Gays are another example. Because they usually vote Democratic the Democrats don't feel the need to give them what they want, more rights and gay marriage. The Republicans won't give them this and the Democrats don't need to.

Pot smokers are in the same bind, they might tend to vote toward lesser drug laws so the Democrats don't need to give it to them. Likewise the Republicans don't need to outlaw abortion because they know part of their base would only vote for a party that talked like it intended to. If they did outlaw abortion then they would lose the swing voters and gain no extra voters from the anti abortion base.

Blacks under Clinton actually did badly, in that welfare was drastically reduced. Because they were so solidly Democratic there was little need to stop reducing what they got. With guns there is little need for Republicans to introduce assault weapons because the people that want them wouldn't vote Democratic. If they did they would lose swing voters.

Republicans tend to attract fiscal conservatives and so don't have a need to actually be fiscally conservative. Historically apparently they are worse than Democrats in balancing budgets. Because this fiscal conservative group votes Republican then Bush gains little by doing what they want. You get a lot of grumbling about this, but probably few votes lost.

In Defense people who favour high spending tend to vote Republican so again there is little need to look after them. A good example of this was Bush trying to cut combat pay. Defense appropriations can be directed towards cronies and campaign contributors for hi tech equipment not needed. Those who complain about it wouldn't vote Democrat so there is no incentive to be more efficient.

Those who want Laissez Faire tend to vote Republican or Libertarian. Therefore a Republican government can safely regulate things to help cronies and monopolists who respond by giving more contributions. People who want to cut pork vote Republican so the Republicans can safely spend more on pork.

The converse of all this is that a party doesn't need to spend much on voters that would rarely vote for them. So funding AIDS and overseas aid is pointless for Republicans financially. So those people vote for Democrats who can safely ignore them.

Tax cuts are another good example. people who want them in exchange for lesser government services tend to vote Republican so the Republicans don't have to cut their taxes and can load on more government services (pork) for them to pay. Therefore the tax cuts went to the upper class because the blue collar workers were expected to vote Republican and so could be ignored again. These can be financed with a deficit which places that future debt disproportionately on these Republican voters as they won't change their vote over it. Therefore bush gets more votes and contributions from the upper class and screws the lower Republicans who won't abandon him.

Against this is the health care debate. Since most people who want universal health care are Democrats there is no point in giving it to them, but only to be intending to at some stage. There's also no point in giving it to the Blue Collar males because they vote for Bush.

Since each party has a limited amount of campaign funds, and there is a limited federal budget they both tend to give things to the fickle voter and ignore those who are their best supporters. They also tend to ignore the opposite party's core voters. The more any group wants something then generally the less likely they are for a party to give it to them.