Would you like if the Democrats nominate a queer for POTUS in 2020?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

I noted that a lot of gays here talk about LGBT, but diss beautiful queer people. Would it not be nice if Democrats nominated a queer in 2020?

They'd show then that they stand up for all minorities, not just trending ones. No?

Also I think LGBT people might be split between Booker, Castro, and Warren if all of those ran at the same time.

I hate this idea that seems to have suddenly developed on here that it's elitist/out of touch to fight for LGBT values

The LGBT community is scared of having their rights stripped away.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

I would have no problem with that (LGBT, sane, not a bigot), but I'd rather vote for an actual person than a random concept

[Bigby]

We don't need an LGBT person solely because they're LGBT. When will Democrats follow MLK's advice about the quality of the character rather than a superficial trait in itself?

[Progressive]

As a gay man, I find the use of the phrase "a queer," a little troubling, but, there are some great LGBTQ candidates who could emerge on the national scene: Gov. Kate Brown, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Rep. Jared Polis, etc.

[White Trash]

I would have no problem with that (LGBT, sane, not a bigot), but I'd rather vote for an actual person than a random concept

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I would have no problem with that (LGBT, sane, not a bigot), but I'd rather vote for an actual person than a random concept

I'd certainly love to see Tammy Baldwin run.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

I would have no problem with that (LGBT, sane, not a bigot), but I'd rather vote for an actual person than a random concept

Easy to say when you are a privileged (compared to a non-white queer) LGBT white man

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes, mainly because I want to see homophobic countries squirm.

[The Mikado]

I don't like saying "run a X Minority" candidate. I like looking at who the actual person is.

If this thread were "should the Democrats run Tammy Baldwin," I think that could work (assuming she holds on in 2018) because she's a good politician with proven crossover appeal. I'm not sure she'd be my first choice, but she'd be a fine candidate, and a favorite daughter in Wisconsin, a state the Dems need to shore up.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm an Evangelical, so celebrating this concept isn't something I'd endorse.  But I'm not going to vote for or against someone solely because of their sexual orientation.

I would consider the candidacy of Sheldon Whitehouse and Tammy Baldwin on their merits.  Whitehouse, in particular, is qualified to be considered a front-line contender for the Presidency based on the depth of his career.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

I would have no problem with that (LGBT, sane, not a bigot), but I'd rather vote for an actual person than a random concept

Easy to say when you are a privileged (compared to a non-white queer) LGBT white man

How is this even related to anything

[Blair]

I'm glad someone has time to go through quotes highlighting that some people don't always add the Q+ on the end...

[Pericles]

I'll like it if they run a good person and not like it if they don't run a good person, regardless of sexuality,  gender, race etc.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

I'll like it if they run a good person and not like it if they don't run a good person, regardless of sexuality,  gender, race etc.

[Gass3268]

I'm an Evangelical, so celebrating this concept isn't something I'd endorse.  But I'm not going to vote for or against someone solely because of their sexual orientation.

I would consider the candidacy of Sheldon Whitehouse and Tammy Baldwin on their merits.  Whitehouse, in particular, is qualified to be considered a front-line contender for the Presidency based on the depth of his career.

FYI Sheldon Whitehouse isn't gay.

[ElectionsGuy]

I voted no to protest this stupid poll. I want Democrats to nominate someone on their values, positions on the issues, and their abilities. But instead, it's all about nominating someone of a different label.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I voted no to protest this stupid poll. I want Democrats to nominate someone on their values, positions on the issues, and their abilities. But instead, it's all about nominating someone of a different label.

[Kingpoleon]

I'm an Evangelical, so celebrating this concept isn't something I'd endorse.  But I'm not going to vote for or against someone solely because of their sexual orientation.

I would consider the candidacy of Sheldon Whitehouse and Tammy Baldwin on their merits.  Whitehouse, in particular, is qualified to be considered a front-line contender for the Presidency based on the depth of his career.

... Is Sheldon Whitehouse LGB+?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

No more identity politics, it's pissing too many people off.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Not even southern men are still in the Democratic Party to nominate one.

[Anna Komnene]

I like how everyone assumes that this question means "nominate an lgbtq for the sake of being lgbtq" when the question doesn't ask that at all.  Projecting much?  Yep.

[Person Man]

I like how everyone assumes that this question means "nominate an lgbtq for the sake of being lgbtq" when the question doesn't ask that at all.  Projecting much?  Yep.

Not even southern men are still in the Democratic Party to nominate one.

Nuff said.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

I'd be perfectly fine with it, provided that it was a situation like Clinton (i.e. a good potential President on their own rights) rather than tokenism.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

If he or she happens to be qualified, sure. If the whole campaign is focused solely around his or her experience as a homosexual American and not a greater set of issues, they'll be in deep trouble.

[America Needs R'hllor]

If he or she happens to be qualified, sure. If the whole campaign is focused solely around his or her experience as a homosexual American and not a greater set of issues, they'll be in deep trouble.