Pew Forum surveys, for those interested
How the faithful voted
Portrait of American Catholics - social issues

One of many examples:
http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/22354prs2...
ACLU of Michigan Defends Catholic Man Coerced to Convert to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program

Shane,
According to CNN's exit polls, 66% of Hispanics voted for Obama. You honestly believe that this constitutes voting conservative? Is this within the "margin of error"?

Shane,
Even if Hispanics vote conservative on a ballot issues (and 50/50 on gay marriage isn't such a big deal), it is unlikey that they will vote that way for candidates. They will generally vote Democratic even if the Dem is pro-abort. Most decisions are not made on the referendum level. Most Hispanics voted for Obama. That's not "voting conservative."
Even if Kerry won only 53% of the vote, that is hardly within the margin of error. (Also, I do question these numbers based on other things I've read, but it doesn't help you case.)
Obama easily won Nevada. Are you saying that has nothing to do with Hispanic immigrants in that state?

The Anti-Christian Lawyers Union "fights for the rights of Catholics and other religious believers"?

Jonathan, that would be a great gift to the ACLU, which is already suing the Catholic Church for teaching that voting for a pro-abort is a mortal sin.
As far as I know the ACLU is doing no such thing. The ACLU has many Catholic supporters and members and fights for the rights of Catholics and other religious believers. You may be thinking of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State which is taking action, rightly IMO, against some bishops for violating IRS regulations. One bishop spoke of the present Democratic nominee for President; that does not suitably skirt IRS regulations and I think everyone knows that. It is disingenous IMO of that bishop to say he didn't mention a candidate in that phraseology.
If voting for Obama is a mortal sin and that is or follows from a teaching of the Church, then presumably confessors would counsel so to penitents should the matter come up. If so and if this is adjudicated as legal in the relevant jurisdictions then it may be worth consideration for journalists or other individuals who are able to rely on solid professional legal advice to go undercover in these elections and catch priests going against IRS regulations in the confessional.

Jonathan,
In all fairness, I do admit that McCain's voting record on abortion is better than Obama's. It would be tough be worse.

Jonathan,
I did make an effort to educate myself about the candidates. I have spent the past couple of decades watching politicians just like McCain claim to oppose abortion and then do absolutely nothing about it. I watched McCain tell an entire churchful of people that he thought human rights begin at conception, all the while approving of abortion in cases of rape and incest. The man either did not think the matter through, or he lied about it. In either case, I don't trust his anti-abortion stand. I have no trouble imagining him signing the FOCA the same way Bush has been continuing to approve funding for abortion in America. Add to that his promise to "bomb Iran" and you've got a candidate whom I simply cannot endorse.
You write of "[t]he fact that McCain would [enact laws that restrict abortions to cases of rape and incest]" but I really don't think he'd go that far. My point was that even if he did, it would really restrict abortions, but would only require abortive mothers to claim they'd been raped. Are you saying that pro-life organizations would start challenging those claims?

Juli said: "Although the future seems bleak for the unborn, is it really all that bad? I wasn't politically aware (too young) when Roe v. Wade occurred, but I would have to imagine it felt all the more crushing then."
Juli, you're right.
As bleak as the current view tends to be, truth be known, there's been a huge shift in how people view this topic in the last 20 years. We tend to be so focused only on where we are right now, and imagine that they're getting worse, when in fact they're not.
Because my father had a role with our local hospital, I well remember how bleak the view was back in the 70s when the hospital here was sued for not allowing abortions in it. It was felt that all was lost.
And then, in the 80s, when I came of voting age, the overwhelming majority of people may age supported abortion. Nobody would admit to the opposite readily. All college age kids, when I was in college, claimed to support it, and most were pretty brazenly pro choice.
No longer. It's no longer uncool to have a pro life position. And, in my area, where the hospital was once sued to allow abortions, there are no doctors left who will perform them.
And nationally no politician was really willing to take the aggressive stands that some have in recently, back in the 70s. Moreover, the thought that even 1/3d of the Catholic Bishops would have been declared the sinfulness of voting for pro abortion politicians would have been shocking then. Back then, the Bishops were speaking about nuclear war, not abortion, in the manner in which they're now speaking out on abortion.
While it tends not to be apparent to us now, I think a page has been turned on abortion, or rather several pages. The first is that young men and women are rejecting it. They're not returning, yet, to the sexual morality that the Church teaches, but at the same time they've very openly rejected the notion that its shameful to bear a child to term, and they're having abortion much less. Indeed, a lot of them regard abortion as disgusting. That's an attitudinal change of epic proportions. The second is that the Church is finally beginning to get over the damage done to us in 1960 when Kennedy was elected, in that for the first time in 40 years some leaders in the Church are no longer afraid to openly declare that certain political acts, including voting, may have an implication to the soul of the voter. I can't imagine the Church doing that up until recently.

