American Catholic Election 2008 Coverage

270 Electoral Votes Needed to Win

McCain/Palin: 155

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming

Obama/Biden: 338 (Obama wins the presidency)

California, Colorado, Connecticut, D.C., Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin

McCain has conceded and called Obama to congratulate him.  I’m done for the evening.  Another AC contributor can take up the running commentary.

Virginia goes to Obama.  Obama has the election all but wrapped up, barring a major surprise in the evening which none of the pundits, including the McCain campaign, foresee happening.  For now, we probably should begin contemplating an Obama presidency and congratulate him for an excellent campaign.

McCain aides have all but conceded the election to Obama when announcing they see no other pathway to 270 electoral votes.

Ohio goes to Obama.  This election is almost over for McCain.

McCain won the Catholic vote in Pennsylvania 51-49%, but still lost the state to Obama. 

Exit polls are not matching up with actual votes in Indiana, Florida, and North Carolina.  Hence why they haven’t been called yet.  The exit polls favor Obama, but the actual results do not reflect this.

Updated 11:22 PM CST

45 Responses to American Catholic Election 2008 Coverage

  • Well, we tried…

    Fox called Pennsylvania for Obama with Catholics as the only major demographic which went majority McCain in the state. Catholics make up 30% of the Penn electorate, but we weren’t enough.

  • A bad year for the pro-life cause, but we will have good years in elections to come.

  • There’s still a glimmer of hope, but it doesn’t look good.

  • The constitution of the Supreme Court will now be firmly pro-Roe; the prospects for pro-life legislation are now officially NIL

  • We need to trust in God’s will. Vengence is His.

    People like Michael Ifrate and Policraticus will have to answer to God for their efforts in swaying away votes from a pro-life candidate.

    What we can do is to continue in our faith and persevere.

  • The bad news is that the pro-abort Democrats are in charge. However, that is also the good news. With power comes responsibility. The Republicans have had two elections in a row where they were rejected by the public. Now the Democrats are solely in charge. They will find it somewhat more arduous than being in opposition, especially in what I believe will be very turbulent times. For Republicans it is off to the political wilderness, to lick wounds, learn and gather strength for the next round of elections. Obama has raised expectations to a fever pitch among his followers as to what he can accomplish, and the entire nation will now see if he can meet those expectations. If, actually I think it is when, he fails, the Republicans will have their opportunity. I don’t think many of the voters who cast their ballots for Obama realize how radical he truly is. They are about to learn.

  • Hah. Scapegoating Poli and myself? Please.

    We can either get to the task of fighting whatever pro-abortion legislation comes forward together, or you can keep up the moping and scapegoating. Your choice.

  • We can either get to the task of fighting whatever pro-abortion legislation comes forward together, or you can keep up the moping and scapegoating. Your choice.

    We? You’re the one who was voting to put the pro-aborts in office, Michael. If we get FOCA in return for this, it’s because you asked for it.

    How are you going to “fight” it when you consistently vote for the people who want it?

  • “We can either get to the task of fighting whatever pro-abortion legislation comes forward together, or you can keep up the moping and scapegoating. Your choice.”

    Hard to do that Catholic Anarchist when the Presidency and Congress are now firmly in the hands of pro-abort Democrats. The Republicans in the Senate will do their best, but at this point I am unsure as to whether they will have enough votes to sustain a filibuster after tonight. The forces of the Left have triumphed and that means the pro-aborts have triumphed. I expect several pieces of pro-abort legislation to be rammed through Congress in the next 100 days. The pro-life cause will be spending the next decade at least recovering from the results of tonight.

  • Michael I.,

    You’re the one that voted for Obama.

    You answer to God for your own actions. Don’t blame us for your vote.

  • “I expect several pieces of pro-abort legislation to be rammed through Congress in the next 100 days.” in my above post should have been “I expect several pieces of pro-abort legislation to be rammed through the next Congress in the first 100 days.”

  • Tito – I empathize with your frustration, but, respectfully, could we avoid the ‘you answer to God’ language? Michael is often deliberately irritating – and his comments about FOCA are ridiculous – but that statement seems to imply an unfavorable judgment on him as a person that seems inappropriate to me. Also, since Poli explicitly said he would not vote for Obama, I am not sure it’s entirely fair to criticize him.

  • I second fus01’s comments

  • “We can either get to the task of fighting whatever pro-abortion legislation comes forward together, or you can keep up the moping and scapegoating. Your choice.”

    Well, if we are going to fight together, I’d like some assurance that your new strategy is markedly different than your previous strategy – voting and actively promoting politicians that promise to pass pro-abortion legislation.

  • Also, since Poli explicitly said he would not vote for Obama, I am not sure it’s entirely fair to criticize him.

    Yeah, Poli can be annoying on politics, but he is a man of principle when it comes to not supporting pro-abort politicians.

  • Michael, I still can’t get over the logic that let’s you reason from anarchy to a candidate who supports giant governmental control of every aspect of human life.

