(RNS) Mark Silk–How Obama won the battleground states, despite losing Christians

President Obama vote totals shrank in all 12 of our battleground states, as they did throughout the country. What’s particularly striking, however, is that in none of the battlegrounds did he win a majority of either mainline Protestants or Catholics, with the exception of Nevada, where the heavily Latino Catholic electorate supported him by five percentage points. So in winning ten out of the dozen, the president had to depend on non-Christians.

Read it all.


Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, Religion & Culture, US Presidential Election 2012

24 comments on “(RNS) Mark Silk–How Obama won the battleground states, despite losing Christians

  1. jkc1945 says:

    This election came down to two categories: on the one hand, “takers” vs. “payers.” And on the other — President Obama’s racial ethnicity.
    Romney was exactly right – – 47% of the voting population are “takers,” and they went for The President; and the other $ or 5% voted for him specifically on racial grounds.
    Look, we all may not like to talk about these things, but that is what it comes down to. As the government throws “bread and circuses” for The Mob, it becomes undefeatable. Add to that the simple fact that a lot of voters cast their vote for “the African-American,” simply because he IS an African-American at least as regards skin color, and that decided the election. Christian or non-Christian had little or nothing to do with it, in the final analysis. People dont think that deep.

  2. Fr. Carter Croft+ says:

    I’m surprised to see such racial prejudice allowed on your blog site! Can’t we avoid dehumanizing one another when we disagree? And I believe the vast majority of American citizens do think that deep! Voting is something that most of us take very seriously. I did not see Americans voting in such a caviler way as described above.

  3. jkc1945 says:

    2, you are not reading with understanding, with respect. I am lamenting the simple fact that 95% – – 95% !!!— of the African-American voting public voted for President Obama. Do you really believe for a mment that does not indicate a crass racism? If you do, please reconsider!! There is, indeed, racism in this country, and much of it belongs in other places than where we usually place it.
    And the fact that a large minority are in receipt of some kind of “entitlement” is also a fact, pointed out by candidate Romney. Those two factors amounted to the coilition that President Obama successfully collected to hijself. There is no racism in my posting at all. There is a sober observation of fact.

  4. Alli B says:

    jkc1945 has it exactly right. And if you don’t believe that a large number people do vote in a cavalier manner and also to enrich themselves, I’m afraid that’s very naive thinking. Stating that blacks voted 97 percent for Obama because of his race is not racial prejudice on the poster’s part; indeed, I think the racial prejudice exists in the black community in voting in a monolithic bloc.

  5. Sarah says:

    RE: “I’m surprised to see such racial prejudice allowed on your blog site!”

    I’m not certain how pointing out that “a lot of voters cast their vote for “the African-American,” simply because he IS an African-American at least as regards skin color” is a “racist” comment . . . unless we’ve now come to the point that actually *noticing* that somebody is black is now defined as “racism.”

    Asserting that others have acted in a racist manner does not make one “racist.” He or she may be wrong, but it’s not “racist” to assert that somebody else is “racist” — for otherwise, where would all the libs be!

  6. jkc1945 says:

    If I failed, somehow, to be clear in my attempt to discuss facts, I am sorry for that. But I stand by my fundamental assertions; if it is ‘racism’ to vote for a person because they are white, then it is ‘racism’ to vote for a person because they are of non-white skin color. That is just a fact. And I agree that racism is a sad fact of American life; but I do not accept the charge against my white self, without at the same time asserting it to be true, according to the polled results of this election. 95-97% is a powerful number to get on any poll.

  7. Emerson Champion says:

    The fact of the matter is is that our society has become a secular one, with Christians — especially orthodox Christians — as a minority. So the Christian vote is not enough to decide the election. The Democrats are the majority party by quite a bit, so they don’t need crossover/undecided/independent votes nearly as much as the Republicans; they merely need to get their base out to vote, which is what they did. The Republicans were also able to get out their base, but were unable to bring in the crossover/undecided/independent voters.

  8. Tegularius says:

    Fact is, more than 90% of African-American voters have been voting for the Democratic ticket for years–for Kerry, Gore, and Clinton before Obama. It’s hard to say that Obama’s race caused all these folks to choose him when they’d been reliably voting Democratic for so long.

  9. Teatime2 says:

    Exactly, #8. But, interestingly enough, our local newspaper interviewed some black evangelical pastors who said they simply couldn’t vote for Obama even though they traditionally vote Democratic because his record on abortion and the contraception mandate is far more liberal than his Dem. predecessors.