I also think his opposition to abortion is a paper tiger, that even if he had his way he would prevent nary an abortion, but would only add an extra page to each Planned Parenthood patient file.
Those sorts of laws, and the blatant violation thereof by "well-meaning" PP employees and volunteers trying their best to get these "poor victims" an abortion, have been used to shut down abortion clinics, even in California. Pro-life organizations are diligent at getting those laws enforce, and indeed, it is one of the most effective legal tools remaining to force clinics to close. The fact that McCain would do that presents a *huge* opportunity for the pro-life movement. I'm glad that it didn't make a difference this time, but please, please, please inform yourself before the next election so that you don't underrate what could be a real life-saving tool. Even taking your pessimistic assessment of McCain at face value, if you thought he would even do this, you should have voted for him (recognizing that you yourself obviously would never have gone to the absurd extreme of talking yourself into an Obama vote).

Here in Canada, the Liberal party has long been the political home of certain ethnic blocs, but the Conservative party (which kept its pro-life members on a short leash during the recent election and is likely to continue with more of the same) has made a concerted effort to attract immigrants, as discussed for instance in this article written before the election. If I'm not mistaken most of the seats the Conservatives picked up this time were in ridings with substantial non-white populations.

When discouraged by the antics of one's fellow Catholics, it is wise to mediate on the verse, "Let them grow together until harvest."
One must remember that this will happen.

Jeb,
My evidence regarding the Hispanics in 2004 is the 2004 exit polls. You can see them on CNN's website: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/sta...
The Hispanic vote went 53% for Kerry, 44% for Bush. Of course that's a margin for Kerry, but please note I said about 50/50, and 53-44 is of the same order of magnitude as 50/50, especially given the margin for error.
The Hispanic vote for Prop 8 in CA was 53%. See http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CA...
For whites, it was only 49%, so Hispanics were actually more conservative on that issue than whites, if we treat this issue as a measure of conservatism, which I don't really think would be a sound thing to do. You'd need a larger sample that extended to other states, a few other issues, etc.
In any case, here's the point. If exactly 50% of Hispanics are voting conservative, then it doesn't matter whether there are 2 of them or 2 billion, they won't change the electoral math because you're adding equal numbers to each side. And in fact, on prop 8 in CA, it was more than 50%: it was 53%.
Here are the numbers on Hispanics in another potential conservative bellwether vote:
In the Colorado vote on Amendment 48 to define the moment of conception as the start of human life, 82% of Hispanics voted yes. That's a huge number. Honestly that shocked me, that's almost unheard of on any issue. So it looks as though more Hispanics would be a great thing for the pro-life movement.
God bless

Shane,
I question whether the 2004 vote was 50/50. I'd like to see you evidence for this.
Incidentally, Byron York at NRO reports that the Hispanic vote went 51-49 in California in favor of banning same sex marriage. This hardly shows an important contribution of Catholicism. (In fact, I'd be willing to bet that Evangelical Hispancis are more conservitve socially, someting that poll results have shown.)
The point is that this population is growing as a percentage of the electorate.

Jordanes,
I don't trust McCain because of what he's done. He does what he thinks it takes to get him elected- period. The fact that he has a decent pro-life voting record just demonstrates to me what the people of Arizona expected in order to re-elect him, which is why he won Arizona by such a large margin this time around. He has not pledged to veto the FOCA, but he has pledged to "reach across the aisle." To me, it seemed like he would cheerfully have ignored the issues while Congress rammed through the FOCA, and the SCOTUS sanctioned gay marriage. That seems to be the Republican template.
Still, perhaps SDG was right, and I am being too cynical. Perhaps McCain would have been better than Obama on domestic issues. Who knows?

