Stronger candidate: Out of the closet gay man vs. a closeted gay man

[Progressive]

There has been a lot of speculation on the 2020 board about potential Democratic candidates including people like Cory Booker and Julian Castro. Among the concerns people have about them is that there are "gay rumors" surrounding these candidates (and others).

So my question is would a closeted gay candidate who is suspected to be gay but not out (possibly married to a woman, etc) do worse than a gay man who is out and open about his sexuality?

[Kingpoleon]

For now? Closeted if the rumors are only mentioned at places like Breitbart and Salon. If they become mainstream(Limbaugh or MSNBC), then out.

2032-2040 is probably the earliest a gay man can run without a major handicap. Even then, homophobia can be a lot more commonly subtle than racism.

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

I honestly don't think it matters. Anyone who seriously cares about rolling back "gay rights" is already a straight-ticket republican voter.


(I have endorsed gay candidates before, and will do so again.)

[Kingpoleon]

I honestly don't think it matters. Anyone who seriously cares about rolling back "gay rights" is already a straight-ticket republican voter.


(I have endorsed gay candidates before, and will do so again.)

Who did you endorse? Jim Gray?

(Also, your previous slight homophobia is a little disconcerting to me.)

[progressive85]

FULL and upfront about his sexuality is the only way to go.  He's got to be out, proud, and inspiring for gay kids.

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

I honestly don't think it matters. Anyone who seriously cares about rolling back "gay rights" is already a straight-ticket republican voter.


(I have endorsed gay candidates before, and will do so again.)

Who did you endorse? Jim Gray?

(Also, your previous slight homophobia is a little disconcerting to me.)

Him, Angie Craig, Kate Brown, Brady Walkinshaw

[Meclazine for Israel]

I want a female President.

So i dont see why a lesbian woman could not get the top job.

It would not cause me any issues.

I never had a problem with Obama ir Hillary being the first President for their particular race or sex.

Never crossed my mind.

In the USA, being able to do the job is more important.

[Mercenary]

I dont think it would make a major difference. The only people who care about someome being "proud" of their sexuality of people who would vote for the liberal candidate no matter what anyway.

I think a gay guy coild win regardless whether he was closeted or not. Trump proved anyone can win.

[America Needs R'hllor]

FULL and upfront about his sexuality is the only way to go.  He's got to be out, proud, and inspiring for gay kids.

[Mr. Morden]

Depends on whether we're using Brian Schweitzer's gaydar to figure out who is a closeted gay.

[pbrower2a]

Out of the closet. Being out of the closet is one sign of integrity. Barney Frank got re-elected every two years, and everyone knew. Larry Craig? Mark Foley? Gone!

Hiding one's homosexuality is hypocrisy. Most of us have grown up enough to recognize homosexuality as benign
 

[Mr. Morden]

Out of the closet. Being out of the closet is one sign of integrity. Barney Frank got re-elected every two years, and everyone knew. Larry Craig? Mark Foley? Gone!

Hiding one's homosexuality is hypocrisy. Most of us have grown up enough to recognize homosexuality as benign

But if someone's in the closet, then you don't necessarily know if they're gay or not, and thus don't know if they're really "guilty of hypocrisy".  So what's the conclusion?  If a man acts too effeminate for mainstream hetero tastes, but doesn't announce that he's gay, then we should all assume that he's a closeted gay and judge him for his presumed "hypocrisy"?

[Devout Centrist]

Let me put it this way, I can pass as a straight guy. Should I reveal that I'm bisexual (or pan, whatever term you prefer) or just pass as straight?

Option 2 makes more sense. Option 1 will either have no effect or it may negatively affect me.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Let me put it this way, I can pass as a straight guy. Should I reveal that I'm bisexual (or pan, whatever term you prefer) or just pass as straight?

Option 2 makes more sense. Option 1 will either have no effect or it may negatively affect me.

Yes, but then you will have to constrain yourself to women in your personal life or risk a scandal.

