What damage would a GOP candidate cause themself by supporting gay marriage?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Let's say after the primaries, either during the summer or fall, the GOP candidate pulls an Obama and comes out in favor of gay marriage. What does it do to their support?

[Mr. Illini]

The moderate hero option

[IceSpear]

Option 3. The single issue anti-gay voters are close to irrelevant at this point, but there would still be enough to hurt them a tiny bit.

However, a pro-gay marriage candidate certainly couldn't win a primary in 2016. They might be able to in 2020/2024 though.

[King]

The gay issue is a wash. They'd lose as much Christian turnout as they'd gain pro-gay swing voters.

Their dismissive language on women's and Latino issues are what have damaged the GOP brand.

[BlueSwan]

Wrong vote by me. I voted for the third option, but I meant that for the primaries. In the general, I think it would almost certainly be a net positive. The republican don't have turnout issues, the dems do. The GOP base is gonna show up for just about any of their candidates, I believe. Neither McCain nor Romney lost because of low GOP turnout, they lost because of massive Dem turnout.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The gay issue is a wash. They'd lose as much Christian turnout as they'd gain pro-gay swing voters.

Their dismissive language on women's and Latino issues are what have damaged the GOP brand.

Especially with women, who vote at higher rates than men anyway. And the 2016 electorate will almost certainly be less white than the 2012 one. I'm not a "demographics is destiny" type, but the GOP has serious issues in presidential elections at least for the short to medium-term.

Unfortunately, the GOP primary electorate in most states (not just in Republican-voting states-a point that gets lost sometimes) is dominated by the very same voters who want to hear the GOP take a hard-line on a wide variety of issues. So they have no incentive to reach out to the voters and demographics who they need to do at least somewhat better with if they have a real chance to win in 2016.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Option 3/4.

[ElectionsGuy]

They would probably gain a few votes. But seriously, is anybody going to revoke or add their support to a candidate because of this issue?

[CJK]

There would be tremendous damage. The gay agenda, the reckless destruction of norms literally thousands of years old, is the defining issue of our time. The base is livid over lawless, activist judges. Romney (who I still genuinely doubt was actually trying to win) shamefully ignored the homosexual agenda and suffered the consequences. Probably because he secretly supported it as well, judging from his record as governor.

And let's face it, the GOP has no creative economic plans, so it needs to rally people on the social issues.

[IceSpear]

There would be tremendous damage. The gay agenda, the reckless destruction of norms literally thousands of years old, is the defining issue of our time. The base is livid over lawless, activist judges. Romney (who I still genuinely doubt was actually trying to win) shamefully ignored the homosexual agenda and suffered the consequences. Probably because he secretly supported it as well, judging from his record as governor.

And let's face it, the GOP has no creative economic plans, so it needs to rally people on the social issues.

#postsfrom2004

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

There would be tremendous damage. The gay agenda, the reckless destruction of norms literally thousands of years old, is the defining issue of our time. The base is livid over lawless, activist judges. Romney (who I still genuinely doubt was actually trying to win) shamefully ignored the homosexual agenda and suffered the consequences. Probably because he secretly supported it as well, judging from his record as governor.

And let's face it, the GOP has no creative economic plans, so it needs to rally people on the social issues.

Oh, that would be fantastic. Hillary talking about the recovering economy while the GOP candidate stands there blabbering about the "gay agenda". Unfortunately it's too much to hope for. What's frightening is people like you actually think that would work for your guy.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

There would be tremendous damage. The gay agenda, the reckless destruction of norms literally thousands of years old, is the defining issue of our time. The base is livid over lawless, activist judges. Romney (who I still genuinely doubt was actually trying to win) shamefully ignored the homosexual agenda and suffered the consequences. Probably because he secretly supported it as well, judging from his record as governor.

And let's face it, the GOP has no creative economic plans, so it needs to rally people on the social issues.

This isn't going to help the republican party. You've got the 52-58% of americans (depending on the poll) who agree with the activist judges, then you've got another constituency that disagrees with gay marriage but doesn't vote based on it (I'm in this category), then you've got another constituency who disagrees with gay marriage but never turns out to vote no matter what, and you're left with what, 30% of the country, maybe not even that, who you're able to rally with this sort of strategy. Maybe it plays in Iowa, where evangelical turnout is really important. Maybe it plays in places like Georgia. But it's not going to work in North Carolina, Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, etc, no matter how much you think it should.

[Rockefeller GOP]

There would be tremendous damage. The gay agenda, the reckless destruction of norms literally thousands of years old, is the defining issue of our time. The base is livid over lawless, activist judges. Romney (who I still genuinely doubt was actually trying to win) shamefully ignored the homosexual agenda and suffered the consequences. Probably because he secretly supported it as well, judging from his record as governor.

