Continuing to Chart the Catholic Vote in This Year’s Presidential Race

After a six-week hiatus in voting (but not the slightest pause in campaigning), yesterday’s Pennsylvania primary provides confirmation of marked trends in the Catholic vote for president during this election cycle. Looking at the exit polling in Pennsylvania, patterns in Catholic responses to the Democratic candidates that had emerged earlier in the campaign became more pronounced. Depending on who survives to become the Democratic nominee, the growing body of voting data could presage the most lop-sided outcome among Catholic voters in a fall presidential election in a generation. Given that the Catholic vote has gone with the winner in seven of the last eight presidential elections (here), as goes the Catholic vote so may go the nation.

As outlined in my March 22 post here at the Mirror of Justice, throughout the Democratic presidential primary season, Senator Hillary Clinton has out-polled Senator Barack Obama among Catholics by increasingly wider margins. Setting aside the result in Illinois (where favorite son Obama lost the Catholic vote but by a closer margin) and a few states with small Catholic populations, Clinton has carried the Catholic vote by about two-to-one in such states as Massachusetts, California, Rhode Island, and Ohio. In these past contests, Clinton’s margin has risen to nearly 3-1 among observant Catholics who attend weekly Mass.

In my prior posting on the Catholic voting trends six weeks ago, I noted that the next important data-point on this subject would be Pennsylvania. So what happened in the Keystone State? Senator Clinton’s victory among Catholics in Pennsylvania was nothing less than a rout of Senator Obama. As shown by the exit polls, among Catholics generally (who constituted more than one-third of Democratic primary voters), Clinton prevailed over Obama by more than two-to-one and by a margin of 40 points (70-30). Among observant Catholics who attend weekly Mass, Clinton’s victory over Obama was nearly three-to-one and by a margin of almost 50 points (74-26).

In the election coverage last evening, CNN political analyst Bill Schneider highlighted the continuing and growing Catholic margin of victory for Clinton over Obama, while observing that he had yet to see a persuasive explanation for this phenomenon. The difficulty in pinning this down may be that no one thing by itself explains Obama’s worsening “Catholic problem.” Rather a mix of overlapping and interacting factors may be at work, some based on substantive concerns and others grounded in general impressions about Obama’s cultural attitudes, social position, and political conceit.

One attempt to explain away the Catholic vote data that was offered early on by the Obama camp can now be definitively rejected. After the California primary in early February, the Obama campaign suggested the Catholic margin was simply a proxy for Clinton’s overwhelming margin among Hispanics. But once the campaign shifted to states like Ohio and Rhode Island with small Hispanic populations, the significant Catholic preference for Clinton (or disinclination toward Obama) persisted. Now adding Pennsylvania to the mix (where Hispanics were only 3 percent of primary voters), the sharp break toward Clinton and away from Obama in the Catholic segment of the electorate appears to have solidified and plainly is independent of the leanings of the Hispanic Americans.

In the earlier posting, I suggested demographics may well play a role in explaining why Obama has failed to attract Catholic voters in the primary campaign, but going deeper than strong Hispanic support for Clinton. Obama’s mainstays of support have been African-Americans and affluent white liberals (especially in college towns), among whom relatively few Catholics are to be found. By contrast, Clinton’s vote has been anchored in the traditional lunch-bucket Democrats of the working class, who in states like Massachusetts, Ohio, and now Pennsylvania are disproportionately Catholic.

But those demographic observations simply describe the phenomenon and do not really explain it. Why is it that Catholics, of whatever class or geographic location, are either attracted to Clinton or repelled by Obama (or both)? And the answer cannot be found in such recent episodes as Obama’s controversial association with a black liberation theology pastor or his unscripted characterization of small town people as “clinging” to guns and religion. These episodes have likely further embedded voting tendencies among Catholics and have made it more difficult for Obama to overcome his negative standing in that segment of the electorate. But the pattern in Catholic voting had emerged before those controversies, so they at most strengthen but did not create the trends.

In my prior musings, I suggested that a partial explanation may lie in the uneasiness felt by many people of faith, including church-going Catholics, with the sometimes messianic style of the Obama campaign. The self-reverential feel of the typical Obama campaign event may be off-putting for many people who do not look to a politician to find a savior. With some exceptions during the Pennsylvania campaign, Obama continued his practice of holding huge rallies with adoring crowds, while Clinton more often went to smaller venues and engaged directly with more people. Did this make a difference? Perhaps.

In a similar way, Obama’s approach to religious faith and communities, welcoming as it has been, still may not have resonated as well with many Catholics and other persons of faith. Last week, I shared my impressions (here) of the Compassion Forum in which both Senators Clinton and Obama participated and offered interesting thoughts about religion, values, and public life. I noted that Obama tended to emphasize the instrumental role of religion, focusing on the use of religion and faith communities in community organizing and to achieve political ends. By contrast, Clinton addressed the value of religious faith for its own sake, as a part of daily life and as a source of inspiration and hope. Might it be that Catholics, for whom the relationship with the living Christ is embodied in the Eucharist, were left unmoved by Obama’s description of being drawn into a particular church for reasons of its political and social activism in a community? Seen in full context, Obama did not neglect the salvific and personally uplifting aspect of religious faith, but the primary political anchor of his remarks may not have connected with the distinctly transcendent and worshipful place of religious faith for most believers. While Catholics have a tradition of putting their faith to work for the common good, including political work, those political views and activities flow out of but do not define our faith. Politics is not the reason for what we believe nor are political activities central to our faith.