[Famous Mortimer]

Out. Anyone adult who is in the closet in 2016 is probably a religious nutcase.

[Torie]

Except in some benighted zones, I would like to think being openly gay is not much of a handicap these days when it comes to participating in the public square. In Hudson of course, while it would be an exaggeration to say that gays run the town, it is hardly gross hyperbole. We are on the move!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Except in some benighted zones, I would like to think being openly gay is not much of a handicap these days when it comes to participating in the public square. In Hudson of course, while it would be an exaggeration to say that gays run the town, it is hardly gross hyperbole. We are on the move!

Unfortunately, there are still a lot of benighted zones in this country. It doesn't take a lot of people deciding that they'd either abstain or vote for the other person to make being elected tuff.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Out of the closet.  If you're in the closet you shouldn't run for office.  Unless things go back to being very bad.  Then subversion is to be encouraged.

[Enduro]

It depends on the guy's other traits. Is he a good person? What's his voting record?

[Devout Centrist]

Let me put it this way, I can pass as a straight guy. Should I reveal that I'm bisexual (or pan, whatever term you prefer) or just pass as straight?

Option 2 makes more sense. Option 1 will either have no effect or it may negatively affect me.

Yes, but then you will have to constrain yourself to women in your personal life or risk a scandal.

I'm a politician, though. I will sacrifice my potential romantic fulfillment in order to pursue my personal ambitions.

[SATW]

Openly LGBT people are better candidates then closeted LGBT people. The former have nothing to hide or are perceived to have nothing to hide.

closeted political figures are always hiding their true-selves, even if they are extremely pro-LGBT in policy.

With bisexuals, it's a bit more complex but I'd still say its better to be open about it. 

[Mr. Morden]

I feel like many of you aren't grappling with the question in the spirit that the OP was asking it.  Sure, if someone is actually in the closet, then that might create all sorts of personal problems for them, and possibly make them a worse politician.  And there's always the possibility that over the course of the campaign, someone would out them against their will, and that could have all sorts of other negative consequences.

But I didn't read that as the question being asked.  I was reading it as cases like Booker or Crist, where there's a good chance that the politician in question isn't gay at all, but either because they're perpetually single or because their mannerisms "aren't masculine enough", many assume that they're closeted gays.

So I would instead ask the question like this: If you had a candidate who is actually *not* gay, but who many assume to be a closeted gay man because of the reasons I just mentioned, do they pay a bigger political price than an actual out-of-the-closet gay man does, assuming that the two hypothetical candidates are otherwise equally politically talented?

[America Needs R'hllor]

I feel like many of you aren't grappling with the question in the spirit that the OP was asking it.  Sure, if someone is actually in the closet, then that might create all sorts of personal problems for them, and possibly make them a worse politician.  And there's always the possibility that over the course of the campaign, someone would out them against their will, and that could have all sorts of other negative consequences.

But I didn't read that as the question being asked.  I was reading it as cases like Booker or Crist, where there's a good chance that the politician in question isn't gay at all, but either because they're perpetually single or because their mannerisms "aren't masculine enough", many assume that they're closeted gays.

So I would instead ask the question like this: If you had a candidate who is actually *not* gay, but who many assume to be a closeted gay man because of the reasons I just mentioned, do they pay a bigger political price than an actual out-of-the-closet gay man does, assuming that the two hypothetical candidates are otherwise equally politically talented?

Well, I think that if that's the question, both cases will probably not be too harmful, but that an out-of-the-closet gay person pays less political price. It also depends on the party, of course- I don't think a gay person can win in the Republican party, so such a candidate would more likely be a Democrat, but a person who is percieved as a closeted gay person by some, like Lindsey Graham was, will probably be harmed, much more so in the Republican party.

[Blue3]

Out. Anyone adult who is in the closet in 2016 is probably a religious nutcase.

Uh, no.

[publicunofficial]

Out. Anyone adult who is in the closet in 2016 is probably a religious nutcase.

Holy s**t what a terrible post.