Jeb,
Karl Rove did not try to offer blacks and hispanics low-rate mortgages... that's just way out there, so I'd be somewhat careful with information from whomever you heard that from. I don't even know how one could argue that Karl Rove would have attempted to do that.... There's just no faculty for someone in his position to do so, and in fact President Bush in 2005 fought to more rigidly regulate lending and to eliminate many of those sorts of loans. The problems with low-rate mortgages are the result of a combination of predatory lending practices and left-leaning laws (like the Community Reinvestment Act) which force banks to provide loans to many persons who they would ordinarily consider to be a bad risk.
So far as the demographics are concerned, let me say this. The youth vote doesn't really matter. It's always favored the left, and it probably always will, and older folks have always favored the right slightly and probably always will. It's just a function of the same principles that make 20 year old promiscuous pot-smokers grow up to be parents teaching their kids to wait for marriage and don't do drugs. As our society becomes more secular, certainly this conversion is more infrequent, but its still quite enough to elect conservatives to office.
The African American population is growing, but I don't think significantly enough to impact future elections - at least not for some time.
The more potentially problematic demographic - for the Republican party - is the Hispanic vote. However, like I said, there are a few reasons that I don't think this will ultimately be a big problem. One is that Even in 2004, the Hispanic vote was about 50/50. This time it was 2-1 for Obama, but it's hard to tell how much of that had to do with race. There are also other factors involved, such as the similar stance of McCain and Obama on immigration, and there are some other factors. In any case, Hispanics do have a very conservative segment to their demographic due to the heavy influence of Catholicism in Hispanic cultures. So I think it will remain around 50/50, or, at worst, 60-40.
One last point about demographics: conservatives have more kids than liberals. Those don't all translate into conservatives as they grow up, but the majority do, whether a small majority or a mid-sized one, or if we're lucky even a large one. Look, places like Kentucky and Texas stay solidly red regardless of how many kids they have, so obviously most of the ankle-biters are growing up conservative.
In any case, this ought to be a challenge to us as Catholics to have lots of kids and to raise them in the faith, as well as to our pastors to shepard us and our children well. Ultimately, that's the solution.
God bless!

Jeb,
Karl Rove did not try to offer blacks and hispanics low-rate mortgages... that's just way out there, so I'd be somewhat careful with information from whomever you heard that from. I don't even know how one could argue that Karl Rove would have attempted to do that.... There's just no faculty for someone in his position to do so, and in fact President Bush in 2005 fought to more rigidly regulate lending and to eliminate many of those sorts of loans. The problems with low-rate mortgages are the result of a combination of predatory lending practices and left-leaning laws (like the Community Reinvestment Act) which force banks to provide loans to many persons who they would ordinarily consider to be a bad risk.
So far as the demographics are concerned, let me say this. The youth vote doesn't really matter. It's always favored the left, and it probably always will, and older folks have always favored the right slightly and probably always will. It's just a function of the same principles that make 20 year old promiscuous pot-smokers grow up to be parents teaching their kids to wait for marriage and don't do drugs. As our society becomes more secular, certainly this conversion is more infrequent, but its still quite enough to elect conservatives to office.
The African American population is growing, but I don't think significantly enough to impact future elections - at least not for some time.
The more potentially problematic demographic - for the Republican party - is the Hispanic vote. However, like I said, there are a few reasons that I don't think this will ultimately be a big problem. One is that Even in 2004, the Hispanic vote was about 50/50. This time it was 2-1 for Obama, but it's hard to tell how much of that had to do with race. There are also other factors involved, such as the similar stance of McCain and Obama on immigration, and there are some other factors. In any case, Hispanics do have a very conservative segment to their demographic due to the heavy influence of Catholicism in Hispanic cultures. So I think it will remain around 50/50, or, at worst, 60-40.
One last point about demographics: conservatives have more kids than liberals. Those don't all translate into conservatives as they grow up, but the majority do, whether a small majority or a mid-sized one, or if we're lucky even a large one. Look, places like Kentucky and Texas stay solidly red regardless of how many kids they have, so obviously most of the ankle-biters are growing up conservative.
In any case, this ought to be a challenge to us as Catholics to have lots of kids and to raise them in the faith, as well as to our pastors to shepard us and our children well. Ultimately, that's the solution.
God bless!