In any event, what do the Pennsylvania and earlier primary results portend for the future with respect to the important Catholic swing vote in this closely-fought presidential election? Given the remarkable stability of the trends in the Democratic primaries since January, I would expect that the Catholic margin toward Clinton and away from Obama will continue throughout the remaining contests. But what of the November election, once the Democratic nominee has been confirmed?

Senator Obama remains the most likely nominee, if somewhat less likely today than he was yesterday. Should that happen, Obama now looks to be the weakest presidential candidate offered to Catholic voters by the Democratic Party since 1984. Looking at recent elections, Bill Clinton carried the Catholic vote twice in 1992 and 1996, Al Gore barely won the Catholic vote (52-47) in 2000, and John Kerry lost it by a small margin (47-52) in 2004 despite being a professing Catholic. In comparison with Kerry and Gore, who still could barely attract half of the Catholic vote against George W. Bush, Barack Obama begins with a staggering disadvantage among Catholics. Barring a seismographic shift in the electorate in the next six months, Obama does not appear to be a plausible bet to win the Catholic vote. Based on current evidence, the real question could be whether Obama’s level of support among Catholics may dive down toward the one-third basement level that has been the best he could hope for during most of the primary season. If present trends continue, Obama might rival (or fall below) Walter Mondale’s dismal showing among Catholics (estimated at around 43 percent of the Catholic vote by many, although Gallup pegged it even lower at around 39 percent). In sum, Obama as the nominee could convert the old-style “Reagan Democrats” into “McCain Democrats.”

To be sure, many Catholic Democrats who voted for Clinton in the primaries will come home to the party if Obama is the nominee. But present indications are that many will be unwilling to do so and that the cultural alienation from Obama felt by most Catholics will not fade away easily. And, of course, a large segment of the Catholic population left the Democratic Party way back during the Reagan years, giving any Republican nominee a solid Catholic base from which to begin. While premature to do anything more than note the possibility, the strong Catholic tide away from candidate Obama that has become a flood during the primaries might not only affect the outcome of the presidential race but begin to sweep away Democratic candidates further down the ticket. The electability concern could go beyond the top of the ticket. Still, election prognostications are always risky, especially this far out, although the Catholic voting trends have been remarkably stable for several months now.

By contrast, if Senator Clinton should run the table in the remaining contests and convince the super-delegates to swing the nomination to her, where then will Catholic voters go in the general election? In that event, Republicans had better hope that Clinton’s overwhelming margin in the Catholic vote in the Democratic primaries is more of a movement away from Obama than an attraction toward Clinton. Given that these Catholic voters have already made an initial commitment in Clinton’s direction by casting primary votes for her, separating them away from her as the Democratic nominee for the November election will be a difficult task for the Republicans. Of course, Senator McCain might still win the overall Catholic vote without these Democratic primary voters by holding Catholic Republicans and taking Catholic independents. In particular, Clinton has not done well with independents, tending to succeed better in states in which only registered Democrats are permitted to vote in the primary. But McCain's pitch to Catholic voters may be more difficult if Clinton is the opponent.

If he hopes to win the Catholic vote against Clinton, McCain would have to convince Catholics that, despite her victories with Catholic voters during this spring, he really has more in common with them than does she. That’s not an impossible task, as who would have imagined a few months ago that Hillary Clinton would become the flag-bearer for culturally-conservative and working class Catholic Democrats. And, of course, the abortion question may emerge as important again in the fall, a subject that for obvious reasons has not been prominent in the Democratic contest where neither Clinton nor Obama have shown acceptable respect for the sanctity of human life and both take positions on the far left of even their own party (here). Nonetheless, Clinton has proven to be a powerful contender for the Catholic vote. Who’d a-thunk it!

Moreover, whether it is Obama or Clinton, the Catholic trends in the Democratic nomination race may fall away if Senator McCain fails to convince Catholic voters that he is a worthwhile alternative. He has to appeal not only to the Catholic Republicans that already are falling behind him, but also to the working class Catholic Democrats who could be attracted to him on cultural and national security issues, notwithstanding a weak economy. On the one hand, early indications are that McCain is well positioned to pick up those Catholics who have found Obama unappealing and who have been further estranged by his belittling comments about “bitter” people “clinging” to religious faith in small towns. On the other hand, Senator McCain chose not to participate in the Compassion Forum at Messiah College earlier this month, saying that he takes a more private approach to his religious faith. We will have to see whether McCain then is able to convince faithful Catholics that he respects their perspective, values their communities, and understands the centrality of religious faith and observance in their lives. McCain's ability to speak directly to working class and non-urban Catholics has not yet been tested.

Whatever happens, I think we can agree that this has become very interesting election year — much more so than anyone would have expected back on New Year’s Day.

Greg Sisk