Religion, marriage and the GOP's demographic challenge brought to the fore by 2012 election

[SuperLuigi]

=Jerry-Jet;10063042]The only way for the GOP to come back is to 100% embrace Hispanics. Most hispanics are Catholic and are pro-life.

That would be a good idea. It looks like going after the northern white vote is a waste of time. Other than Latinos, The RNC should focus on appealing to conservatives of all backgrounds, but in order to do this they need leaders and campaign managers who care about winning and understand the trickery of the democrats (such as all this half-hearted, reverse psychology post-election “advice”) and not put their own beltway status first.

George Bush got over 40% of the hispanic vot and won–Romney gets 27% of the Hispanic vote and loses.

Some republicans were too arrogant in 2005 and 2006 with immigration.

If the GOP could get a majority of the hispanic vote they would always win.

Which is exactly why the left excoriates our minority candidates. Look at Palin, Bachmann and Cain.

Can you imagine what would happen if the republicans even got 40% of single women or 33% of Black voters?

The left doesn’t seem to want to admit it, but the reality is that running an ethnic minority or a woman at the top of the ticket would draw from their base.

Republicans will always have a majority of white males and married women, so the democrats need massive blow-outs with minority voters to win.

How can Catholics vote for candidates that support abortion? I just don’t get it!

For the same reason most everyone else does: to be popular and/or to get their proverbial thirty pieces of silver.

 

[Brendan]

The only way for the GOP to come back is to 100% embrace Hispanics. Most hispanics are Catholic and are pro-life.!

I would agree, and in addition to being generally pro-life, they also tend to be social conservatives, opposing things like same sex marriage.

It was the Hispanic vote that really allowed passage of California Proposal 8

The sad thing is that a majority of Evangelical Protestants voted against candidates that support abortion–the same cannot be said for Catholics.

A few days after the election, MSNBC had some stats on that. They were scrolling banner info going on under the show that was currently on.

The data said that the while a majority of Catholics voted for Obama, the vote by Catholics who attended Mass weekly was in favor of Romney, something like 58% to 42%. For Catholics who attended Mass more than once per week was well into th 70’s for Romney.

So it’s the people who called themselves Catholic but do not actually practice their Faith that really went for Obama. So our best hope on that front is the New Evangelization and their return to the practice of the Faith.

 

[BroomWagon]

The only way for the GOP to come back is to 100% embrace Hispanics. Most hispanics are Catholic and are pro-life.

!

“and Should be pro-life” I would say.

Still, 1 in 4 is something to build on if only the GOP could get it up to say 40% from 27% that would be an accomplishment and shouldn’t be so hard to do. Even running Spanish language commercials. So I heard Univision, the Spanish Language Satellite Company was basically pro-Democrat.

There are enough Spanish language Catholic Churches around and in fact, Fundamental Spanish Language Churches, I wonder if they put out the Pro-Life message. I do know a number of Hispanics are pro-life.

 

[_Abyssinia]

**Democrats See a Future of Electoral Dominance But History Says Otherwise

Pat Caddell: Republican ‘consultant - lobbyist establishment’ complex responsible for Romney defeat**

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Let me help you out, oldcatholicguy - I may not know the exact percentage of those who abuse the system, but I am pretty sure its significant. 20%? 25%? 15% Hard to say. For example, foodstamps: While working in retail I witnessed daily those who had no business being on foodstamps, come in and buy things with them. They would make two transactions - one for the food, and the other for the things you can’t buy with foodstamps such as flat screen TV’s. Add to that, people like my co-worker, nice guy - but he and his wife make upwards of $200,000/year and he got foodstamps! My personal favorite is the lady who complained we were packing her groceries too slowly because she had a flight to Hawaii to catch. These kinds of things happened routinely. Now, think hard, oldcatholicguy: just a guess, but it seems to me that it would not need a bureaucracy to figure out that those people have no business being on foodstamps - wouldn’t you agree? And unemployment benefits for 99 weeks? Call me crazy but I don’t think extending unemployment benefits to 2 years will really encourage people to pound the pavement looking for a job.

I think that our entitlements are set up such that they encourage dependency and discourage work - but I guess they get votes (you a Democrat?) Also there is a lot of waste. Safety net, yes. Trampoline, no. And no, its not compassionate to bankrupt our entitlements so that there is no safety net at all for those who need it.

Ishii

Your limited personal experience isn’t a valid method to determine the percentage of people who are using our welfare system as a “free ride.” It’s still just an uneducated guess. It’s just an uneducated guess because you’re using too small of a percentage of the users to estimate the overall trend and the percentage you are using isn’t an accurate sample of users. Let’s say you interacted with 4,500 people (one time interaction so that we don’t have to worry about recounting individuals) who were on food stamps while working at your retail job and that these 4,500 people were representative of people using food stamps. If 45 million people were on food stamps, you would be drawing your conclusion of “people who need it” and “free riders” percentages from .0001% of the people who use it. In other words, you’re still guessing.