Er, "veto" FOCA, that is.

Beastly, so McCain's actual voting record and his pro-life rating count for nothing? If we can't be sure he means what he says, look at what he does. You can be sure he'd vote FOCA -- and overriding a veto takes a 2/3's majority. The Democrats have a majority, but it's not a veto-proof majority.
But no matter now. Now all we can do is hope for change (yes, we can), and pray ever more intensely, and lobby Congress not to pass FOCA. Because if they pass FOCA, Obama will sign it, and then say goodbye to Catholic religious freedom and Catholic health care.

Jeb said:
"Compared to where we were four, eight, sixteen or thirty-two years ago, the bishops' outspokenness in this election is hugely encouraging."
AUTUMN
BLOOD
Fall fall
Fall the leaves
As the blood-red Autumn
Sighs and grieves
For in the gentle
Blood-fed womb
Leaves are crushed
An Autumn tomb
“And the Word made Flesh”
For “excommunication”
But flesh wouldn’t say…
So exoneration.
Nor did the flesh demand
Or articulate
Only “morally-bankrupt”
Not “excommunicate!”
So fall fall
Fall the leaves
The blood-red Autumn
Sighs and grieves
In the land of the blind
One-eyed man’s king
But on his head
Autumn blood will cling!

If Catholics had voted as they should have, McCain would be our next president. All our priests had to say was that under penalty of grave sin Catholics could not support or vote for candidates who advocated intrinsic evil. Abortion is intrinsic evil. Therefore, Catholics under penalty of grave sin may not support or vote for a candidate who advocated abortion. We had a long letter written by Cardinal Ragali, and I can't tell you what he wanted us to do. Our pastor had an item in the bulletin about the Freedom of Choice Act, requesting that we call our elected officials and express opposition. However, he didn't bother to tell us that Obama supported it and that McCain opposed it. When I went to my polling place, there were three girls in their Catholic High School uniforms handing our Obama ballots. When I told them that they shouldn't be going to a Catholic school if they were supporting a candidate who not only supported abortion, but late term abortion and even infanticide, they looked at me with cow-like eyes and did not respond. So much for Catholic Education. By the looks of attendance at my Church, it is constantly losing membership. Maybe it's time for the Church to realize that the same old readings and homilies are not getting the job done. People like churches that stand for something, and we are not getting the job done. Even our local Prolife organization but out a letter equating abortion with racism. Since people see racism even where it doesn't exist, I don't think that was helpful in defeating the most proabortion candidate ever for president. It's time for the Catholic Church to get off its Pro-Democrat party position and to pay more attention to important moral issues.

Shane,
You write: "The numbers on those particular demographics aren't really problematic at all for Republicans."
But the problem is that this block is growing as a percentage of the American electorate thanks (in large part) to immigration polices.
Do you seriously maintain that part of the problem that Republicans are now having in Virginia is unrelated to a massive infux of immigrants into Northern Virginia?
Even middle class Blacks and Hispanics vote largely Democratic so I don't see how the Republicans can attract their votes without becoming Democrats. I don't know what the numbers are for Hispanics, but 2/3 of the Blacks who are middle class work for the government.
Karl Rove tried to get more Blacks and Hispanics into the Republican party by offering low-rate mortages, and look where that got us.

Jeb Protestant made a post that suggests the changes in race demographics could doom the existent Republican Party.
I counter that the Republican Party needs to find a way bring more Hispanics and Blacks on board. That nearly all minority groups in this country vote for the Democrats is troubling and suggests the Republican Party needs to do more to address the concerns and needs of these groups.
It is similar to my Democrat friends who are bothered that the military universally rejects their party in elections. They feel terrible that they aren't representing such an important demographic in our county. Republican should be introspective and figure out why they have so little appeal to non-whites.
I don't want the Republican Party of the future to be an all-white party. It will be interesting to see the impact of Governor Jindal as he becomes more of a national figure for the Republican Party.

SDG,
Perhaps I do McCain a disservice. I just can't think that the abortion situation could really be any worse in this country than it already is, short of forcing it on unwilling mothers. I question whether McCain would actually veto the FOCA, but even if he did, wouldn't our new Democratic Congress override it? I also think his opposition to abortion is a paper tiger, that even if he had his way he would prevent nary an abortion, but would only add an extra page to each Planned Parenthood patient file.
But... maybe I'm wrong. The bulk of the voting public seems to disagree with me. (Although not everyone- I have spoken with Catholics who felt they could vote for Obama only because they didn't believe a word McCain said about abortion. Such is the weight of the word of one of the Keating Five, whose stance on issues seems to depend more on expedience than on principle.)
As for Obama on war, I'm with you in hoping. I'm also hoping his presidency won't mean the kind of setback for the pro-life cause that many in this combox are afraid of.

Beastly, I'm not sure we need to agree to disagree on much -- I have no brief for Obama's foreign policy, other than "Let's wait and see what he actually does" -- but on McCain and FOCA I do think you do him an injustice. His pro-life voting record on abortion and his commitments in this election warrant more confidence than that.

Shane,
I still maintain that the best way to draw votes from racial minorities is to run a socially conservative candidate who doesn't look like he wants to drop bombs on foreigners. The Republican party didn't really give us that option. But if they had - if they had run say someone like Paul or Baldwin or Keyes and actually given him screen time in the debates - he would have taken much larger chunks of the black and Latino votes. And I wonder how many votes they would have lost as a result? My guess is not many. They certainly wouldn't have lost mine.
Both mainstream parties have spent the last couple of decades playing lookalike in an effort to compete for the "undecided" vote. The Democrats won this one by abandoning that strategy. The question is whether the Republicans are going to abandon that strategy next time (and perhaps run someone like Sarah Palin) or whether conservative voters stop dancing the Hegelian mambo with them and pick another partner.

SDG,
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. The two major parties have spent the last couple of decades proving to me that they do business along the same lines. I can't see Obama being any less hawkish than McCain, despite his noises about Iraq. He's been pretty plain as to his intentions re Pakistan and Iran in any event. As for the FOCA and other such legislation, we can argue till the cows come home about whether McCain would have blocked it, but I think we know our friend the maverick well enough to guess that his presidency would have seen him reaching across the aisle to sign it all too.
I do think the main good thing to come out of an Obama presidency will be international goodwill. That's some political capital I hope he makes good use of. I also hope he keeps on the speechwriters he's been using; some of them are not bad.

Although the future seems bleak for the unborn, is it really all that bad? I wasn't politically aware (too young) when Roe v. Wade occurred, but I would have to imagine it felt all the more crushing then.

Thank you, SDG. I like your attitude to this whole situation.

Amen, SDG. Sts. Peter and Paul both wrote that Christians were to respect the Emperor (Nero!).

Jonathan Prejean: Now, wouldn't it be fun if a certain Catholic vice-president-elect were ordered to recant his position on abortion and "Pope John XXIII Catholicism" on pain of excommunication? THAT would get some headlines.

labrialumn: Jonathan, that would be a great gift to the ACLU, which is already suing the Catholic Church for teaching that voting for a pro-abort is a mortal sin.

So the heck what, labri? What better time and place to begin fighting back for religious liberty?

Landrew: Thanks for trying to put a positive spin on things. But the fact is TWO THIRDS of the US bishops were basically silent on the issue. The USCCB published a long-winded, rambling reflection on voting which dressed up the old seamless garment argument in new rags. What do you expect from the bunch that gave a million dollars to ACORN. Take a look at the numbers at the link in the post. 45% of Catholics who attended Mass weekly voted for Obama.

I'm not saying things aren't bad. I'm saying things (some things) are moving in the right direction.

Invincible: How could I or my bishop have done a good job when we only did the least amount required? I think I better hurry-up, dig up my talent and do something before He gets back!

"We are only unprofitable servants" is a biblical motif. So is "Well done, good and faithful servant," as well as "Wicked, lazy servant!" I leave final judgment to the one qualified to render it. The scope of my comments here is much more limited.

In America, Christ is our King, we are His vice-gerants, and the civil government are our servants. There is no such thing as insubordination to ones' servants.

This is a false dichotomy and a sub-Christian error that should be rejected by every true Christian and every true American.
Christ is our King; he is also, by his own word, our servant. The Pope is the earthly head of all Catholics; he is also our servant, the servus servorum Dei. I am the head of my household; I am also the servant of my family.
The president is our servant; he is also our chief executive. Insubordination to our servant-authorities, whether Christ, popes, patres familias, or presidents, is certainly a real error and a real temptation.

SDG:
How could I or my bishop have done a good job when we only did the least amount required?
I think I better hurry-up, dig up my talent and do something before He gets back!

A good homily on the parable of the Sheep and the Goats might be a good place to start. ("Whatsoever you do...").

Labrialumn, don't blame just the "Marxist sisters" when a lot of priests in this area preach on that regularly.
Same general area, I had an encounter with a Catholic who attended regularly who "wasn't going to change her politics just for religious conviction."
And I just had a liberal friend encourage me to "put issues aside" in order to support BO. Via the Anchoress, I found a great quote on
http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2008/11/senator-mcc...
Ourconflicts are based on deep ideological differences that we won't ignore, but we can disagree without being ugly. Maybe Republicans can show the Democrats how to be a loyal opposition party without the total demonization that so many liberals have shown to prominent Republicans."

SDG:
Thanks for trying to put a positive spin on things. But the fact is TWO THIRDS of the US bishops were basically silent on the issue. The USCCB published a long-winded, rambling reflection on voting which dressed up the old seamless garment argument in new rags. What do you expect from the bunch that gave a million dollars to ACORN.
Take a look at the numbers at the link in the post. 45% of Catholics who attended Mass weekly voted for Obama.
FORTY FIVE voted for someone who voted to let living babies outside the womb die.
FORTY FIVE PERCENT voted for a pro-abortion candidate.
These are people who say they go to Mass every week.
We need to do some serious catechesis in our parishes before we can hope to influence the political landscape.

Jonathan, that would be a great gift to the ACLU, which is already suing the Catholic Church for teaching that voting for a pro-abort is a mortal sin.
The Church; both Catholic and Evangelical, will be suppressed. Free speech on the airwaves and internet will be suppressed.
Opposition to abortion and the black mass of homosexual marriage will be 'hate crimes', so the GOP will not be able to run against htem.

In America, Christ is our King, we are His vice-gerants, and the civil government are our servants. There is no such thing as insubordination to ones' servants.

As you already mentioned - think about what an opportunity this was to put more pressure on bad catholic politicians and for our Bishops to stand up for our faith.
Now, wouldn't it be fun if a certain Catholic vice-president-elect were ordered to recant his position on abortion and "Pope John XXIII Catholicism" on pain of excommunication? THAT would get some headlines.

Unfortunately I know deeply devout Catholics who see themselves faithful to the Magisterium, who voted for BHO because the local Marxist sisters taught them that 'social justice' is a proportionate consideration to life.

I believe that God will bring great good from this entire process. As you already mentioned - think about what an opportunity this was to put more pressure on bad catholic politicians and for our Bishops to stand up for our faith. These are great steps towards evangelizing the flock and I'm proud of most of our leadership during this time. I think it gives great hope.
And I also believe history will look back at this moment in a much better light in the future and be able to see the irony of the Obama presidency. More here on that if anyone is interested: http://tinyurl.com/5c242a
God bless America!

I know it's been commented on above, but 1/3d of the Bishops?
That's just not going to cut it. It needs to be a majority of them. Particularly as most Hispanics are at least nominally Catholic, and it's clearly the case that either political party must appeal to their interest, at least as long as they remain a distinct culture (in a way, they're where the Irish and Italians were 80 years ago, and I doubt they'll be regarded as a "minority" some decades from now).
Most Catholic Churches make an interest to accommodate Hispanics as a religious body. But that also means that they have duties to their faith. They cannot perhaps exercise them the same way more established groups can, but when they vote they can at least vote for candidates not hostile to their faith. The Church needs to make sure that we do not repeat the same error that was made with the Irish Americans and Kennedy, and allow a separation from our public and private morality to ease the conscious of voting for morally objectionable positions.
"-My new home state (Colorado) went for Obama by eight points. This is a huge change from the Colorado I knew a decade ago."
Well, I live next to that state and I'm familiar with it's politics for decades. The thought that Colorado was ever a conservative state is complete fantasy, albeit a fantasy emphasized by the news media. Colorado has always exhibited a very strong liberal tendency, and had very liberal politicians, for decades. The last decade was an exception to that rule.
As to what we can all do, by the way. We can, and should pray. For our country in a particular. But for President Elect Obama as well.

Jeb,
The numbers on those particular demographics aren't really problematic at all for Republicans. This time round, first time voters made up 11% of the electorate - down 5 points from 2004. Voters 24 or under made up 10%, and voters 29 or under made up 18% of the electorate. That's up a single point from 2004, in a year when you got as much youth vote as you are ever going to get. I don't think anyone of any political leaning thinks its possible to electrify and involve the youth more than Senator Obama did this year, and he could get only 1% more out of them. The youth, this year as in all years, simply did not show up.
In terms of race, you had 95% of blacks voting for Obama this time round, up 7 points from 2004, and 66% of Hispanics, which may have been one of the biggest gains, up 13 points from 2004. The democrats are already getting about as much of the minority vote as they're going to get. They can't really get any more blacks. They can gain in Hispanics, but it's questionable if they will. Both groups tend to be somewhat politically active historically, and one would certainly be on extremely safe ground to conclude that the black turnout was as high as it could possibly get this time round as well.
The point is that in the 2008 election, when everything that could possibly go right for the Democrats went right, and everything that could go wrong, and then some, went wrong for the Republicans, and the Democrats got about as good a demographic as they possibly can, and with all the other points I made - including most importantly, I believe, the Republican being outspent by $600 million - the Democrats won by 5 points.
Do you think if you had given John McCain an extra $600 million that he have won? Now what happens if you take a good Republican candidate and give him equal funds. I think the future is bright.
Just not for the unborn.

"And it ain't over as long as we draw breath. "
Amen.
Thank you, dear bishops, for your stand. It has a light in the darkness. We go forward in union with you.
One thought: Obama, on stage last night, looked like a loser. He didn't even smile. I think he knows that now, as opposed to Monday, when he was able to wear a reflective rhetorical mask into which others placed their own values, concrete actions will be taken by him and he will stand philosophically naked before the public. This dude isn't going to be POTUS for eight years. Not if he does what he wants to.

This may mark the beginning of persecutions and unspeakable evils, but my suspicion is that Obama will behave more or less as McCain would have. We'll see more movement towards a North American Union, more international aggression against third-world nations, zero progress on abortion, and more steady creep towards American socialism.

Oh, I think it's worse than that. "Zero progress" is far too optimistic -- that's what we could have expected from McCain (though we could have hoped for better and might even have gotten better). As it is, we're going into deep, deep losses on abortion. And I suspect that we'll progress much more quickly toward American socialism under Obama than we would have under McCain.
OTOH, it's possible, perhaps even likely, that Obama will be less hawkish toward third-world countries. That could be a good thing.
Perception-wise, at least, Obama is probably better poised, at least momentarily, to repair the damage Bush has done to our relations with the rest of the world. This is not because McCain wouldn't have done as good a job or better, but because the world is currently more receptive to Obama than it would have been to McCain.
Obama is a smart guy and will probably make some sensible leadership decisions. The GOP will have to do some deep soul-searching and could emerge the better for it. The bishops and the American Church can and should be better organized and better equipped to deal with the next election.
This outcome is a disaster, but there are reasons for hope as well.

