Gay Marriage and the Winning of ElectionsBack in February I suggested that whatever advantage Bush would enjoy by having Nader on the ballot in thirty or so states "was entirely destroyed by Bush's feckless decision to support the anti-gay marriage ammendment to the American constitution."
My suspicion is that, when it comes to voting, even Andrew Sullivan will trade off his marriage rights against the clarity of strategic vision Bush represents. But it will be a damned close run thing and utterly unnecessary.
At Oxblog, Josh Chafetz writes about his own undecided state,
By and large, I prefer Kerry on domestic issues. It's not just gay marriage, although I do consider that an incredibly important domestic issue. I also find Kerry's insistence on a balanced budget reassuring, and, as Gregg Easterbrook points out in the new TNR, Kerry has proposed a sensible and much-needed energy policy. More than any specific policy, though, I simply don't trust the Bush Administration. As I mentioned below, it has been distressingly reluctant to admit to any mistakes. As I've written before, it is far too much in love with secrecy. And, as many have pointed out, it has politicized processes and fudged numbers in unprecedented ways. None of these present an idea of government with which I am comfortable. The reason I am still undecided is simply that, as I said above, I find Bush's strategic vision for foreign policy much more compelling than Kerry's (if Kerry can be said to have a strategic vision). If Kerry sufficiently reassures me on foreign policy, I will vote for him.Damned close run.