Comments on: Fake Precision

By: EmilyE

EmilyE — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

A few other thoughts:

In 1972, Nixon won with 60+% of the vote and a whopping 520 electoral votes. I'm not surprised he got a majority of Catholic votes.

In 1980, Reagan won with 51 percent of the vote and 489 electoral votes. So it makes sense that he also garnered the support of a large majority of Catholic voters.

In 1984, Reagan won re-election with 59% of the popular vote and a full 525 electoral votes.

It's not like any of these were really close elections...

Oh, and another thought: Catholic voters are considered important not because they make up 25% of the U.S. population, but because they are concentrated in several states. In the 2000 census, these were the states with the highest Catholic population (as a percentage): Rhode Island, 61 percent; Massachusetts, 49.8 percent; New Jersey, 42.6; New York, 40.4; Connecticut, 38.4; Wisconsin, 30.4, and Pennsylvania, 30 percent.

Among them, these states have 106 electoral votes. Throw in California, which is nearly 30 percent Catholic, and you have a whole lot of electoral votes in Catholic-heavy states.

The sad part, of course, is that most of those Catholic-heavy states always choose radical abortion-rights politicians...

By: EmilyE

EmilyE — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

First, I wouldn't call either Ted Kennedy or John Kerry "moderate abortion-rights politicians." Their voting records can speak for themselves.

And the Democratic politicians aren't an aristocratic wealthy elite? Yeah, right. They only pretend to care about the poor people. Where is their sense of charity? Far too often, it's lacking.

What this country needs is more Christians who are willing to help the poor by sacrificing that third car, that new computer, that vacation to Bermuda, to provide the basic necessities of life to those in need. The government can't solve everything — Christians need to help out. We can't sit around on our duffs and vote for Democratic candidates, thinking that if we do, poverty will miraculously disappear. It won't unless we do something.

And in the meantime, I will devote myself to helping the poor as much as I can, and helping the unborn babies too. Who ever said we had to choose between them?

By: EmilyE

EmilyE — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

The one thing I remember from my college statistics class is to *Always* be skeptical of survey and poll results. They can far too easily be manipulated (as you rightly note).

By: John Thompson

John Thompson — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

They choose moderate abortion-rights politicians, when their alternatives are members of a party that is devoted to the principle that poor people (or really all non-obscenely wealthy people) are deeply inferior, and exist only to serve the super-wealthy elite.
Also, a party that advocate the death penalty, and wars of choice.

I don't like the trend developing in the Church to endorse Bush. It's foolish. He is using the issue of abortion, which is really very low in his priorities to win over Catholic votes.

Likewise, they tied up congress for three days with an anti-gay amendment that they knew they couldn't even muster a simple majority for. Those were three days they could have used to improve our security aparatus.

Christians in this country are being crassly manipulated in an attempt to concentrate power in an aristocratic wealthy elite.