Gallup can imply that Hispanics will help Obama win the Catholic vote but the numbers don’t wash

 By Kevin “Coach” Collins

In it’s last survey Pew found that among White Catholics Barack Obama is trailing Mitt Romney 57/37. As clear as these numbers are, left alone and not attacked by the Left they portend “game set match Mr. Romney” in November. In the history of such polling no Democrat has ever lost the Catholic vote and won the general election for president. Obviously this is a very dangerous statistic for Democrats and the fact that it is so easily confirmed makes it more so. Enter Gallup.To obfuscate the power of Obama’s deficit with Catholics, Gallup has ridden to Obama’s recue with its new polling results on the Catholic vote saying “No it’s not 57/37 but actually tied at 46/46!”

Wow! Two well established polling companies have talked to thousands of respondents and come up with a twenty point difference in what they see as the Catholic vote – but how can that be?

The 57/37 lead Pew found for Romney comes among White Catholics. The number Gallup got for White Catholics shows a statistically identical 38/55.  Pew found Hispanics support Obama 67/27. Gallup’s numbers were worse for Romney at 70/20 in Obama’s favor.

Now let’s peek under the numbers.   

It is an established fact that Democrats are anywhere from 5 to 8 points less enthusiastic about voting in November. Nevertheless, compared to the average Democrat, Hispanics are even less enthused about voting for Obama again. The Census revealed some even more disheartening news about the possibilities of a big Hispanic turn out for Democrats in November.

 The Hispanic vote was 7% of the grand total in 2000, 8% in 2004 and 9% in 2008. This steady progression among a group that votes 2 to 1 Democrat sounds good for Obama, but this year Hispanic enthusiasm to vote has not only dropped, but the raw number of registered Hispanic voters has fallen by 6% since 2008.   Worse still for Obama is the most recent information showing just 38% of Hispanics report being enthusiastic about voting in November. 

This lack of enthusiasm, when added to the numerically low turnout among Hispanics will be toxic for Obama’s chances of winning the Catholic vote in November.    In 2010 Hispanics although  69% of eligible Hispanics voted, since   they were just 10.1% of America’s adult population the raw number of Hispanic votes isn’t very significant unless you are a liberal trying to put a happy face on Obama ’s chances of winning the Catholic vote.  

The 2010 mid term Election was a national referendum on Obama that saw Republicans win the Catholic vote 53/45. That was before Obama declared war on the Catholic Church. Saying Obama is in a better position with Catholics now that he is locked in a life or death fight with the Conference of Catholic Bishops is simply not supportable.   

To contact your Congressional Representative use this link:

To read more use these links:

Have you answered this week’s poll?

This day in history May 4

1961: “Freedom Rides” through the South, made necessary by local Democrat oppression of African Americans began. To read more about how Democrats have warred on African Americans for 200 years pick up your copy of Coach’s new book Crooks thugs and bigots the lost hidden and changed history of the Democratic Party at      

 “Don’t miss our new 3 minute “audiotorial” produced by Without a Helmet: On the Line with Emmett & Wiley.  Hear it now by clicking the play button on their logo on the lower right of my homepage! 

  You can order your copy of Coach’s new book Crooks Thugs and Bigots: the lost hidden and changed history of the Democratic Party at  

 In this world you may have knowledge or you may have repose, but you may not have both. 

What have you done today to deserve to live in America?

Comments on this or any other essay can be sent by following the posting instructions below.

Be Sociable, Share!

16 thoughts on “Gallup can imply that Hispanics will help Obama win the Catholic vote but the numbers don’t wash”

  1. Obama is faced with some ugly realities. Jimmy Kimmel´s recent jokes (sucker punches is more apt) at the correspondents dinner were shockingly candid:
    "You remember when the country rallied around you in hopes of a better tomorrow? That was hilarious…."There's a term for guys like President Obama," Kimmel said pausing, "Probably not two terms."

    But ignoring polling numbers like this in the wake of such public betrayal on the left shows that Obama is in deep deep trouble.

  2. I don't know, Bill – I for one am very much looking forward to Obama's second term … as long as it is a prison term.

  3. Many catholics supported Barack Hussein Obama
    the first time around, but most are not willing to
    admit it. We reap what we sow.

  4. You link to an old post on our blog to argue that "this year Hispanic enthusiasm to vote has not only dropped, but the raw number of registered Hispanic voters has fallen by 6% since 2008." I have no idea how you get that from our link. My blog post there was about the share of the Hispanic vote which Obama received according to the exit polls. That's a very different thing from their "raw" share of registered voters. Many registered voters don't actually vote (and many as of yet non-registered voters will be registered by November), so one thing says little about the other. Nothing in my blog post says anything about the number of registered Hispanic voters, in any case, so it seems like you're comparing apples and oranges.

