It is of course much more than a Catholic problem, but this comes in today from Rasmussen:
Catholics strongly disapprove of the job President Obama is doing as the debate continues over his administration’s new policy forcing Catholic institutions to pay for contraception they morally oppose. While the president’s overall job approval ratings have improved over the past couple of months, they have remained steady among Catholics.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of likely Catholic voters nationwide at least somewhat disapprove of the president’s job performance, while 40% at least somewhat approve. But the passion’s on the side of those who don’t like the job he’s doing: 44% Strongly Disapprove versus 19% who Strongly Approve.
Fifty-four percent (54%) of Catholics voted for Obama in November 2008. However, Republican hopeful Mitt Romney currently leads the president among Catholic voters by a 52% to 35% margin. Among all voters, however, President Obama leads Romney and all Republican hopefuls.
These results are from surveys conducted over the seven days ending February 12, 2012. Among all likely voters, 50% approve of how the president is doing and 49% disapprove. This includes 26% who Strongly Approve and 38% who Strongly Disapprove. Rasmussen Reports also provides daily updates of the president’s Job Approval and match-ups between President Obama and both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.
Sixty-one percent (61%) of Evangelical Christians and 52% of other Protestants also at least somewhat disapprove of the job Obama is doing in the White House. The view is much more positive among non-Christians. Among those who profess some other religious affiliation or none at all, 68% at least somewhat approve of the president’s performance.
Regardless of religious affiliation, disapproval is higher among those who regularly attend religious services. Among those who attend services every week or nearly every week, 41% offer their approval of the president while 59% disapprove. Among those who rarely or never attend services, 63% approve and 36% disapprove.
Let's see how those numbers go if you guys pick Santorum as your Nominee?
"One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." (Rick Santorum speaking with CaffeinatedThoughts.com, Oct. 18, 2011)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBuff: Don't hold your breath for a response. The right is in full denial on this aspect of Mr. Santorum's beliefs.
Hilarious that they complain about Mr. Obama's stealth agenda and turn a blind eye to this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI know these numbers aren't good for Obama, but I'm still struck, every time I see these polls, by how Obama can have a 50%ish overall approval rating to begin with. Every non-political and 'moderate' type I know thinks he's a complete disaster, and are more worked up over it than I am. Heck, I would say half of the liberals I know are ready to dump the guy, and the other half just start talking about how they love Hilary. Where do they find this 50% who will admit to 'approval' of such an obvious disaster?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTwo possibilities, NROReader: 1) the Bradley effect, or 2)the public is as sour about our candidates as it is about Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI haven't read the entire article but I'd like to know what percentage of the overall electorate is made up of Catholics. We(Catholics) have long been a mainstay of the Democrat party. If these poll findings hold up, they would be lethal to Obama in November...but only if Catholics make up a healthy segment of the electorate in key states(PA, WI, OH come to mind).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn 2008, it was 27% of the electorate, which is exactly the percentage in 2004 as well.
External Link
In 2008, 54% of those Catholics voted for Obama. In 2004, 52% voted for GWB. A lot of the difference between 2004 and 2008 can be found in the Latino vote. The Republican candidate, whomever that may be, is unlikely to do as well with Latinos as Bush did - Bush set the 50-year high water mark with that Demo in 2004.
The Catholic vote has become a much smaller indicator of the "value voters" crowd, and a much larger indicator of the Hispanic vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf your take on the difference being found in the Latino Catholics then you should also recognize it is the Latino Catholics that are far more pro life than the white Catholics.
This is where I challenge you on your oft-repeated comments about women as a voting bloc, or the elderly as a bloc. There are far too many subdivisions to look at the electorate in such a narrow fashion.
For starters - how many first time voters, excited over Obama (for they went 69%) will sit this one out. Not necessarily vote for the GOP, just not come out for Obama.
How many of the new, firstime voters, will go to the GOP (Kerry only got 53% from the same percentage of total electorate). That right there is worth a point or maybe two.
