Openly LGBT VP for Clinton?

[Knives]

Identity politics is disgusting. I have nothing against an LGBT VP, but please pick them for a reason besides solely who they enjoy having in bed with them.

((it's easy to dismiss "identity politics" when your identity isn't constantly under attack))

The media and entertainment industry in this country are overwhelmingly pro-LGBT.

To name one of many examples, a Pew Research Center study in 2013 showed that the media was overwhelmingly biased in favor of ''same-sex marriage'':

http://www.journalism.org/files/legacy/EMBARGOED_Same-SexMarriageandNews.pdf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hollywood has been promoting and encouraging homosexuality for decades, and has swayed significant portions of the American public into supporting it as well:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-wilson/2012/05/10/hollywood-driving-homosexual-agenda-40-years

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/hollywoods-gay-culture-reshaping-america

Hollywood isn't pro-LGBT, it's just not bigoted. Like, promoting same-sex marriage isn't being pro-LGBT it's called being a decent loving person.

[Brittain33]

Identity politics is disgusting. I have nothing against an LGBT VP, but please pick them for a reason besides solely who they enjoy having in bed with them.

Coming off of 200+ years of people caring about "who we enjoy having in bed with us" as a reason to disqualify us for public office—an era that hasn't ended in most of the country yet—we've got a ways to go before we can pretend we're a society that judges gays by our professional records and ethics only. 

you want us to care who youre in bed with and give you a prize for doing so.

You care already. I'm just not interested in pretending you don't.

[Mister Mets]

Identity politics is disgusting. I have nothing against an LGBT VP, but please pick them for a reason besides solely who they enjoy having in bed with them.

((it's easy to dismiss "identity politics" when your identity isn't constantly under attack))

The media and entertainment industry in this country are overwhelmingly pro-LGBT.

To name one of many examples, a Pew Research Center study in 2013 showed that the media was overwhelmingly biased in favor of ''same-sex marriage'':

http://www.journalism.org/files/legacy/EMBARGOED_Same-SexMarriageandNews.pdf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hollywood has been promoting and encouraging homosexuality for decades, and has swayed significant portions of the American public into supporting it as well:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-wilson/2012/05/10/hollywood-driving-homosexual-agenda-40-years

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/hollywoods-gay-culture-reshaping-america

Hollywood isn't pro-LGBT, it's just not bigoted. Like, promoting same-sex marriage isn't being pro-LGBT it's called being a decent loving person.

It's a bit more than that for Hollywood.

People in Hollywood (and the media as well) are more likely to know people who are gay, so that's going to be a factor in the mood of the town. They also see gay people as sympathetic underdogs.

This could be relevant if there's a gay candidate on the national ticket, as the mood in the media and Hollywood is going to be much more enthiusiastic.

[Col. Roosevelt]

Hillary being the first woman President would be historic enough on the ticket alone...I don't think the public would buy too "radical" a ticket, meaning both being novelty candidates. I also don't think America is unfortunately ready yet for an openly LGBT President. I can see maybe in 10-15 years an openly bisexual man or woman becoming President, or a woman who has admitted to "experimenting" in her past (the way Clinton in 1992 said he didn't inhale)...But I can't see an openly 100% gay candidate on a major party ballot, much less one winning, until the 2030s or so.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A hetersexual cis white male who is good on the issues is much better than someone who isn't a heterosexual cis white male who is bad on the issues. Of course I have no problem with whatever group if they're good on the issues. But the percentage of politicians good on the issues isn't that high, and it certainly doesn't include Hillary.

[The Mikado]

Who would it be? Jared Polis? Tammy Baldwin (and have her Senate successor appointed by Walker)? There aren't too terribly many options.

I like Tammy Baldwin, but between not really adding much to the ticket and losing the Senate seat to Walker's replacement (hell, if Feingold beats Johnson Walker could just put Johnson in Baldwin's seat) I think it's a subpar pick. Polis would be a very bad choice, he's not even popular outside of his little bubble corner of Colorado.

Baldwin would still be a better pick than Julian Castro. Baldwin at least passes the "ready to take over if Clinton has a stroke" test.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think two women on the same ticket would be a bit much (yes, I know it's hypocritical as nobody would say that about an all male ticket, but such is politics)

[Zioneer]

I don't think there are many openly LGB candidates who would qualify to be VP. Baldwin supported the TPP, so that would be a turn-off to progressives, a group that Clinton is already having some issues wooing. Jared Polis and Annise Parker don't have any name recognition that would boost Clinton's support. I have never been a fan of politicians choosing running mates based on their membership in a minority demographic (this is something the Republicans will almost certainly do next year: Fiorina's a woman, Rubio and Cruz are Latino, Carson is black, Jindal is Indian), but I think a strong progressive VP nominee (assuming Clinton doesn't select Sanders or O'Malley), who just so happens to be in a minority group, would be Keith Ellison of Minnesota; he is a Muslim and he is as progressive as Sanders, O'Malley, Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Alan Grayson, etc.

Don't forget, Sanders himself is a minority, since he's Jewish. It doesn't have much bearing on his candidacy, but if he were a VP nominee, he would be the first Jewish one.

[Joe Republic]

Don't forget, Sanders himself is a minority, since he's Jewish. It doesn't have much bearing on his candidacy, but if he were a VP nominee, he would be the first Jewish one.

[Zioneer]

Don't forget, Sanders himself is a minority, since he's Jewish. It doesn't have much bearing on his candidacy, but if he were a VP nominee, he would be the first Jewish one.

Oh yeah, Lieberman. Literally completely forgot about him. I guess Sanders would be the second Jewish VP nominee or the first Jewish presidential nominee.