Did Gay Issues Help Sink Hoffman?
Active in Virginia politics when living in Arlington in the 1990s, I reached a conclusion about most suburban “swing” voters, they are neither pro-gay nor anti-gay, but are rather anti-anti-gay, that is, they really don’t like candidates who make opposition to gay issues the centerpiece of their campaigns. This applies even to voters who agree with the candidates on said issues.
I didn’t need to see the polls to know that Bob McDonnell was going to to well on Tuesday, I knew it from the e-mails I received and blog posts I read. My gay friends in the Commonwealth were voting Republican. It seemed that the gay Republican vote was a kind of barometer of electoral success. When, in the 1990s, gay Republicans embraced the GOP candidate, he won statewide. When they didn’t, he lost. The only two GOP statewide candidates to lose in the 1990s, Mike Farris and Oliver North were perceived as anti-gay.
Now, I realize that New York State’s 23rd Congressional District has different demographics than does the Commonwealth of Virginia, but maybe some of the voters have similar concerns. When we endorsed Doug Hoffman, I heard from a number of readers who said he had run an anti-gay campaign. I could find no evidence of that. (If I had, we would not have endorsed him.) Still, the perception persisted. If some voters in upstate New York thought as much, did they vote for Owens or stay at home because they didn’t want a representatives who emphasized gay issues?
Now, we know from the results in Maine as well as those in thirty other states where voters have considered the issue, that Americans reject gay marriage. But, that doesn’t make opposing gay marriage a winning issue, that is, if said opposition is the centerpiece of your campaign (or is perceived as such). If people think the GOP is the anti-gay marriage party, we lose. Americans may oppose gay marriage, but it is not high on most people’s list of priorities. They need to see us as the conservative reform party where our primary issue is, to paraphrase the Garden State’s Governor-elect, turning government “upside down.”
If they think Republicans prefer talking about the “evils” of gay marriage to putting together plans to reduce government spending, they’re not going to come out and vote for us. But, if as Governors-elect McDonnell and Christie, they put forward reform ideas that don’t involve tax increases, but do include regulatory relief, then they can win even in “blue” regions of the country.
11 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Dan, very well written, but I’m sorry, I must shoot holes through your theory:
The Washington Post, the bane of other Virginia Republicans like George Allen made Bob McDonnell’s social conservatism THE CENTER of the campaign, focusing on it relentlessly. And they featured very prominently his opposition to the gay agenda and gay marriage, with many headlines like this one:
Bob McDonnell, Culture Warrior
At 34, the GOP candidate for governor disapproved of fornicators, homosexuals and working women.
Indeed, I seem to remember you acknowledging something about McDonnell’s win in reference to the WaPo’s relentless campaign against him recently yourself.
So indeed, the opposite of your thesis is true, that Bob McDonnell won the biggest victory in Virginia GOP history when his position on social issues and gay marriage was very prominent in the campaign. Albeit not by him, but front and center nonetheless.
Comment by American Elephant — November 5, 2009 @ 4:59 pm - November 5, 2009
Were that it were true. I would like this to be the case, but I am reluctant to agree that it is.
I do agree, however, that many voters are anti-anti-gay, as you put it, and often those are the votes that can make the difference for Republicans. But AE is right that McDonnell’s social stances were a focus of the opposition. It is sadly impossible to tell if it made much difference that McDonnell himself didn’t focus on them and the social stuff was noise, or if it encouraged some base voters while not being strong enough to turn off the anti-anti-gay, or, if it were some combination, which had the dominant effect. My own biases make me inclined to think that voters perceived the social issue stuff as noise and it neither helped not hurt McDonnell, but really I’m guessing.
What we can say: McDonnell ran a successful campaign in Virginia that did not focus on “values issues” and even de-emphasized his social conservatism when it came up.
Comment by Alex in Denver — November 5, 2009 @ 5:17 pm - November 5, 2009
We can further say: When the voters are primarily concerned about jobs, highways, and taxes, the opposition doesn’t do itself any favors by trying to turn the race into a social issue fight. And that’s probably true regardless of who is “the opposition.”
