Politico has an interesting piece up today making the point that endorsement of a candidate by a gay-rights group is likely to be seen as a reason to vote against, not for, a candidate-- at least if those voters like in OH, PA or FL. And not just by Republicans, but by independents, too, and men more than women.

In addition, "being the candidate endorsed by business groups is viewed as a big negative -- almost as much as being the gay rights lobby's candidate -- while labor support is a big positive for a candidate."

Wow. I guess where OH, PA and FL are concerned, we've re-entered the world of old-school populism, where there's a tendency towards the traditional on social issues, and a favoring of groups that prefer protectionist economic policies. Or that's my crude interpretation, anyway.

In any event, it certainly reinforces the view that I've been developing for some time, partly in conjunction with a new project I'm working on, partly in relation to research I've been doing for a (hopefully) forthcoming book, that suggests that OH and PA, in any event, seem to be culturally and politically more geared towards electing Bobby Casey types than they are Barry Goldwaters...


We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.