The gay marriage issue, or even some of the other items that get tossed into the "moral values" pot, may have been the final determinant of the Bush margin in the final key battleground state. It also may have been nationally very important for a significant portion of Bush voters to boost the popular vote margin. But basically it was a matter of tactical mobilization of key voter groups, not "the reason" Bush won.

The high mobilization of "one-issue voters" wouldn't have put Bush over the top if he hadn't "won" or been competitive on other issues that, as you said, were 2nd, 3rd or 4th for the voters who weren't "one-issue voters." But similarly, Kerry wouldn't have been so close -- and therefore the "one-issue voters" wouldn't have been able to deny him victory in key districts -- if Kerry hadn't made substantial inroads into Bush's approval on economic and foreign policy/security issues.

What I find more telling is that "moral values" is part of an overall worldview that includes support of Bush in other areas, such as national security. Similarly, the people who were more concerned with economic issues had a worldview that was far less supportive of the President on his WoT or war in Iraq. This summary of the profiles of Bush voters vs Kerry voters from the LATimes exit polls shows the differences rather dramatically.

From the standpoint of campaign operatives and party organizations preparing to be competitive in specific elections, those single issue drivers are immensely important. Where they work for you and don't cause too much collateral damage, you milk them for all they're worth. Where they don't work for you, you try to neutralize them as well you can without expending too much in time, money or in undercutting your other sources of voter support.

As the difference between Clinton and Kerry highlights, the simple matter of selecting a candidate, regardless of their personal policy positions, may be enough. Repackaging, or selecting other "hot button" issues to run on where you have an advantage, may also do the trick.

To draw conclusions about how the various battles for the "heart and soul" of either party should be waged, or what it should mean in terms of a dramatic repositioning of policy, nah. BD's suggestion list for Democrats basically proved that. Most of the folks who were either anti-Bush or pro-Kerry said, yeah, most of that was what the Dems were already running on. So it wasn't a matter of core principles or policies. But it certainly was packaging of messages so they'd be heard, not rejected out of hand for emotive reasons. And so the Dems would be able to reduce the election-tipping potential of the "moral values" voters.

To condemn half one's fellow citizens as ignorant, bigoted, theocrats isn't good either for one's personal mental health (can produce serious long-term depression if you really believe you it) or for winning future elections.