  • Poli twists Catholic teaching to push away Catholics from Pro-life causes. He obsfucates and insults good Catholics when he doesn’t get his way.

    As far as ‘answer to God’ language I understand where you’re coming from. I don’t want to push away good Catholics, but in the case of Michael Ifrate and Policraticus, their pride and ego’s prevent them from understanding how wrong they are on many issues.

    As far as Poli being a ‘man of principle’, I respectfully and adamantly disagree. Poli is a man that uses profanity and insults people’s character, even when he’s wrong one to many times for my taste.

    They both will ‘answer to God’ for their actions.

    And I am not bashful using that language considering they’ve already damned every other good Catholic I know (including myself).

  • If we get FOCA in return for this, it’s because you asked for it.

    I didn’t ask for it. I oppose it.

  • I could list off a lot of beefs I have with Policratus — who I think often comes off as quite arrogant and prefers to insult than to argue — but I do have a certain respect that despite the fact that he’s arguably farther left than the average Democrat he does not (unlike many of his co-bloggers) endorse or vote for pro-abortion politicians.

    Not like that will prevent me from smacking him down on other issues. :-)

  • I didn’t ask for it. I oppose it.

    You say you do, Michael, but the only political voice that you have on the issue is how you cast your vote for congressmen, senators and the president. When you vote for Democrats, you make FOCA happen.

    You just spent your only opportunity for two more years supporting those who want to pass FOCA. We’ll see if it’s too late for you to change your mind two years from now, but I must admit a certain doubt whether you’ll vote GOP even then.

  • Darwin,

    I do acknowledge his excellent knowledge on many things Catholic, especially Philosophy and to some extent Theology. Unfortunately he uses this knowledge as a sledgehammer by twisting it to suite his leftist and Marxist views. You know what Jesus said about people like him and millstones.

    Though he doesn’t vote for pro-abortion, he says enough to discourage others to vote pro-life.

  • Agree with Darwin. Poli is often condescending and/or obtuse, but he should be given credit for his principled condemnation of an otherwise very attractive Democratic candidate.

  • I’ll give Poli that he condemned the Democratic candidate.

    Poli’s a very bright and telegenic man. He, like me and many others, have faults.

  • Poli’s a very bright and telegenic man.

    Oh, I’m not saying we have to be that positive.

    I just don’t want to nail him unjustly.

  • “Though he doesn’t vote for pro-abortion, he says enough to discourage others to vote pro-life.”

    But Tito, Poli genuinely believes that Republicans promote an ideological agenda hostile to Catholic Social Teaching, apart from the abortion issue. He believes that the Republicans use pro-life language as a purely symbolic issue to lure in pro-life voters. I don’t share his premises, but I can see how someone could believe that. I think the most we can ask of such people, in fairness, is that they acknowledge the all-too-obvious failings of the Democratic party, and refuse to vote for the Democrats just as they refuse to vote for Republicans.

    Granted, given my many disagreements with Poli, I think he goes too far sometimes, and I understand how you may have been deeply offended by him. Nevertheless, I think it is good to have people like him around to remind conservatives that there is plenty we should be working to reform in the present Republican party.

  • Sorry, wouldn’t have posted the above comment if I had seen the two that preceded. Have a good night all.

  • FUS01,

    I agree that we need people like Poli to remind conservatives that there is plenty we should be working to reform. I absolutely agree. I just wish he knew the virtue of charity and prudence when he loses his cool.

    But we’re not all perfect, especially me.

  • FUS01 and all others,

    I hope that you all understand that I appreciate and am open to fraternal correction. It’s always appreciated.

  • I broadly second Darwin’s and fus01’s comments… I disagree with Poli in some ways, but I don’t think he’s a Marxist or leftist… he’s just trying to concretely translate CST into policy.

    Michael, I share DC and fus’s puzzlement… it seems that you want to have your cake & eat it too, i.e. vote for (and endorse) pols who support policies you abhor. What am I missing?

  • And I think we see eye to eye at root. Not trying to ride your tale into the ground, Tito.

    Just want to make sure we don’t get hyperbolic — like those who annoy us.

  • Michael, I share DC and fus’s puzzlement… it seems that you want to have your cake & eat it too, i.e. vote for (and endorse) pols who support policies you abhor. What am I missing?

    You voted for Bush, right? Are you then saying that you voted twice for unjust war and torture? Really?

    You just spent your only opportunity for two more years supporting those who want to pass FOCA.

    My only opportunity for being political is voting? Really?

  • You voted for Bush, right? Are you then saying that you voted twice for unjust war and torture? Really?

    Well, we weren’t at war in 2000, so that only leaves once, and — as you know from previous discussions — I didn’t think the war was unjust, or more precisely, I didn’t think it was as clear-cut as opponents thought.

    *Nonetheless*, you have a valid point, at least on torture and the ’04 election.

  • Tito – no worries. I am as guilty as anyone…poli just doesn’t happen to be at the top of my list today. ;-).