    So while the Dems do have a huge majority of the minority vote, it’s disingenuous to make sweeping judgments because a segment of black evangelicals voted on issues, not skin color. Similarly, I cringe when the media make generalizations on whom white people will support. The crowing about the days of white “control” being over is especially cringe-worthy, punctuated by their manipulation of TV images from election night. I would hope that thoughtful and intelligent people wouldn’t take that bait.

  10. John316 says:

    The fact is that Republicans have only won a majority of the popular vote for president once in the last six presidential elections.

  11. Sarah says:

    RE: “The Republicans were also able to get out their base, but were unable to bring in the crossover/undecided/independent voters.”

    Actually it was the opposite. The Republican base declined by *another* 2 million from the McCain vote [and the McCain vote was significantly less than the Bush vote], and they won significantly more of the independents.

    Fact is, bunches of conservatives didn’t vote for McCain — and analysis of that fact is all over the net now.

  12. Fr. Carter Croft+ says:

    “The Racial Bias in Dismissing Blacks Voters’ Support for Obama”

  13. magnolia says:

    12, the huffington post? seriously? i take that about the same way i would take anything written by rush limbaugh-completely slanted and not to be trusted.

  14. Fr. Carter Croft+ says:

    totally invincible – I see we live in two different worlds

  15. Alli B says:

    I have to say I’m amazed someone would come on this blog and complain about the level of discourse while they apparently read and even cite opinion articles from a far-left site like the Huffington Post whose comment sections are quite toxic. But getting back to the discussion, despite the black community supporting democrats in high numbers historically, one doesn’t need to speculate about their support for another African-American because of his race when so many of them will openly admit that’s why they vote for Obama.

  16. off2 says:


  17. jkc1945 says:

    President Obama is the rough political equivalent of the first American Affirmative Action President. He was elected, first, because of the guilt feelings of many of the electorate, who thought they could somehow ‘apologize’ for slavery by electing him, combined with a large ethnic vote cast for him; and this second term, he is re-elected, as I said earlier, because of the “give me more, please” attitude of a large minority electorate, combined with a second-term ethnic vote, cast primarily because of skin color, and acknowledged to be so by numerous polls.
    We might as well speak it as we see it; if we even want to change these attitudes, we certainly will not unless we have, first, the moral courage to call them as we see them.

  18. hans castorp says:

    I fear that if conservatives believe and speak as does #7 above, they will be out of the White House for many, many years. And deservedly so.

  19. hans castorp says:

    Oops–make that #16.

  20. Sarah says:

    RE: “I see we live in two different worlds . . . ”


    Two antithetical political foundational worldviews.

  21. Sarah says:

    RE: “And deservedly so.”

    Says the lib. ; > )

  22. Ross says:

    Apparently, according to the commentary I’ve read here and on other conversative blogs, I voted for Obama because (choose all that apply):

    [__] I am morally degenerate
    [__] I am a shiftless parasite who wants free stuff
    [__] I think it will assuage my white guilt
    [__] I hate America and look forward to its destruction

    It seems that the notion that I love my country and think Obama will be much better for it, while Romney would have been disastrous, does not occur. Funny, that.

  23. jkc1945 says:

    21, you of course will know why you voted for President Obama, and if you did it for the reasons you state (and I assume that to be so) then you are one of a very distinct minority of Obama voters. This is demonstrated by every poll taken, both before and after the election itself. Witness the fact that somewhere between 60 and 65% of likely voters, from a period of months before the election up to the election itself, and even now, determine that the American voters understand Obama’s policies to be less likely to actually guide the country out of its current mess than those stated policies of candidate Romney. That was just simply not the reason why the large majority of Obama voters, voted for him.
    So. . . as Isasy, since you state that you believe that Obama will be much better for the country than Romney would have been, that is, indeed, your belief. But it has nothing at all to do with why the electorate went for Obama. I completely stand by my assertions, and they are firmly backed up by existing polls, from pollsters such as Rasmussen all the way across to Quinnepeac, which pretty much run the gamut of political persuasion. President Obama is elected by a majority of voters who like his appearance. . . and that pretty much says it. Truth is still truth, even when it hurts all of us.

  24. hans castorp says:

    [blockquote] 20. Sarah wrote:
    RE: “And deservedly so.”

    Says the lib. ; > )[/blockquote]

    Hardly a lib, Sarah, hardly a lib. But hardly, in Russell Kirk’s phrase, a “Fafnir-conservative” either.