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….

Bush and Rove didn’t orchestrate anti-gay referenda in important swing states in 2004 because it would be ineffectual

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.