Comment by Alex in Denver — November 5, 2009 @ 5:29 pm - November 5, 2009
Better one exposes a liberal/moderate Democrat masquerading as a liberal/moderate Republican before they arrive in Congress. Hoffman was a CATO-style libertarian and agreed with an open borders policy(cheap human capital). The Republican Party has been and always will be a minority liberal party without the conservatives and the independents. Unfortunately, the GOP has strayed from conservative principles and constitutional government.
Comment by RJLigier — November 5, 2009 @ 6:23 pm - November 5, 2009
I think you are being far too kind to the Republican base to say that they don’t care about gay issues as much as other they care for fiscal issues. Bush and Rove didn’t orchestrate anti-gay referenda in important swing states in 2004 because it would be ineffectual, you know.
Comment by DavyG — November 5, 2009 @ 8:29 pm - November 5, 2009
Davy, please provide evidence that Bush and Rove orchestrated the marriage referenda in swing states in 2004. Thanks.
I once did a blog post on the topic and despite myriad google searches, could find no evidence to back up that oft-repeated allegation. Maybe you have. Since you made the point, back it up or apologize for smearing these two men.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 5, 2009 @ 8:40 pm - November 5, 2009
Bush and Rove didn’t orchestrate anti-gay referenda in important swing states in 2004 because it would be ineffectual, you know.
And what referenda would those be, DavyG?
Because we certainly know that gay-sex liberals like yourself who support and endorse state and Federal constitutional amendments barring gay marriage aren’t saying THOSE are antigay; that would require you to state that you were endorsing and supporting antigay activities.
Or maybe you’re just a bigot and a hypocrite who attacks Republicans for allegedly doing that which you support your Obama and Obama Party doing, hm?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 5, 2009 @ 9:11 pm - November 5, 2009
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v20n2/ireland_gay_marriage.html
Comment by bob (aka boob) — November 5, 2009 @ 9:23 pm - November 5, 2009
And yet it was. Kerry polled some of his best numbers in States which had those referenda. So tons of Democrats voted for them. Imagine that.
Also remember that Kerry *opposed gay marriage*, just like Obama does now. Kerry emphasized on national TV that he and Bush had the “same position” on gay marriage.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 5, 2009 @ 9:41 pm - November 5, 2009
Impressions from having volunteered in NY-23:
1. Doug Hoffman is anti-gay-marriage. I believe he is anti-gay-civil unions (The Other McCain blog noted (w/o attritubtion or elaboration) that at some point he once supported gay civil unions.)
2. As the Conservative Party nominee, Hoffman never had (nor had to, nor created) an opportunity to prove that gays have a place in the conservative movement. Did he raise gay issues while campaigning? Did he comment on the vote in Maine, e.g.? Gay issues did not come up in my conversations with his staffers and volunteers.
3. The driving force behind his volunteers’ support (in the area I was in) was pro-limited government and anti-Obama Revolution a la 9/12, Don’t Tread On Me, etc. This made his campaign inherently and undeniably “national” – not local, not international.
4. OTOH, this did turn off some voters. Each side employed “robocalling”, and a couple of times, while calling prospective voters, we encountered registered GOP people who were frustrated at receiving *yet another* call.
In sum – and this will annoy some who have been enthused by Hoffman’s candidacy – many supporters have pinned hopes on the candidate that have more to do with wishful thinking and untested hopes than on real experience. Kind of like with Obama….
Comment by Jeremayakovka — November 6, 2009 @ 12:59 am - November 6, 2009
Therein lies the problem. The LGBT conservative community needs to separate privacy issues from conservative principles and constitutional government. Unfortunately, they and the Republican Establishment (Rockefeller Republicans)have as yet to demonstrate that ability. Until they can, the Republican Party will forever be a minority liberal party.
Comment by RJLigier — November 7, 2009 @ 8:55 pm - November 7, 2009