The weekly/more than weekly church attender with Bush on the ballot was 3% greater in 2004 than with McCain. Bush won these voters even more so than McCain, and McCain managed 55%. Once more - greater turnout in this category (and there will be if Rick is the nominee against Obama's attacks on the faith) lends itself to better results.
So it's not just as simple as 'winning women' - What sort of woman are you talking about. Catholic Latino women, voting for the first time?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"This is where I challenge you on your oft-repeated comments about women as a voting bloc"
Well, women and "over 60" are voting blocks; that's not my creation. It's the language of political science. And in point of fact, the Democrat nominee has won "women" every year since 1992. The "over 60" demo has been a bit more fluid, but it's generally more Republican than it is Democrat.
With respect to "women", we can break that block into (main) sub-categories: White, Black, Hispanic are the three primary sub-categories, with "Asian" only representing a percentage point or two of total voters. The only female demographic that John McCain won was the white demographic. I believe he won 53% of that demo, give or take a point. Latinos and blacks he lost, comfortably. By comparison, George Bush won 55% of white, female voters in 2004. Who were those female voters that abandoned the GOP in 2008? They were predominantly college-educated white voters - which up until 2008, were the most reliably conservative of all voting demographics. 2008 was the first time that the GOP lost college-educated men or women.
I think it's also interesting to point out that in 2000, Bush and Gore split the white, female voter 49/48 (Bush). Of course, that race ended in a virtual statistical tie. Eight years later, McCain wins that same demo with 4 additional points, and he loses the race by 7-points - that's how many more minorities are voting today.
In any event, for Santorum - or whomever the nominee may be - to win, he'll have to keep all of the female voters that McCain had, win back the college-educated female (and male) voters that McCain lost and do a few points better with Hispanics, if he has any chance of winning.
With respect to "first time voters", It's almost impossible to judge. Is it possible the GOP cuts into that 69%? Sure. Is it possible that the GOP turns that around by 20-points? Probably not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, that is improvement. My criticism was you usually say "women" and how McCain got only 43%. Yes, of course that is a voting bloc, but so large as to be rather meaningless if you ask me.
Bush only got 43% of "women" in 2000 - and of course effectively tied. Your point about minorities is noted - but even there, one wonders how much of that was first-time Obama effect and will be muted somewhat this time.
Plus my point about Catholic Latino women...and who knows what happens if Rubio is the VP.
I just think when you say Rick is toast because of 'women' and he can't win, you are being bombastic. And frankly, every man who voted for Obama 4 years ago that bails to Rick is an offset of every woman in that 43% group that went McCain.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I just think when you say Rick is toast because of 'women' and he can't win, you are being bombastic."
No. I'm being realistic. Elections, in the final analysis, are as much a function of simple math as they are anything else. The math for 2012 is pretty straightforward: Unless the GOP can substantively improve the Republican performance with the female demographic from the 2008 benchmark, this election is over. Period. You cannot cede to the opposition 7-points in the demo that accounts for 53% of the electorate and still expect to win the election.
13.1M more women voted for Barack Obama than voted for John McCain. So, for Santorum to win, he either has to do better with women - as a group - or he has to make up the difference with men. The problem is that men only account for 47% of the total electorate. Let's look at 2008 to see exactly what McCain would have had to have done with men (presuming the same performance with women), for McCain to have beaten Obama.
There were 61,577,173 total male voters in 2008. John McCain needed 38,895,863 (which is exactly one more than the females that voted for Obama) of those men to vote for him, if he wanted to win. What does that equate to in terms of percentages of all male voters? 63.1%.
No nominee has earned 63.1% of the male vote since the age of modern exit polling (roughly 1964). Nixon came closest in 1972 when he earned 62% of the male vote.
Presuming male/female turnout is the same (and it's been within 1-point of 2008 for the last decade or more), Rick Santorum would need more than 62% of male voters unless he improves on John McCain's performance women. That is why women are important.
