The Log Cabin Republicans announced recently (NY Times) that they will be withholding their endorsement for President Bush this election.





Bush has decided to make the issue of gay marriage a wedge issue, but I don't think he intended to lose votes from his own party in doing so.

Questions for debate:
1. Given the numbers of gay men and lesbians that voted for Bush in 2000 according to Mr. Guerriero, could this have a significant impact on the election?

2. What if any response can we expect from the Bush/Cheny campaign?

1. Given the numbers of gay men and lesbians that voted for Bush in 2000 according to Mr. Guerriero, could this have a significant impact on the election?

Given that this will likely be another 2000-style election, any shift in the electorate is significant. I feel pretty confident that the social conservatives are saying good riddance. Who knows, maybe the fiscal conservatives will withdraw support as well.

2. What if any response can we expect from the Bush/Cheny campaign?

Colin Powell will be trotted out yet again to talk about the Republican party's big tent.

Possibly, if this race lives up to the CW and is the squeaker everyone seems to think it'll be. If I were Bush, I'd hate to alienate even a small fraction of my electoral base.



If any response at all, probably some typical mumbo-jumbo about the "Big Tent" that everyone's welcome in and how differences need to be put aside, etc. Also, knowing Rove, et al, probably some push-polling asking voters whether or not the fact that Kerry is a promiscuous homosexual will affect their opinion...

No it will not have any effect imo. Because they did not decide to vote for kerry either...they are still conservative. Just not Bush. I am not sure what Kerry's stance is on gay marriage...i believe he feels it to be a state issue, but with him who knows?

If Bush catered to this small group he would be alienating his core base. The religious right and hardcore conservatives are the main group of people in the Bush camp. So it was the much lesser of two evils. Either you cater to homosexuals and gain their minimal support...or you hurt your chances with conservatives across the country and their overwhelming support. What would you do?

It's not an either or situation. The LCR endorsed Bush in 2000 and Dole in 1996. Neither of those campaigns, if memory serves, came anywhere near "catering" to the homosexual agenda. The fact is, Bush and Co. used gay marriage as a wedge and the LCRs have decided to bite the hand that feeds. This will cost him votes, although how many and how importantly, it's hard to say. The PR implications of this and potential spin opportunity for the Dems, however, looms larger than the sheer number of votes lost.

I think some are overestimating the effect an endorsement has.

That given, Bush's stance on gay marriage will probably hurt him among LCRs, but it is hard to say by how much. Gay marriage is not the only issue, even for gays.

The Log Cabin Republicans did not endorse Kerry, nor would they ever, in my opinion. I doubt the lack of endorsement itself will have much of an effect.

As a few others have said, I don't think this translates to Kerry votes. LCR's are still supportive of the President in other areas. Although, if those voters decide to abstain or stay home, I think it could have an impact in general. I don't expect any response from the Bush-Cheney campaign to try and win the endorsement back, in their mind the impact is negligible at best and would be disingenous to say the least.

Doc

Doc you beat me to it. I doubt that many of the log cabin Republicans would vote for Kerry (well they might since he is certainly more of a fiscal conservative than Bush is), the more likely scenario is that they'll abstain from voting. In tight races like Florida, if 45,000 people that would have voted for Bush stay home and don't vote that will have a pretty large impact on the election. If even a fraction of those people stay home it could have an impact, the election was only won by 500 or so votes last time.

If the estimates of 1 million or so LCR's are correct, you could see this play into several battleground state elections.


I think you are correct Amlord, it is probably too soon to tell. However, the fact that this group has revoked their endorsement is fairly significant since they have disagreed with parts of the republican party for almost a decade and have never taken that step. I know that if I were a member of that group, I'd have a pretty hard time voting for a president that was taking a hard line against my personal situation. It might not make me vote for the other guy, but it might make me sit the election out.

My point was that if you have a problem with the Republicans over gay rights, the stance of the LCR (assuming you are a member) is fairly unlikely to change your vote.

Either it is important enough to you that you were not going to vote for Bush in the first place or other issues are more important and the loss of the endorsement means nothing.

I doubt the decision of the group's leadership swings a heck of a lot of votes, since Bush's stance on this issue has not changed. Had there been some radical change in Bush's stance, where individual members may not take the time to parse the meaning of said change, then the endorsement of the group would mean more.

I don't think the endorsement itself will swing votes, I think it is more of a symbolic thing.

The point is, there was a significant amount of gay americans that voted for Bush in 2000 (and about 45k in Florida alone) and now one of the more visible groups has come out against Bush because of his position on gay marriage. So while their condemnation alone probably won't do much, I think it is suggestive of what many of the log cabin republican voters may be thinking. I don't think Bush counted on his stance alienating members of his own party, but it appears that it has.

Therefore, I think you have to be pretty confident you are going to have a landslide victory if all of a sudden you are going to be missing close to 1 million votes that you counted on (or even a fraction of that number). I personally don't think it is going to be a landslide, it'll be just as close as it was in 2000. Therefore something like this is very significant, and it could help to decide the election.

UPDATE:

Abe Lincoln Black Republican Caucus has decide to support Bush.

Does this mean that the Gay vote is spilt when it comes to Bush?

I don't know the size of the LCR group. If the LCR's vote with their group (and groups tend to do so to some degree), and the number of LCR members in a particular state are significant then yes, the impact could be significant. It depends on the numbers, if anyone has any, please post them.



Hah... response? What would you expect? If anything, I bet Bush would deny their existence, or pretend not to know what Log Cabin Republican meant... because he appears that stupid publicly and the public believes that he is just a regular texas cowpoke. Or since Bush isn't likely to tackle the "lack-of-gay-endorsement-for-anti-gay-candidate" issue, they'll send (as above) a representitive of the party to babble about the "Big Tent" in the GOP, *inflammatory reference removed*

Not especially. Gay rights come after foreign and fiscal policies.



Cheney:

"I support the rights of gays. I know gays. I have gay friends, and my daughter is gay. I just wouldn't let her marry one."

For most people, yes of course they do. But Guerriero was talking about voters which happen to be gay. Given that they know what Bush's goal is (i.e. making sure they don't have any status, recognition or rights) I think you'll find they'll either be voting for Kerry or staying home this year.