    1. You are right about your link being misidentified as the source for saying Hispanics are just 38% enthusiastic to vote. Under pressure of a deadline I selected the wrong link from the many that I researched. Given the point of view your site represents I’m sure this is of little comfort to you but it is the truth. You have my sincerest apologies for my mistake.
      Thanks for reading and thanks for calling my error to my attention. The appropriate link will be inserted in place of your site.
      BTW you are of course free to disregard this data if that makes you feel better about the coming election.
      This was the link I should have used:


      1. Anyone else who doubts the sharp drop in Hispanic enthusiasm and wants to find some comfort in saying I’ve compared “apples and oranges” might want to take a look here before snuggling up with your imaginary blankie. This was posted a few hours ago. It’s a subscription web site but it’s message will be generally available tomorrow hidden in the Saturday morning news they hope you don’t see.

        1. Hi,

          So you make a mistake in sourcing your claim, and when someone points it out you respond sneeringly about "snuggling up with your imaginary blankie". OK. Thank you for your earlier, polite response though, that was kind. And no problem, mistakes happen.

          By ways of housekeeping notes, when you correct your post you'll be wanting to replace the link to our blog with one to that WaPo story you cited in your second comment, not the GOP12 link you first fingered as the correct link. After all, you inserted the link to our blog to document your claim that " the raw number of registered Hispanic voters has fallen by 6% since 2008," but our blog said nothing about the number of registered voters, and neither does the GOP12 link – you got that info from the WaPo link.

          What do I make of the info in either of those links? Dunno, to be honest. I'm not surprised that enthusiasm is down among Hispanics compared to 2008. Enthusiasm is down among everyone compared to 2008. Hell, I'd be less enthusiastic. (You claim that Hispanics "are even less enthused about voting Obama again" than "the average Democrat," but your link doesn't say anything about that, so I'm not sure where that is from.) Luckily for 'my' side, enthusiasm among Republican constituencies isn't exactly running high either.

          The census bureau showing a decrease in registered Hispanic voters is disconcerting news, for sure. The article does point out that "voter rolls typically shrink in non-presidential election years and registrations fell among whites as well" – makes me wish the article included a comparison between the decrease among whites and among Hispanics, so we could assess any proportional impact. The article also points out that the drop may be due to the economic crisis causing disproportional dislocation, with more people than normal moving from place to place to find work and not updating their registrations. Either way, it underlines how important voter registration and turnout efforts will be this year.

          I don't think the Democrats need to worry much about what Hispanics will vote if they do vote. That Latino Decisions poll the GOP12 story uses also says that 67% of registered Latino voters now support Obama and just 25% Romney. The challenge will be to turn them out.

          In the end, I think it will all depend on the economy. Depending on the economic news this next half a year, Obama will get reelected fairly safely, or be defeated narrowly – that's how I see it. All we can do is wait and see. Especially since it's not like Congress will still pass any meaningful economic measures that could still have a significant impact on unemployment etc: it's election time and the parties are eager to block everything the other does, so nothing will be done until November.

          Just got to sit tight, I guess, and wait and see. Right now, judging especially on the state polls, I'm pretty upbeat on Obama's chances, and if you can trust the polls it doesn't look like the GOP will gain the Senate either. But if economic news really sucks the next few months, all bets are off.

          1. Be as “up beat” as you want about finishing off what is left of America but you will be disappointed when the socialists are cleansed from our government in November. We had a poll on Obama in 2010. had did that “Hope and Change” and Change we can DECEIVE IN” work on in the mid-terms? If you think Obama has pulled people to his side since then you need to prove that.
            There are several reasons why Obama will be crushed in November. First the mistake he made in declaring war on the Catholic Church. He will not come close to winning the Catholic vote and no Democrat has ever won the White House without winning the Catholic vote. Some have even won the with Catholics and still lost, but never has the reverse been true. Add to this the fact that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops hasn’t even started to fight and you get an ugly Election night for those who would destroy America.
            The price of gas is killing the economy. People do not believe the unemployment numbers and in many cases are insulted by them, Democrats have little or no enthusiasm and when November comes this will show. The “youth vote” enthusiasm has dropped from 76% in spring 2008 to 48% today and it will fall further when half of this month’s graduates are unemployed and unemployable in November. As mentioned Black and Hispanic enthusiasm is down to 48% and 38% respectively.
            Every dirty trick Obama’s team can think of will be anticipated and fail just as the bogus “War on Women” and “Trayvon was murdered by a White Hispanic” have failed.
            The unions don’t want to fund Obama or the Democrats’ convention. It’s bad news if the unions are “walking away”, but what else could it be called?
            The Obamacare Supreme Court ruling is a “tails I win; heads you lose” against Obama. If the Court upholds it you will see the biggest groundswell of conservative enthusiasm in America history. If they kill it, because he has proved he will do so, the mantra will be, “We must vote Obama out because he’ll use Executive Orders to force it on us.” Either way will be bad news for Obama.
            The same goes for SB 1070. Either way Obama loses.
            I can understand why those who know little about the American character and spirit might think he has a chance of winning but everyday Americans don’t.
            Finally if you think Jessica Yellin’s tweeting about Obama speaking to “less than half” of the crowd at NC Chapel Hill last week was unimportant think again. She tweeted the truth and by tweeting she made sure the gatekeepers above her could not kill her report.
            That truth is very telling.
            We all know people who say “I voted for Obama and I’m sorry.” Find me someone who says, “You know I voted for McCain and I was wrong. I wish I had voted for Obama.” Happy hunting.
            Thanks for commenting.