Here's Santorum's problem relative to McCain's 2008 performance: McCain was reasonably well liked by women. That is to say that most polling reflected a positive approval rating for McCain with women, and some polling showed him in the 60s for being qualified for the job. He still lost women by 7-points. Santorum, OTOH, is struggling with women. It's seems unlikely - to the point of virtual certainty - that Santorum can improve on McCain's performance when Santorum's own approval rating with women is in the low 40s or high 30s. And that's his political reality without a single issues ad being run against him anywhere in the country.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis poll shows some disconnect with Obama's lead. If we assume Obama duplicates 2008 with every group except Catholics (a tall task in my opinion), moreover duplicates his success with African American Turnout (another tall task - as I believe a percent will be shaved off his vote total and a half percent off turn out).
But if you factor in the Catholic vote going against Obama 54-45 (basically a flip), and consider Catholics make up 27% of the nation's total vote), Obama's 7.3 point win shrinks to 2.4%. If this erosion is further pulled down another 3 points (e.g. Obama ends up with 42-57-1). The race is a 1 points squeaker.
The problem with polling now is the GOP has had a very competitive primary. But when its over, when we have a nominee, all the inter-party negatives will go away. Think of it this way McCain was about even with Obama in May. At that time Obama was getting hammered by Hillary (a little late). Once the inner squabbling stopped the party rallied around. This will happen with Romney. I believe Romney could win a squeaker, I also believe Santorum offers an interesting alternative as he rises to the top. Look of Newt could get even with Obama in some polls, why not Santorum who doesn't have half the baggage. If its Santorum Obama will try and paint Santorum as a radical anti-woman. This is not a solid attack, and one in which Santorum could deflect with some charm (especially in the debates).
In the end if Santorum comes across likeable, those attacks will wain. The trick for Santorum is to be able to explain his social conservatism to moderate voters. This is different than adopting to moderate voters, rather explain why you feel the way you do, why such beliefs are PRO Woman. If you avoid the religious side of social conservatism you can win the argument. Social Conservatism does not require you to be a member of the "religious right".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd yet, Gallup is set to release its polling data that shows no erosion of support for Obama from Catholics (see Greg Sargent's site at the Washington Post). So you have a case of dueling pollsters, and since Rasmussen is the Republicans' defacto pollster, I'll listen to Gallup.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse---Let's see how those numbers go if you guys pick Santorum as your Nominee?
Santorum is not proposing violating the 1st amendment of the Constitution to enforce his beliefs.
Nice for your side that Obama decided to open this social wars front to distract from his cratered economy and perhaps terminal spending.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHistory Buff is another of the bitter clingers to PLAN-B and condoms (at the employers expense, naturally.)
The insight here is that if Santorum is the nominee, 2012 becomes a national referendum on contraception, which Team Obama is certain they can win.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama got 54% of the Catholic vote while running as late-term abortion supporting pro-choice President. The pew-sitting Catholics did not vote for him then, and they won't vote for him now.
This issue will simply increase his support among younger voters, specifically women.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHas there been a rebound for Obama even with this controversy? Maybe not the same poll, but it seems he was consistently in the disapproval category and polling behind a generic Repbulican until recently. And I would add that approval / disapproval responses aren't strongly tied to concern about who the opponent is going to be. There is either some polling "inconsistency" or this guy just sealed his reelection on the basis of Keystone, the abortifacient mandate and that "magnificent" State of the Union speech. That's pretty much incomprehensible on its own. Has the general population already decided that it can probably handle another four years since there is slight (inevitable) economic improvement and that it would be right to try? That seems to be the electoral question in reflected in the poll - not the affronts to liberty and insane economics and budgets visible only to those who care about that.
The general electorate seems based in faith that this country and the economy can withstand anything he and liberalism can do and care not so much about whether his policies will work.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse