This is a weird
snippet, regarding GOP Senator George Allen of Virginia:
Allen is heading the GOP's Senate campaign effort this year, with Republicans running in several swing states in which the amendment may be unpopular.
Allen declined this week to be interviewed on the topic. But in a written statement about the president's declaration that the Massachusetts ruling requires immediate action, the senator said he was not convinced that an amendment is timely [...]
"Here's an example of how the Republican Party's interests diverge," between the White House and Congress, said Larry J. Sabato, political analyst at the University of Virginia. Congressional Republicans "want to win more of those marginal seats, where they need moderate voters, especially in the Senate."
Sabato added: "George Allen is going to be judged on how many Senate seats Republicans pick up. If that requires a flip-flop on gay rights, then it's a small price to pay."
So what "swing states" are the Post and Sabato talking about?
GOP Seats
The amendment won't play well in Illinois, but the GOP has an uphill climb in that state anyway. It should play well in the Oklahoma, Alaska, and Kentucky. Pennsylvania and Missouri are "swing states", and perhaps polling shows the amendment unpopular in those states? Seems hard to believe, but possible, I suppose.
Democratic Seats
It's here where the Hate Amendment would seem to score big points for the GOP, with contests in Georgia (which the GOP will easily win), and competitive contests in South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, and South Dakota. Sure, the amendment would put California completely out of play, but it's not as if Boxer is too threatened this cycle.
Heck, I'm glad Allen is opposed to this monstrosity. And I'm glad if the Washington Post wants to advance the theory that the amendment is a political loser. I find it hard to believe, but whatever. Anything that helps deflate this thing is probably a good thing ultimately.