To quote Michelle Malkin's blog (secular conservative):
What do we do now? We do what we’ve always done.
-We stand up for our principles, as we always have — through Democrat administrations and Republican administrations, in bear markets or bull markets, in peacetime and wartime.
-We stay positive and focused.
-We keep the faith.
-We do not apologize for our beliefs. We do not re-brand them, re-form them, or relinquish them. We defend them.
-We pay respect to the office of the presidency. We count our blessings and recommit ourselves to our constitutional republic.
-We gird our loins, to borrow a phrase from our Vice President-elect.
-We lock and load our ideological ammunition.
-We fight.

Shane,
I'd like to see more info on the youth vote, but the demographic trend spells bad news for the republicans. I don't see any way of substantially increasing their percentage of the black/hispanic voting block.

A few thoughts on the election results:
-My new home state (Colorado) went for Obama by eight points. This is a huge change from the Colorado I knew a decade ago. It also means that even if all of Colorado's quixotic voters (1% of the popular vote) had gone over to McCain, Obama would still have walked away with Colorado's electoral votes. If, on the other hand, all the nose-holding McCain voters had instead voted quixotic, Obama would still have won the electoral votes, but we might be looking at a credible third party here next time around. Instead, we are looking at likely getting more of the same from the Republican party: another McCain or another Bush running against the incumbent Obama.
-It seems to me that Obama won because his supporters were excited about him. The Democratic party ran their most exciting candidate, and the Republican party found the most tepid politics-as-usual candidate they could. Would Ron Paul have had a better chance against Obama? I don't know. At least a sagging economy wouldn't have hurt him as much as it did McCain. Oh, and the debates might have had some substance as well.
-Obama will be our president this coming January. This may mark the beginning of persecutions and unspeakable evils, but my suspicion is that Obama will behave more or less as McCain would have. We'll see more movement towards a North American Union, more international aggression against third-world nations, zero progress on abortion, and more steady creep towards American socialism. In any case, we will have to support him in his just policies and oppose him in the unjust, just as we would have done if McCain had been elected.
-My former home state (California) shows Obama beating McCain by 24 points. The 2% of quixotic voters can hardly be held accountable for Obama taking those electoral votes either. Interestingly, Prop 8 seems to be passing (although the results are not solid yet) despite the amount of money dumped into the No On 8 campaign. California has a solid conservative streak; it just hasn't been tapped by the Republican party.
-Speaking of propositions, amendments, and referenda, Coloradans have solidly rejected amendment 48, which would have defined personhood in the state constitution. This is disappointing to me, but as I suspect the amendment would have been overruled at the federal level, it was little more than a symbolic gesture in any case.
-Whether or not Prop 8 passes in California, the SCOTUS will likely be hearing a case on same-sex marriage in the next year or two. This should be interesting.
-I am trying (with very limited success) to stop complaining so much about those in power. I think there's a fine line between speaking truth to power and being insubordinate to legitimate authority. (CCC 2234 - 2243) I am trying to offer prayers for our leaders rather than gripes about them. My thanks to all of you who have been praying for our country.

"Never give up; it ain't over till it's over." And it ain't over as long as we draw breath.

Jeb, actually there may be a good deal of political hope for the Republicans for a few reasons. One is that the youth simply do not vote. With this success, chances are they will turn out in far smaller numbers the next time.
Second, most red states will be gaining congress seats and electoral votes from the 2010 census, while most blue states will be losing them.
Third is this fact. This year, everything that could possibly go against the Republicans did so. You had:
- An awful candidate in John McCain - one of the worst in history. He was awful for so many reasons, perhaps number one of which is my second point:
- Most candidates come in with 40% of the vote secured and have to fight for the 10-15% of independents. McCain came in essentially without a base.
- The most unpopular president in history, a Republican
- The economy tanking under perceived Republican rule
- A man who was tremendously charismatic, overwhelmingly popular, and plausibly electable as the first black president
- The Republican candidate being outspent by $600 million dollars
- A mainstream media which was in the tank for the democratic candidate like nothing in all of history
...and the Republican lost by about 5%. 5%!!!
No, I think the future may be very bright for Republicans, especially given the unmitigated disaster I expect the nation to be 4 years from now. Unfortunately - to put it mildly - none of that will do any good for the pro-life movement.