  • You voted for Bush, right? Are you then saying that you voted twice for unjust war and torture? Really?

    The Iraq War was certainly an issue in 2004 — though I do not think it was an unjust one — and I certainly am comfortable with it being said that my vote in 2004 supported Bush’s actions in that regard. I’m not comfortable with some of the choices made at Guantanamo, but I am comfortable with having voted for Bush in the face it (to the extent it was even in issue in 2004 — which it wasn’t much.)

    However, outside the fever swamps of internet opinion, the Bush policy on “aggressive interrogation” was shut down as soon as light was shone on it. I don’t think a Bush victory in ’04 was a mandate for “torture” in the way that Obama and the congressional Democrats’ is for FOCA.

    My only opportunity for being political is voting? Really?

    No, but your only chance to strike any significant blow to prevent FOCA from passing was today — and you used that chance to support it.

    You can blather all you like, but the representatives you’ve voted for have no reason to listen to you if they know that you’ll vote for them anyway.

  • I take my lumps with a smile!

    :)

    I like dialogue and I enjoy reading the comments more than posting columns. All you all have contributed to my better understanding of our beautiful faith. Thanks!

  • I don’t think a Bush victory in ‘04 was a mandate for “torture” in the way that Obama and the congressional Democrats’ is for FOCA.

    Except, of course that torture is and was a REALITY and the FOCA is still simply just an idea. You voted for what was already a reality. I voted for a candidate who simply has an idea.

  • You voted for what was already a reality. I voted for a candidate who simply has an idea.

    Whatever makes you sleep tonight.

  • Ummm. So your argument is that because a Republican president ordered the waterboarding of half a dozen terrorists and then stopped and never did it again, that therefore I was voting “for torture” — whereas when Obama specifically promised to sign the FOCA he “only has an idea”.

    Perhaps you are one of these clever people who believes that one can throw the barn door wide open and then express surprise when the horses get out?

    If Bush had specifically run on a platform of, “If I am re-elected I promise to torture people,” you might have a point, but that is not what happened.

  • Darwin, you are woefully ignorant of this country’s history of torture. Torture is as american as apple pie.

  • But the fact that Bush didn’t run on a platform supporting torture — as Obama has with abortion rights — is relevant, Michael.

    He’s the biggest supporter of abortion rights to hold the office he was just elected to… I know you cannot be surprised if he, well, actually does what he said he would.

    I’m hoping he won’t, but I won’t be surprised if he does.

  • Tito,

    You are rabid this evening.

  • It’s extraordinarily silly to suggest that torture and FOCA are similarly situated. Obama has promised that his first priority in office will be to sign FOCA. Bush never campaigned (either in 2004 let alone 2000) saying that his first priority in office would be to torture people. Voting for Bush and then finding out later that a handful of guys got tortured in secret . . . hardly the same thing. But voting for a guy (Obama) whose highest and most sacred priority is something you claim to abhor is, at best, confused.

    I just hope that Michael I., Morning’s Minion, and the other pro-Obama Catholics spend 1/100 the time over the next four years trying to persuade Democrats to be pro-life and pro-marriage, as they have spent over the past year trying to persuade independent and Republican Catholics to vote Democrat. Otherwise, your commitment to Church teachings is just a sham, a cover for your partisan proclivities.

  • I just hope…pro-Obama Catholics spend 1/100 the time over the next four years trying to persuade Democrats to be pro-life and pro-marriage, as they have spent over the past year trying to persuade independent and Republican Catholics to vote Democrat.

    Ain’t gonna happen. I don’t think there’s a will to do so, otherwise they would have been already doing so before and during the election cycle. That’s when it counts most. As it is now the Dems have a mandate for a host of anti-life initiatives and views. They have no reason to listen to pro-life voices within party (if they sincerely exist at all). Their mandate entails preserving and advancing abortion on demand, funding ESCR, promoting gay marriage, and putting personal economics and comfort above morality, justice, and plain old human decency. The only tools a pro-lifer has within a party is his mouth, pocket book, and vote. If a party is assured of the vote regardless of of the other things, there is no reason to change. Coupled with the fact that those who still offer their vote usually end up lending their voice and pocket book come election time, you can be assured of no change.

  • I just hope that Michael I., Morning’s Minion, and the other pro-Obama Catholics spend 1/100 the time over the next four years trying to persuade Democrats to be pro-life and pro-marriage, as they have spent over the past year trying to persuade independent and Republican Catholics to vote Democrat. Otherwise, your commitment to Church teachings is just a sham, a cover for your partisan proclivities.

    Amen to that. One day when our government finally gets the nerve to start putting the screws to the Church for having hospitals that don’t perform abortions, or schools that don’t teach gay marriage, or whatever other doctrine the Left hates about Christianity, I hope these guys get all the heat they deserve for electing their “Messiah.” All because they didn’t like somebody’s health care plan or his foreign policy.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .