Fascinating article at the American Conservative that gives some intriguing insight into the question often asked here: how did the Republicans, in their 12016 Presidential primaries, go for Trump?
Except for the last paragraph, rather interesting.
Well, I am happy for conservative punditry that only speaks for the ™Left in one sentence, rather than almost every one.
A survey reported in “America” (Jesuit) magazine, found that only 20+% of Catholics that attend mass at least once a week voted for Trump, whereas those who only rarely/occasionally went were much higher for Trump, especially older whites with no post high school education.
Oh joy…another article from an “elite conservative” telling us that Trump supporters are his moral and mental inferiors. The “cruise ship conservative” magazines are full of them…
“Cruise ship conservatives”. I like the expression.
I don’t really know, and don’t think anybody knows, what percentage of former Dems voted for Trump, but a lot did. I’m midway through a book that has a lot of facts about that. So it’s pretty hard to characterize “Trump voters” in very many ways. But for sure one of the main reasons Dems give is that the economy was going nowhere for them and they were tired of waiting for the usual politicians to do anything effective about it.
If this is true, then not many Catholics go to Mass weekly since the majority of Catholics voted for him, particularly white Catholics. Guess not many Catholics are educated, either, especially not the white ones.
Does any Democrat really want to get into church attendance numbers and the party being voted for? Seriously, metis wants to bring that up??
Off-topic, since the article is about Republican primary voting, but I am not sure that that is true. Some early reports of a slight majority were contradicted by further anaylsis.
Why not stay on topic instead.
No. It’s true. 52%. Among white Catholics, 60%. Shameful that it was not greater than that. Unfortunately, no few Catholics have voted the abortion ticket for quite some time. But it is beginning to shift, at least.
Why do cite a “preliminary” analysis right after the election, in particular in response to a post that noted:
“early reports of a slight majority were contradicted by further analysis?”
I know I am a regular Mass attender as are my other friends who voted for Trump.
I wonder if the Bidens who voted for Trump
are regular Mass goers.
I wonder if it appropriate under forum rules to ask?
Was the further analysis done by CNN or
MSNBC by any chance? Business Insider?
Obviously, you are mistaken. (roll eyes)
And probably the Bidens who voted for Trump don’t really know who they voted for.
It does seem that more and more Catholics are beginning to realize how important protecting the to-be-born really is and how inhuman the abortion movement is. And it’s about time, too.
No. I’ve posted on this before. It was done with American National Election Studies (http://electionstudies.org/) data by a political scientist at Georgetown University’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate,
Of course, the head of the organization that worked on trying to change the result said this:
“I don’t think we will ever really definitively know,”
The liberal elephant went through hours of tedious labor and gave birth to a mouse.
The comment is a sound one, reflecting the MoE associated with the data, and with due attention given to the word “definitively”. I think it a good think that people speak in a way that honestly reflects what is known, precisely, and what is not. The study does, however, vitiate the certain claim that Trump won among Catholics.
And with that, perhaps people will post on topic.
The Covington diocese reaction to the situation involving their young men at the March for Life rally is a decent illustration of why, assuming the author’s assessment is accurate, there are increasing numbers of “ex-churchgoers”. If I were a member of that diocese, I’d be less inclined to want to go to Mass there too.