rhode island?

[Smash255]

Bush made improvements in his performance in 2004 over 2000 in nearly all the liberal states that he lost by large margins, even Massachusetts.  In Connecticut, he went from 38% of the vote in 2000 to 44% in 2004.

Of course, it was nowhere near enough for him to carry any of those states.  I don't think it was anything like a trend.  I think 2004 was simply less of a generic election than 2000.  2000 was a straight generic election, since neither candidate was an incumbent, while 2004 was a referendum on Bush.  Incumbency has certain advantages, even in politically unfriendly territory.

I agree in a 50/50 type election in 2008, you will probably go back to see Rhode Island with a close to 30 pt victory for the Dems

[Smash255]

Catholic swing driven by wedge issues I'd guess.  Don't see a trend at all.

That's funny that the Catholics are turning right about now, cuz Rhode Island historically, since the time it was a small colony was known for being a safe haven when Catholics weren't persecuted for not having Protestant beliefs.  Considering traditionally Protestants prefer Republicans and Catholics prefer Democrats, it is interestinng to see this change.

As long as people vote on social issues, Catholics will vote for the Republican, that is unless the Democrats turn populist on us.

Not really, their are many Catholics that are socially liberal (myself included).  Some of the most socially liberal states in the country (R,.I, Mass, Vermont & NY especially the downstate region) are heavily Catholic

[Smash255]

Socially liberal Catholics are in the minority though, just like socially liberal protestants.  The Catholic vote swinging to Bush in New England was masked by Kerry's regional advantage.

Not really.  Most of my friends are Catholic and the vast majority of them are socially liberal, granted most are in their early to mid 20's, but its still true nonetheless

[Smash255]

Socially liberal Catholics are in the minority though, just like socially liberal protestants.  The Catholic vote swinging to Bush in New England was masked by Kerry's regional advantage.

Not really.  Most of my friends are Catholic and the vast majority of them are socially liberal, granted most are in their early to mid 20's, but its still true nonetheless

Actual Catholics.  CINO's, like your friends, may be socially liberal.

I AM an actual Catholic.  Just because I am socially liberal and don't agree with the church on issues such as abortion & birth control doesn't mean I'm NOT an actual Catholic.  The Catholic Church is also against the Death Penalty.  By a comment like that I assume your Catholic as well and I know your for the Death Penalty.  So by your idiotic generalzations that must mean your a CINO also

[Smash255]

One problem with this argument about Catholics: Protestants swung to Bush in RI and Catholics stayed at a relatively similar level. This was very unlike the states adjacent to it, but you can see for yourself: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Great link.  It was kind of interesting to see how poorly Bush performed among Catholics in Rhode Island, even compared to Massachusetts and particularly Connecticut.

Well I always said Connecticut was superior.   Right now, unfortunately, politically it's just the best of a bad bunch.

One interesting thing about CT is the vote by income.  The $75k-100k went to Bush +6, the 150k-200k went to Bush by 28, but  in between those two was the 100k-150k which went to Kerry by 37