Earliest time for a gay president?

[Brittain33]

There should be some way to calculate this. The first openly gay state legislators were elected in the 1970s, but they were few and far between. It took until this decade to get more than a handful, but interestingly, in the last few years we've elected out representatives all over the country, including the most conservative states. It's almost always in liberal districts.

1998, I think, was the first election in which an openly gay person was elected to an open seat in Congress. It took ten years, 2008, for a follow-up. Both were in relatively liberal districts, a caveat I have to include because Tammy Baldwin, amazingly, succeeded a Republican. CO-2 is pretty damn liberal.

We seem far from electing an openly gay senator or governor. It could happen within the next 10 years, but I wouldn't put better than even money on it. Running statewide is a high hurdle. We don't even have people elected to low-visibility executive offices yet, as we've had with African Americans in the South for a while. I don't know who could do it as a viable candidate. Now is the time to identify these future senators and governors. Jarrett Barrios had an opportunity in Massachusetts, but he got stopped for other reasons at Middlesex County D.A. and retired from politics. Christine Quinn? Tough to move from N.Y. city office to Albany. Someone in California?

A future President can't be discussed until we've gotten some people elected statewide. To me, 2024 sounds too early. After all, women senators lagged far behind majority acceptance of equality in the workplace, and a woman president lags far behind that. So I would expect a gay president to also lag behind equality in the workplace and socially, and even that is a ways off in many parts of the country.

To make this long story short, there are too many intermediate steps we have yet to reach before we can contemplate an openly gay President. Generational turnover in the electorate is only a small part of it.

[Brittain33]

I don't see why it couldn't be 2012. Probably not, but it could happen. It would more likely be a Dem nomination than GOP. If faced with Palin vs. some gay guy are the indys really going to sit it out or vote Palin...because the Dem is gay? We'll assume Obama dies or something to set this up.

There is no gay candidate with the stature to run for President and there is no way in hell either Democratic fundraisers, interest groups, or voters would take a chance on a gay candidate who they'd expect to lose big.

[Brittain33]

and there is no way in hell either Democratic fundraisers, interest groups, or voters would take a chance on a gay candidate who they'd expect to lose big.

Didn't most people expect Obama to lose all of '07?

Yes, and it's a testament to his quality as a candidate and his campaign's effectiveness that he overcame it. Tough to do. Barney Frank can't.

[Brittain33]

But we're not talking about Barney Frank. If we construct our candidate by taking Obama and make him white and then make him gay him and then put him up against Palin, he couldn't win? I think he could. We'll even assume there is no live in partner to make it easier.

Even granting that the Republicans put up a bad candidate like Palin--then there's no way a gay nominee would make it out of the primary. Too many qualified straight candidates would run and Democratic voters, including most gay ones, wouldn't consider a gay nominee a viable choice. The same way many African American voters were reluctant to support Obama early. We could say, ok, Jared Polis defeats Sarah Palin, but part of the challenge is identifying how we would ever arrive at that kind of match-up. (It's sad that I'm not sure he could, even.) We really can't reduce this to our guess about the willingness of the electorate to vote for a gay candidate. The development of a candidate is part of the process and a big part of the reason it will take longer than people think. It's why we couldn't make the leap to women Presidential candidates before we had a sizable number of women governors and senators.

I actually think having a partner would help as opposed to hurt. It negates the issue of thinking about the person's sex life by making the homosexuality be about his relationship and not about his potential dating life. Also, I think it's more likely to be a she, but that's neither here nor there.

[Brittain33]

All true. Although I do point to Cicciline as a very likely elected gay governor in 2010. Rhode Island may not count as a state for this purpose, however

I forgot about him! He's definitely the best bet right now.

[Brittain33]

Well, it won't be Mayor Sam Adams of Portland, Ore. (sigh)

[Brittain33]

I have to say that this was the same logic I had for assuming the first African-American president would be a Republican. An African-American Democrat wouldn't win a general election, while an African-American Republican candidate would deny racist white voters from finding a home with the Republican candidate, whether or not they shared the party's views.

Clearly, America surprised me. I can see a gay Democrat following Obama's path, if he were skilled enough: be appealing enough to all communities to not be pigeonholed as a community candidate, and then win against a Republican in an environment so toxic to them that they can't be considered a "safe choice" for people who are otherwise uncomfortable because of racism or homophobia.

I really just can not see how a gay Republican can neutralize religious right opposition. That gets to the core of those voters' identities. There will always be a viable alternative to the gay candidate in the Republican primaries, no matter how flawed that alternative would be in a general election.

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.