In regards to not needing a bureaucracy to figure out who is or isn’t abusing the welfare system, good luck trying to figure that out without one. First, you’ll need figure out the standards of what is abuse, then apply these standards to those in the system, ensure these standards are kept (unless you’re talking about a one time check, then this part isn’t needed), apply these standards to the intake process (which also means retraining for those doing the intake process), and update the appeals process for denied claims. All of this while still managing the system for existing and new “non-free riders” welfare users.

And, you still haven’t responded to the fact that requiring individuals to work for welfare eliminates their ability and or desire to get off of it. Why look for a job when the government either finds or creates one for you and pays you to work at it.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

So it’s the people who called themselves Catholic but do not actually practice their Faith that really went for Obama. So our best hope on that front is the New Evangelization and their return to the practice of the Faith.

 

[ProVobis]

Maybe the Catholic Church needs to do a better job of teaching its own members that voting for intrinsic evil is a mortal sin. Maybe Catholic bishops should inform Catholic office holders in their dioceses that if they commit the mortal sin of supporting abortion that sin that they EXCOMMUNICATE themselves from the Catholic Church.

Maybe Catholic bishops could inform priests in their dioceses not to give the eucharist to such office holders.

From personal experiences, in Spanish Masses (as well as Polish, for that matter) fewer than 50% receive, if that many. I think your argument has to be a little stronger to get them on your side.

 

[ishii]

Your limited personal experience isn't a valid method to determine the percentage of people who are using our welfare system as a "free ride."  It's still just an uneducated guess.  It's just an uneducated guess because you're using too small of a percentage of the users to estimate the overall trend and the percentage you are using isn't an accurate sample of users.  Let's say you interacted with 4,500 people (one time interaction so that we don't have to worry about recounting individuals) who were on food stamps while working at your retail job and that these 4,500 people were representative of people using food stamps.  If 45 million people were on food stamps, you would be drawing your conclusion of "people who sneed it" and "free riders" percentages from .0001% of the people who use it.  In other words, you're still guessing.

Oh, on the contrary, I believe that the large numbers of abusers I noticed in my “limited personal experience” likely representative of stores across the country and possibly is the tip of the iceberg. Seeing shoppers using foodstamps in my store when they had no business doing so was a daily occurrence. In other words, out of all the foodstamp users I came into contact with, there was a significant number (exact number I can’t say) that clearly didn’t need them. Multiply that by all the other stores across the country and you have probably a lot more than your 4500 people. Of course my observations are anecdotal and unscientific but I think they do serve to illustrate the conditions I observed at the store I worked at.

Question for you, oldcatholicguy: if I saw 10% of foodstamp users abusing foodstamps is it more likely or less likely that a similar number of abusers exist at other stores around the country? Of course its more likely - if they exist in my store, they likely do the same at other stores because I don’t think my store was unique in that respect. I suspect the abuse is rampant. We need better means testing. We need drug testing for those applying for aid. We need time limits where appropriate. And not just to save money - but also to discourage their use. We have an entitlement mentality in this country that encourages dependency on handouts.

In regards to not needing a bureaucracy to figure out who is or isn’t abusing the welfare system, good luck trying to figure that out without one. First, you’ll need figure out the standards of what is abuse, then apply these standards to those in the system, ensure these standards are kept (unless you’re talking about a one time check, then this part isn’t needed), apply these standards to the intake process (which also means retraining for those doing the intake process), and update the appeals process for denied claims. All of this while still managing the system for existing and new “non-free riders” welfare users.

I think in this day and age of technology, we could come up with a system that would have better means testing. Maybe we could start with people who make $200,000/year not qualifying! Also, fail a drug test = no aid.

And, you still haven’t responded to the fact that requiring individuals to work for welfare eliminates their ability and or desire to get off of it. Why look for a job when the government either finds or creates one for you and pays you to work at it.

You lost me on that last point. “requiring individuals to work for welfare” ? When did I suggest that? I don’t think extending unemployement benefits 2 years encourages getting off the sofa and pounding the pavement, do you?

Ishii

 

[PaulinVA]

How can Catholics vote for candidates that support abortion? I just don’t get it!

Maybe the Catholic Church needs to do a better job of teaching its own members that voting for intrinsic evil is a mortal sin. Maybe Catholic bishops should inform Catholic office holders in their dioceses that if they commit the mortal sin of supporting abortion that sin that they EXCOMMUNICATE themselves from the Catholic Church.

Maybe Catholic bishops could inform priests in their dioceses not to give the Eucharist to such office holders.

I, too, can not believe the number of Catholic politicians who support abortion. BUT, they are not excommunicated latae sentientiae.