Odds of an anti-SSM Democrat winning any primary? Odds of a pro-SSM Republican?

[Nichlemn]

In the former, if Hillary doesn't run or is seriously weakened for some reason, I could see someone like Joe Manchin running and winning a number of Appalachian or Southern states, and possibly a few random states through vote splitting. He'd struggle mightily in a 1 on 1 nationwide race, but I could see him doing it for publicity or king-making purposes.

Despite the fact that there are about as many pro-SSM Republican voters as anti-SSM Democrats, the greater homogeneity of the Republican primary electorate means I can't really see a serious candidate for it.

[BM]

0% for both.

Bigotry is a requirement for too many Republican voters, and here they are complaining that I said I'd want my candidate to have a college degree.

[© tweed]

0% / 0%.  it's the classic wedge issue with near-zero material consequences.

[Stranger in a strange land]

0% for both. Gay issues would be a deal-killer for Manchin if he decided to run for President. And that's a GOOD thing.

[Mister Mets]

It's very unlikely for Democrats. I can't think of a single anti-SSM Democrat widely considered to be a presidential contender. It's also very unlikely than anyone who is currently pro-SSM will change their mind about it.

It's possible but unlikely for Republicans. Huntsman came out for SSM, as did Ohio Senator Rob Portman, who made Romney's veepstakes shortlist. It's much more common for someone who is against SSM to change their minds about it, so it's also possible for others to change their minds about it at some point in the next two and a half years. But it's enough of a wedge issue that it's more likely the Republican nominee will be against it.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Pro-SSM Republicans, at least from my perspective, are more common than Anti-SSM Democrats.  So, the odds of the latter are better than the former.

[Maxwell]

0% Democrats, 3% Republicans

[TDAS04]

0% and 0%.

[The Mikado]

2016?  0/0.

[barfbag]

Odds of a Democrat against SSM winning the primary is about 2%. The odds of a Republican in favor of SSM winning the primary is about 25%.

[IceSpear]

0% / 0%

But in 2020/2024 it will probably be more like 0% / 50%.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Absolutely 0% for both.

[Cryptic]

0% for both.

[ElectionsGuy]

I would say VERY slim chances of both. But a pro-SSM republican I think would be slightly more common, even with the nasty primary voters. 1% to 2%.

[Mr. Morden]

John Bolton is pro-SSM, and he has at least a 0.00001% chance of winning the nomination.

[Nichlemn]

I should clarify: I meant a single state's primary, not the actual nomination. Joe Manchin running and winning WV and nothing else would count.

[morgieb]

0% for the Dems.

Probably 0% for the Pubs too. Can't see someone like Christie coming out in favour before the general.

[Mr. Morden]

What if the Supreme Court legalizes SSM nationwide in 2015, and one or more of the GOP candidates says something like "What's done is done.  We have no choice but to accept the SCOTUS ruling, and move on"?  Would that count as being "pro-SSM"?

[Likely Voter]

On the Dem side pro-SSM is now like pro-choice as a litmus test issue so 0%. On the GOP side I think things can be more nuanced depending on how you define 'anti-SSM'. While there is likely a 0% chance of the candidate being pro-SSM, I can see them also being ok with letting the states decide as state's rights is a core GOP principal. And even if you say you are anti-SSM, the social conservatives want to know what you are going to do about it. Will you reinstate DADT. Will you push for a constitutional marraige amendment? SOmeone like Santorum would say yes to both, but Christie would likely say no to both. 

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

0% for Democrats, maybe 5% for Republicans, considering the likes of Rob Portman and John Bolton.

[© tweed]

What if the Supreme Court legalizes SSM nationwide in 2015, and one or more of the GOP candidates says something like "What's done is done.  We have no choice but to accept the SCOTUS ruling, and move on"?  Would that count as being "pro-SSM"?

no.  even people like John Ashcroft have said they "accept Roe v Wade as settled law"

[Non Swing Voter]

A democrat opposed to gay marriage will have an uphill battle in any democratic primary in any state (assuming that's an issue important to primary voters - which it might not be, but it's unlikely they would be super conservative on this issue but not on others)

A republican supporting gay marriage on the other hand would probably be fine in most of the Northeast.  I've seen polls that suggest that a STRONG majority of Republicans in states like Connecticut support gay marriage.

[barfbag]

A democrat opposed to gay marriage will have an uphill battle in any democratic primary in any state (assuming that's an issue important to primary voters - which it might not be, but it's unlikely they would be super conservative on this issue but not on others)

A republican supporting gay marriage on the other hand would probably be fine in most of the Northeast.  I've seen polls that suggest that a STRONG majority of Republicans in states like Connecticut support gay marriage.

Republicans aren't very picky on the issues like people think. Christie is moderate enough to get away with either stance.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Manchin's main problem in running for President is that he not only didn't endorse Obama, he didn't disclose as to whether or not he would even vote for him.  His SSM position is secondary.  I do believe that SSM is a litmus test for a Democratic Presidential candidate now.  The LGBT vote was surprisingly critical in putting Obama over the top; they're now a mass constituency within the Democratic party not to be offended.

I think the GOP's willingness to come around and be OK with SSM is pretty good.  It's not like abortion in that (A) it's not a life-and-death issue and (B) once states turn out "marriages", there are all sorts of issues that occur in terms of the Full Faith and Credit clause and other systemic issues (Social Security beneficiaries, adoptions, child custody) that become extremely complicated if SSM is overturned.  I also think that unlike abortion, the rank-and-file Republicans will be coming around on this issue rather quickly.  Unlike abortion, a number of prominent conservatives (Rob Portman, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney) are already OK on SSM. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What if the Supreme Court legalizes SSM nationwide in 2015, and one or more of the GOP candidates says something like "What's done is done.  We have no choice but to accept the SCOTUS ruling, and move on"?  Would that count as being "pro-SSM"?

no.  even people like John Ashcroft have said they "accept Roe v Wade as settled law"

Roe v. Wade isn't settled law. It was significantly weakened by Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Gonzales v. Carhart.