Earliest time for a gay president?

[Dan the Roman]

It will take a while, because not only do you need a new generation to grow up, but you need candidates who happen to be gay but are not gay candidates to be elected. We had Black congressman for the last thirty years, but it was not until Mike Espy in the 1980s that you had one who might conceivably have been able to win enough white votes to win. There is no gay candidate right now who is a viable national figure. This is true not only at the national level, but at the state and local level too. Most are too left wing.

For this reason i think the first viable gay candidate will be:

1. Most likely a Republican, simply because it will insulate them from negative stereotypes.

2. A man(or woman) whose primary political background is in appointed positions such as Secretary of State, NSA, UN Ambassador and who then parlays the prestige and attention from that into a political career. Right now no gay politician can be elected in an area where they can have credibility, the credibility will have to be given to them and they will have to bypass the social institutions.

3. They will have to break with the "Gay community" far more thoroughly than Obama had to with the black one, whether by attacking sex education in the schools(I think a likely route), or public health or something similar.

We are still early with gay politicians. Of the ones in existence, the only one I think could have seriously made it was Linda Ketner in SC-01 this year. She nearly won a 62% Bush district, would have had a Conservative voting record, and would have become a national figure instantly. Yet even had she won she likely still would have had trouble moving up.

I think that lesbians have an advantage at this, and had Condi Rice "come out" I think she would have been a viable figure, though she probably would have primary problems for other reasons. That said, I think that had she come out in 2004, and Cheney decided to retire, Bush could have pushed her into the VP slot had he been willing to spend a lot on it.

[Dan the Roman]

The reason I think it will be a Republican is because I don't think a gay democrat could win a general election. On the other hand, any gay politician who could neutralize the religious right enough to win a Republican Primary I think would be very likely to win the general. I mean from that point on, it would be smooth sailing(media-love affair, Democrats in awkward position in terms of attacking, free to position as far right as you want on other social issues).

 The latter is important too. Being Gay would give a Republican license to be as far right as they wanted on other social issues and inoculate them from the fallout. Its why I am not convinced that such a hypothetical person would be doomed with the religious right. Especially pos-gay marriage, or if they used a condemnation of the gay rights movement post-Prop 8 as a sister Souljah moment. They could offer religious leaders things straight republicans never could and still be viable.