          2. Well, we're obviously not going to agree on much.

            I think pretty much the only thing in everything you just wrote that I agree on is that if the Supreme Court rules against Obamacare, it will be a true shitstorm, and probably not in the Democrats' favour. I'm hoping that the ruling will strike down some bits and pieces at most but not tear the whole thing apart, but with this Supreme Court – the most conservative in decades – I'm definitely worried on that count.

            I don't think you can expect a repeat of the 2010 results. Turnout in mid-terms is systematically lower than in presidential years. Even if, as you say, enthusiasm is obviously lower among many core Obama constituencies than it was in 2008, there will definitely be a lot more young people and minorities voting than in 2010.

            It seems that practically all your friends, family and colleagues dislike Obama – hence your conviction that "everyday Americans" don't think Obama stands any chance. Of course, on liberal and pro-Dem blogs, they say the exact opposite, and every American I know seems to live in a world where everyone agrees with *them*. America seems to be extremely socially polarized into separate worlds where people only interact with others who are on their 'side'. That can't be a good thing.

            I wonder what you think of current state polling though, then. According to the poll tracker on, a site that can hardly be suspected of liberal sympathies, Nevada, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Maine are all leaning Obama, which already brings him to 253 of the 270 electoral votes he needs in order to win, and a further nine states are true tossups. That's based on all state polling. Even the last Fox News poll for the state has Obama leading by 6 in Ohio, and Rasmussen has him leading by 4; those are no liberal pollsters. That doesn't seem to align with your view of what "everyday Americans" are thinking and feeling.

            Again, we're probably not going to agree on much. One last question though, on a point of detail: you say that "Some [presidential candidates] have even won the with Catholics and still lost, but never has the reverse been true." How can that be correct? They kind of go together, no? I mean, if a candidate won the Catholic vote and still lost, that by definition means that his opponent won the presidency without the catholic vote, doesn't it?

            Happy blogging and hey, we'll see in half a year (almost exactly half a year from now!) who was right. :-)

          3. Nimh2…..As far as I can tell from your website you are all a seriously sick bunch of incredibly egoistic Marxist-Communists in love with the sound of your own voices…and that of Che Gueverra.
            I personally DON'T thank you for reading Coach is Right…
            If I wanted to live in a Marxist country (or to converse with Marxists such as you), I would have moved to such a country
            By the way, why are YOU still here? What's the matter ? Can't afford a Passport??

          4. Wow, such hatred and unprovoked venom – serves me for being polite, I guess. And such lack of reading comprehension, to boot: yes, I wrote a post about Che on our blog – and if you had read it, you would have seen that it is harshly *critical* of Che. I described him as a "bloody zealot". About communist Cuba, I noted the following:

            > how has Cuba’s death toll under communism compared with that of the brutal Batista dictatorship that preceded it? Not well at all, according to the work of one statistician, R.J. Rummel, who recorded that the Batista regime “killed 1000 of its citizens from 1952 to 1959, for an average rate of 143 per year,” while the Castro regime “killed 73000 of its citizens from 1959 to 1987, for an average rate of 2607 per year”. According to his data, then, the Castro regime killed at an 18 times faster rate than even the despicable Batista had done

            In a second Che-related post, I made fun of the ridiculous uses of his portrait in these days, to sell anything from $5,000 cigars to doormats.

            >By the way, why are YOU still here? What's the matter ? Can't afford a Passport??

            I have no idea what you mean. I live in Hungary.

  5. It doesn't matter much what the situation looks like now anyway. Remember Bush/ Dukakis?
    Or as Ecclesiates 9:11 put it so well: The race goes neither to the swift nor the contest to the strong… but time and chance
    happeneth to them all.
    So events have yet to play out and the timing of those events could be critical in how the Election is affected. It's a waste of
    time to try to figure out who will win at this early stage. No one knows but God.

    1. "So events have yet to play out and the timing of those events could be critical in how the Election is affected. It's a waste of
      time to try to figure out who will win at this early stage."

      This is all too true, really. It's just so tempting to try anyway!

Comments are closed.