With movements generally, isn't the relationship, as we say, dialectical? Candidates and alignments of officials that are more broadly sympathetic to the goals of or constituencies of movements are liable to be pressured more easily into putting the goals of those movement into executive, legislative and administrative form. That's why the antiabortionists and pro-gun folks support radical Republicans, that's why the New Deal Congress or Johnson's Democratic majority were more predisposed to back pro-labor and pro-civil rights legislation. Anyone who thinks that you can just vote for broadly sympathetic candidates and then go home is being foolish -- that is a mistake the right has not made in main. But surely it is generally harder to get candidates and officials who are predisposed against you to go along with your ideas than ones who are predisposed towards them or at least neutral.
[WS:] I believe that the deciding factor here is not as much alignment with the movement's goals but the transaction cost of mobilization for or against a particular issue. Generally speaking, the lower the transaction cost, the more successful the mobilization. Furthermore, the alignment with the movement's goals often comes as a result of successful mobilization, rather than the other way around (see for example, Snow et al., 1986, Frame alignment process, micromobilization and movement participation, ASR, 51:464-81)
Transaction costs of mobilizing already organized and conscious of its collective interests groups, such as business or industry, are much lower than those of mobilizing general public, splintered into diverse groups and networks. This is why everything else being equal, successful mobilization business and other institutionalized interest is inherently much easier to accomplish than mobilizing general public.
To overcome this inherent disadvantage, general public mobilization (regardless of its ideological leaning) has basically two options: already existing social networks, usually based on residence, employment, school, church, etc, and "hot button" issues that appeal to people's emotions and spur them into action. While these options have been used by both, left and right mobilizers, the right wing mobilizers have usually an upper hand in this field for several reasons. First, social networks that are grounded in conservative institutions, such as churches or fraternities, tend to be more closely knit and numerous than those based on liberal institutions (e.g. professional associations or unions). Second, conservative institutions and their networks tend to have larger resources, thanks to support from business and wealthy individuals. Third, the hot button issues with the affinity to the right (e.g. fear mongering about one's personal safety) are more effective attention grabbers than hot button issues with the affinity to the right (e.g. moral outrage about injustice in distant places).
To sum it up, it is much easier to mobilize for the pro-business, conservative agenda than fro the liberal agenda - and it shows.
Wojtek