And let's face it, the GOP has no creative economic plans, so it needs to rally people on the social issues.

So, stop talking about pro-business and fiscally conservative economic policies like tax cuts, cutting wasteful spending and reducing costly regulations on small businesses and REALLY start rampin' up the anti-gay rhetoric?  Wow, the people in charge of our party's PR machine aren't geniuses of any kind, but I suppose it could, in fact, be worse.

[henster]

Republicans need high turnout among Evangelicals in order to win, it matters a lot in NC, FL, IA, VA and all throughout the South. Low turnout among Evangelicals could put Georgia in play as well.

[Likely Voter]

A GOPer coming out in favor of gay marriage in the summer of 2016 would not be the same as Obama in 2012. Obama had been evolving for years and he had been advocating for gay rights including overturning DADT. But this issue would come up in the 2016 GOP primary so we are talking about someone saying they are anti SSM in January-March during the primary and then pro SSM in the Summer. The conclusion of most people would be that he either lied during the primary or was lying for the general, which would be a character issue and create a net negative across the board.

[Maxwell]

There would be tremendous damage. The gay agenda, the reckless destruction of norms literally thousands of years old, is the defining issue of our time. The base is livid over lawless, activist judges. Romney (who I still genuinely doubt was actually trying to win) shamefully ignored the homosexual agenda and suffered the consequences. Probably because he secretly supported it as well, judging from his record as governor.

And let's face it, the GOP has no creative economic plans, so it needs to rally people on the social issues.

Marriage, and then what? Taking toys right out of childrens hands? BREAKING INTO HOUSES AND HAVING GAY SEX IN FRONT OF A MIDDLE CLASS TRADITIONAL FAMILY? we can't stand for it, I tell ya!

You're right, the homosexual agenda is going to destroy families in this country, and the GOP should definitely work on defeating this agenda! I'm with ya!

[Skill and Chance]

I don't see how much it would hurt.  Most people who would stay home just for this, assuming standard GOP views on other social issues, live in >55% Romney states.  Thinking about swing states, the only one where it would obviously hurt is Ohio.  Florida, Virginia and Iowa would be a wash, again assuming this Republican is still pro-life.  In all the other swing states, it should unambiguously help more than hurt.

[The_Doctor]

Not enough people will care to swing the election. Given a pro-life Republican candidate who is solid on every other social issue, the gay issue by itself isn't enough to persuade more than a few idiots to stay home. The vast majority of Republicans will vote for the Republican candidate, knowing that the gay marriage issue is settled pretty much. They can resist, but with 35% of young evangelicals backing gay marriage, it will not be enough to prevent the Republicans from eventually adopting a libertarian philosophy on it.

The 2016 nominee may as well get a head start on it.

[DS0816]

Aaron Schock should come out of the closet; endorse same-sex couples being married; and find out.

[IceSpear]

Aaron Schock should come out of the closet; endorse same-sex couples being married; and find out.

Graham/Schock 2016?

[OSR stands with Israel]

There would be tremendous damage. The gay agenda, the reckless destruction of norms literally thousands of years old, is the defining issue of our time. The base is livid over lawless, activist judges. Romney (who I still genuinely doubt was actually trying to win) shamefully ignored the homosexual agenda and suffered the consequences. Probably because he secretly supported it as well, judging from his record as governor.

And let's face it, the GOP has no creative economic plans, so it needs to rally people on the social issues.

You would love Free Republic

[Rockefeller GOP]

There would be tremendous damage. The gay agenda, the reckless destruction of norms literally thousands of years old, is the defining issue of our time. The base is livid over lawless, activist judges. Romney (who I still genuinely doubt was actually trying to win) shamefully ignored the homosexual agenda and suffered the consequences. Probably because he secretly supported it as well, judging from his record as governor.

And let's face it, the GOP has no creative economic plans, so it needs to rally people on the social issues.

You would love Free Republic

I've never been to one of these psycho right-wing sites that are mentioned on here, but I kind of want to now, LOL.  For pure amusement, of course.

[Xing]

Some so cons might stay home, while some swing voters might see him/her as more moderate. It'd probably be a wash in the GE, but it would be somewhat damaging in the Republican primaries. Overall, I'll go with option three.

[CountryClassSF]

Running a Democrat-lite hasn't worked.  Making sure the base doesn't stay home is the precursor to winning a national election.  They haven't thought about that since about 2004 or so.  They failed in 1996, 2008, and 2012. 

[RR1997]

Option 3, and it would've been option 2 back in 2012, so things are changing for the better.