First serious presidential candidate with a chance at election who is openly gay--what year, if ever?That's a tough one. Let's do some perspective. As far as I can remember, Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin this year is the first Senate candidate with a serious chance at election who is openly gay. Baldwin was previously the first openly gay or lesbian non-incumbent elected to the House of Representatives. That was in 1998; I believe that Jared Polis was the first openly gay man non-incumbent elected to the House, and that wasn't until 2008. Has there ever been an openly gay or lesbian gubernatorial nominee? Not that I recall...I don't remember anyone who was a serious contender for a nomination, although I'm sure someone will remind me if I've forgotten one.
So the pipeline isn't there right now. Does that mean there are real barriers? Hard to say. The Wisconsin Senate race will surely be interesting. At the very least, it seems quite meaningful that Baldwin was able to clear the field in the primary as far as strong candidates are concerned, suggesting that Democratic Party heavyweights were happy to rally to her.
Let's put it this way: would it be a real surprise if Baldwin wound up a legitimate presidential candidate as early as 2016? No more than Barack Obama was a surprise in 2008 (of course, she's at best a very slim favorite to become a Senator, so it's certainly possible her political career will wind up fizzling out very soon). Would it be a shocker if Polis moves up the ladder to a Senate seat and eventually launches a presidential run? No, I don't think so.
Overall, I think that there are only light barriers right now in the Democratic Party, and anyone who wins a nomination is automatically a viable general election candidate.
On the other hand, we're not talking about a very large population to begin with. If issues of particular interest to their community recede in the future, it's hard to know whether gays and lesbians will be disproportionately drawn to politics or not. And even light barriers, if they work throughout the system, could make it significantly less likely that a viable candidate will emerge. So it wouldn't shock me, either, if it doesn't happen for decades.
you know who I would bet the house on if he decided to run for any office? Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach. But he'd have to move out of Idaho first.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post! Baldwin is single, so I think that complicates things a bit. Would Americans be more comfortable with a lesbian presidential candidate if they don't see her partner in every public appearance? Or is being single a negative for any presidential candidate, regardless of orientation? Polis, on the other hand, is partnered and has a son. Unfortunately, I really don't think even dem partisans would be ready for that, as there is still a stigma attached to gay fathers. I feel like he would make a good VP choice for any dem candidate looking to rally his or her base in the future, as he's gay, Jewish, and a member of the CPC. Just not in 2016...
ReplyDeleteIn 2008 in NC there was a reasonably serious contender for the Democratic nomination for US Senate: Jim Neal, who lost to Kay Hagan.
ReplyDeleteHold on a second. After all the posts about the "invisible primary" and the role of party actors in picking nominees, you seem to ignore those factors when answering this question. I don't know Baldwin from a hole in the ground, but would party actors really back someone who is likely to be at a crippling disadvantage in carrying swing states in the general election?
ReplyDeleteYou know she's an amputee, right?
DeleteI do now. So what? Are we forbidden to say that an amputee is at a "crippling disadvantage"? That's almost as ridiculous as that official who got in trouble a few years back for referring to an African-American as "niggardly."
DeleteNo, she's not. You're thinking of Tammy Duckworth in Illinois.
DeleteGordon -
ReplyDeleteI don't think that it would a major disadvantage in the general election; more to the point, I suspect that the bulk of Dem party actors would not believe it was a major disadvantage -- and for many of them, it would be at least a marginal plus.
But let's see. Let's see, for example, how Baldwin does this year. It isn't going to happen until the point at which it's not perceived as a major negative in the general election, but then again there won't be a reasonable candidate until someone proves that it isn't a major negative, at least at the state level.
I don't think it'll happen at the VP level first, at least not any time soon. At that point, it would all be about sexual orientation, right smack in the middle of the general election. No one is going to want that, I don't think. Remember, if it's a presidential campaign, everyone will get used to the whole thing months, maybe years, before the election.
Jonathon:
DeleteI don't understand why most Democratic actors would think that a gay or lesbian nominee would not be at a disadvantage in swing states, or among more traditional-minded constituencies. Why wouldn't she be analogous to George McGovern, whom I believe you have argued was nominated because the party actors had not yet figured out how to influence the new nomination system?
The naivete on exhibit here is bizarre. America's first openly gay President hasn't been born yet. Heck, his/her parents probably haven't been born yet.
ReplyDelete