I guess trying to paint Obama as the pro-life candidate didn’t quite work. Maybe if wasn’t as widely known that he supported infanticide (for babies who survived an abortion), he might have gotten away with it. I guess Soros wasted his money.

“There are three ways Democrats could approach these voters,” said Green. “Show respect, and certainly Obama has done that. The second thing is to change policy, and certainly Obama has not done that. The other way is mobilization. And there is some evidence they tried to reach out to these groups.”
But Green added, “What we could be seeing is that comfort and campaigning only go so far, and that ultimately it’s substance that matters to these voters.”

Of course this is still only a poll, we’ll have to wait for the exit polls to see what the breakdown turned out to be.
And then there’s this:

“There are three ways Democrats could approach these voters,” said Green. “Show respect, and certainly Obama has done that. The second thing is to change policy, and certainly Obama has not done that. The other way is mobilization. And there is some evidence they tried to reach out to these groups.”
But Green added, “What we could be seeing is that comfort and campaigning only go so far, and that ultimately it’s substance that matters to these voters.”

Um…if Obama doesn’t support our issue, why would we vote for him? Do they think that being nice to us and talking to us is the way to get us to vote for them? Why is it surprising that substance would matter to us? It’s just plain silly for anyone to think that Christians would turn our back on the oppression of the unborn just because a politician spent more time reaching out to us, we aren’t just some voting bloc that can be swayed (well, we shouldn’t be anyway).