need to win re-election, would run the executive branch even further to the left than he has to date.
Its perfectly rational for conservatives to prioritize beating him over any concerns about this Republican being marginally better than that Republican on the issues.
That's why I wouldn't bet the farm on your hypothesis that regular Mass-attending Catholics went for Santorum in big numbers. Maybe. But maybe they are even more likely to prioritize electing a candidate that will not send a couple more liberal justices onto the Supreme Court than others.
And regardless of what current tracking polls suggest there is no way Romney is not a more viable general election candidate than Santorum. Santorum is currently benefitting from flavor-of-the-month attention and the cumulative impact of multiple candidates taking a swing at Romney. Let the press go to work on Santorumm for six months and he'll lose 40 states.
February 29, 2012 at 9:13 pm
And so what is even the point anymore? If Catholics cannot even unite behind the one, faithful Catholic then what good is the church in America anyway? Obama will win. Soon, all that will be left of the United States of America will be dismantled by the Obama machine and our freedoms will be something we will speak of in hushed and whispered tones.
February 29, 2012 at 9:36 pm
Did every faithful, Mass-going Catholic vote for Santorum? Or do some faithful Mass-going Catholics find Santorum's enthusiastic support for torture and preemptive war a bit off-putting?
Granted, those same Catholics wouldn't much like Romney either, but there's no guarantee that faithful Catholics will line up for Santorum.
February 29, 2012 at 9:51 pm
Lost the women by contraception, lost the inteligent by slamming college, Lost the moral high ground supporting torture… Brings to mind, "When they came for the Jews, I didn't say anything…"
And Romney knows the trees are the right Height! Ahh, the stupid, it hurts.
February 29, 2012 at 9:59 pm
Rick Santorum does not have an "enthusiastic support for torture and preemptive war". What you said is a calumny.
February 29, 2012 at 10:45 pm
Anon 4:59: He does not condem torture, ergo, he supports it. Santorum (same root as sanctamouous btw) said John McCain didn't know what torture was. Some things are so morally wrong, they are black and white. Purposefully inflicting pain on a person proven guilty of no crime is ALWAYS wrong.
February 29, 2012 at 11:19 pm
As a conservative Catholic, I believe that Romney is actually more conservative than Santorum. (Two weeks ago, I never dreamed that I would say that, and I still won't vote for Romney in the primary.) But having researched Santorum's stances on the size of the federal government, especially regarding the tenth amendment and Iran, he scares me almost as much as Obama does.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/01/16/obama-and-santorum-two-peas-in-a-war-pod/
February 29, 2012 at 11:41 pm
Santorum is definitely more conservative and more attractive to a devout Catholic than Romney by a long shot! RS is not done yet…he is a fighter, and his changes are still good for being the Republican candidate…with God all things are possible…he actually did very well in Mich. when you consider he has fewer funds than Romney and Mich. is Romney's home turf.
This is a battle for the best man…Lincoln did not give up after a few defeats…he was elected president because he did not give up…I see RS in the same light. Pray for him!
February 29, 2012 at 11:55 pm
And here's what Catholics and conservatives can expect from Romney:
Romney Sells Out Congressional GOP – Comes Out Against Conscience Clause Bill Protecting Employers from HHS Contraception Mandate
Good going, "Catholics" and "conservatives" in Michigan. Guess those of us in Ohio will have to get it done against Romney.
March 1, 2012 at 12:10 am
Catholics don't vote as a block anymore because they lost their identity 50 years ago. If you had them describe themselves with three words, I bet less than 5 percent would use the word Catholic as one of the three.
March 1, 2012 at 1:04 am
Gee. I wonder why?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OynCgwmD-HM
March 1, 2012 at 1:18 am
"I even heard someone on Philly talk radio the other day say they think Santorum would be a better President than Romney but Romney will be a better candidate than Santorum. If only we were voting for candidate in chief. Hey, isn't that really what we did last time. How'd that turn out for the country?"
This is a bit hypocritical coming from CMR given that CMR supported McCain strongly after he won the nomination in 2008 and criticized the idea of voting third-party. (You know, the idea of actually voting for someone who actually would have been a good President?)
March 1, 2012 at 1:43 am
"One surprising thing from the poll was that among those who self identified as "conservative" Romney won that group as well 43% -41%."
That's because it's the same as your analogy about "self identified good looking people" – many self-identified "conservatives" aren't actually conservative; they just like to delude themselves that they are. Look at the power-mongers driving the Republican party and pulling the strings. Look at a number of big-name Republicans in the media. Look at the Republicans who supported and do support people like McCain and Romney. Look at all the lemmings who always allow the Republican establishment to shove neocon candidates down our throats and still obey and support the establishment's candidates no matter what (as well as take the sides on all of the issues that Republicans are expected to take). "Republican" does not automatically equate to "conservative, " but many Republicans don't understand this. These people are not true conservatives. It doesn't matter how much they have deluded themselves into believing otherwise; it just ain't true.
March 1, 2012 at 2:00 am
What else can Catholics do but self-identify? The bishops enforce no code of behavior whatsoever to define Catholic identity. They have reduced Catholicism to a signifier without content.
Why is everyone so down on torture and war tonight? Is this ladies night and someone forgot to tell me?
March 1, 2012 at 2:05 am
Oops! I meant to say chances, not changes in above comment.
March 1, 2012 at 2:38 am
When huge numbers of so-called Catholics pick and choose their beliefs at the buffet, it should be time to abandon thoughts of a "Catholic Vote".
No such thing.
Karl
March 1, 2012 at 6:21 pm
I wouldn't read too much into it. Romney winning Michigan is like any Kennedy winning Massachusetts.
March 1, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Waterboarding is torture? Anyone who trots out the "Santorum believes in torture" needs to do a bit of research into what torture actually is. Brush up on your readings about Communist Soviet Union. Or Muslim Asia: view a beheading online. Then see what you think about waterboarding.
March 1, 2012 at 11:54 pm
@Anon Feb 29 5:45 PM:
That is not what the Church as taught in the past. Aquinas argued for torture as a means of punishment for crimes. Prior to Aquinas, the Church condemned only torture for torture's sake (like Saddam's sons were accustomed to do) and torture for confessions (because they rarely worked). Aquinas' stance was actually reflective of the Church's stance at the time. What the Church condemned as torture was actions that led to loss of limb and loss of life.