FMA, Part III

FMA, Part III - Jay Reding commented on my post from yesterday

In 2000, 2 million evangelicals stayed home on Election Day. That margin would have been enough for Bush to have easily captured the popular vote and would have cemented his lead in key states. With 20% of the electorate self-described evangelicals, this is a key voting bloc.

If Bush captures a majority of the evangelical vote, he will be reelected. The social conservative base of the GOP may be waning in direct influence and may be far more moderate now than in the past, but they still count for a lot.

Y'see, while I'm personally ambivalent about the FMA, this is what I'm wondering about; is this gambit more sly politics than plan for policy?

I like that idea better.

Bush's biggest achievement during the 2000 primary season was the neutralizaation of Pat Buchanan and his ultra-conservative wing of the party; when Buchanan left and took his (few) followers with him (briefly), he took the backbone of the hard-right with him. It was a safe bet; losing them wasn't like losing voters in the middle who would have voted for Gore - can you imagine a Buchanan supporter (at least, an informed one) switching to the Dems in 2000?

As Jay noted - many of them sat the election out. If Bush can get them to the polls, it's good news for him.

I suspect the FMA will serve its purpose...:

• Get out the evangelicals
• Mobilize the part of the base concerned more with judicial hyperactivity than with either evangelism or gay rights
• Force Kerry and/or Edwards to pick a position - one that neither (especially Kerry) can afford to take...

...and then go away once the election is over.

I don't think it's merely as cynical as "just good politics" - but it is good politics, all the same.

In the comments section of yesterday's post, Jeff Fecke noted that polls show support of the FMA to be lagging behind opposition. Let's leave aside questions of polling methodology and context for a moment (which I'm loathe to do - I do this sort of thing for a living); I seriously doubt the issue will be about the FMA by the time it actually gets to the people, especially the people the Administration is aiming for with this proposal. It'll be about curbing the runaway bench and defining what marriage is - as far as Joe NASCARDad is concerned, anyway.

And that's the part that really matters.

Posted by Mitch at February 26, 2004 05:02 AM