Why Catholics switched to Trump at the last minute

A survey from the Public Religion Research Institute and a Washington Post-ABC News poll, both released in August, showed the Democratic ticket leading Trump by more than 20 points among Catholics. Yet Election Day exit polls show Trump prevailing among Catholic voters by 52 to 45 percent.

This dramatic, stunning shift occurred after the third presidential debate on Oct. 19. That much is made evident by a PPRI/Brookings poll released that same day putting Hillary Clinton ahead of Trump by 57 to 33 percent.

What motivated Catholics to change their vote at the 11th hour? Were they simply part of an overall trend? Or are there unique, distinct features of the Catholic vote that call out for further study?

Dr. Jay Richards, a professor of business and economics at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., has some insight. The hiring of Kellyanne Conway, a committed Catholic, as Trump’s campaign manager marked a major turning point, he says. That’s when the campaign finally started to target Catholic voters.

Trump, who is Presbyterian, realized right from his campaign’s outset that he needed evangelical Christians on board, Richards explained. Trump even set up an Evangelical Executive Advisory Board. He also visited with evangelical Christians on the campuses of Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va., and at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va.

Richards is convinced that Trump’s pledge to repeal the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 amendment to the tax code that prohibits tax-exempt organizations from participating in political activities, was inspired by his robust conversations with evangelical leaders. The amendment named for then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson primarily targets churches with Christian conservatives.

But despite making headway with the evangelical vote, Trump initially failed to adopt a similar outreach effort to Catholics who did not want a continuation of President Obama’s policies, Richards says. Moreover, Trump’s rhetoric on immigration may have been “off-putting” to Catholics who are aware of Catechism’s teaching that says they should be welcoming of foreigners and immigrants.

“It was the tone, not the substance of his message on immigration that may have turned some Catholics off,” Richards says. “It’s fine to say that we need to fix the problems on the border and countries have a right to set limits. This doesn’t contradict Catholic doctrine, but the way Trump addressed this early on in the campaign I think did create some problems. I think his message on immigration has become more refined over time.”

Despite any lingering reservations they may have had about Trump, “orthodox Catholics,” which Richards defines as Catholics who attend mass on a regular basis, recognized that they had a huge stake in preventing Clinton from becoming president.

“Hillary had promised to continue the policies of Barack Obama, which meant trying to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for abortifacient drugs and to force bakers and florists into participating in activities that they do not approve of,” Richards says. “They also saw that with Donald they had a reasonably good chance of getting some solid Supreme Court picks. So, they voted for Donald Trump out of self-defense because they knew what the alternative would be.”

Up until the 1970s, Catholics had been a reliable Democratic voting bloc. But in the past three decades they have become more pliable, switching back and forth between the two major parties. Catholics make up almost 25 percent of the voting population, which means their vote can prove decisive if Catholics vote as a bloc.

In the most recent election cycles they voted twice for Obama. But in 2004, Catholics voted in favor of President George W. Bush over John Kerry, a Catholic. Bush’s margin of victory over Kerry among Catholics who attended church on a regular basis was even higher. This might suggest that practicing Catholics have a certain antagonism toward Catholic politicians who advocate policies at odds with church teachings.

Clinton selected Tim Kaine as her running mate in part because he was a lifelong Catholic who had done missionary work with Jesuits and could potentially appeal to Catholic voters who were up for grabs. But there is at least “anecdotal evidence” that the selection of Kaine ultimately backfired with Catholic voters, Richards says.

“Part of the problem for Democrats is that Hillary and her campaign played up the fact that Kaine was Catholic, but then we discover that he has a 100 percent rating on the Planned Parenthood Action Fund scorecard and that he has supported abortion and then argues that the church is going to change its views in certain areas. This just didn’t work with orthodox Catholics who care about these issues.”

The selection of Mike Pence as Trump’s running mate also helped with Catholic voters, Richards says. Pence is a strong social conservative. Although raised Catholic, Pence became an evangelical Christian who is fervently devoted to the pro-life cause.

“Pence just wiped the floor with Kaine in the debate,” Richards says. “It was absolutely decisive. What’s especially galling about Kaine is that he was pro-life and supported traditional marriage at one time. But his views changed once he had national aspirations for office. This means he knows what the truth is, but made a change for reasons of political expediency.”

That’s the irony. The candidate who is no longer part of the Catholic church is in fact taking a principled stand on behalf of church teachings against the candidate who postures and markets himself to voters as a Catholic.

But as impressive as Pence was, the coup de grace that ultimately secured the Catholic vote for the Republican ticket came in the third debate between Trump and Clinton. That’s when Trump went into detail about the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion in a way no other candidate had.

“Every Catholic I’ve talked to who watched the debate remembers that exchange between Trump and Clinton,” Richards says. “Trump just had this moment of clarity when he spoke viscerally and sincerely about the horrors of partial birth abortion in contrast to this robotic, ghoulish response from Hillary Clinton who was defending the practice. There was never greater contrast on this issue of abortion for Catholics than that. It was a clarifying moment.”

Kevin Mooney is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an investigative reporter in Washington, D.C. who writes for several national publications. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.