The odds of electing a gay candidate.

[milestogo]

I was privileged to have Tammy Baldwin as my congressperson when I moved to Wisconsin in 2000. She is openly gay. Her district included Madison, which is very liberal.

In 2012 a Senate seat opened up when Herb Kohl retired. I was skeptical that Baldwin could win a statewide race. Wisconsin is a 50:50 state and the notion that she would get a majority of the vote did not seem plausible.

But she ran and she won. She won in 2012, 2018, and 2024. When somebody tries to make an issue of her sexuality it just falls flat. She cares about the issues that matter to people in this state and she represents everyone. She has town halls. She is honest. She is intelligent and well-spoken.

I am glad I was wrong. I am glad that fear did not hold her back. Sometimes people will surprise you.

[redstatebluegirl]

1. I wish that Pete could win.

I live in a bright red southern state (for three more months). No way does he win a southern red state. The ads would be brutal.

We cannot afford to lose the White House in 28 to JD Vance or something worse.

[EdmondDantes_]

3. As opposed to a black guy with a funny sounding name?

We went with "safe" candidates in 2000, 1998, and 2004 without winning. In 2020 the safe candidate won. It's not so cut and dried.

The smart wisdom said same sex marriage advocates shouldn't push for same sex marriage, but then Massachusetts had same sex marriage and within a relative few years, same sex marriage is massively popular. Sure if you play it safe, you won't get blamed for taking a risk, but you risk not gaining much either.

[Polybius]

27. 1998?

First I thought you meant 1996, but we won that year. What did you mean?

[EdmondDantes_]

33. 1988

[SheltieLover]

4. Agreed. Magats are still openly celebrating kraznov in red shithole TN

These people are so fucking stupid it hurts.

Shallow gene pool, I guess...

[subterranean]

7. No Democrat will win a bright red southern state.

The question is, could Pete win in light red or purple states like Georgia or North Carolina? I don't know the answer, but I do know the ads will be brutal no matter who we nominate.

[redstatebluegirl]

10. I love Pete and would vote for him.

But no, not even Georgia or NC. There are enough people like the magats I live around in those states to keep him from winning.

He would also struggle in rural areas up north.

[JI7]

11. The Magats aren't going to vote for any democrat

[elocs]

32. It's not worth the risk. It's just not. n/t

[get the red out]

8. I agree

I don't think there are even many potential former "moderate" states that would have enough humane religious folks to go blue for Pete. I don't think we should risk running a woman again right now. I might be blinded by the darkness of living in a red state as well, I hope.

[Polybius]

26. A Democrat who happens to be a straight, white man isn't winning in a "Bright Red Southern state" in 2028 either

Anything "Bright Red" or "Deep Blue" isn't changing in three years.

[elocs]

31. THIS: "We cannot afford to lose the White House in 28 to JD Vance or something worse."

Democrats cannot afford to lose the '28 election. Reality sucks, but it is what it is.
If we cannot elect a woman, how can we expect to win with a gay man?
And not a flaming Liberal either. I don't want to suffer through 4 years of President Vance, that is, if it is only 4 years.

[underpants]

2. Nationally - zero

[SheltieLover]

5. Agreed.

It's a damned shame, but true, imo.

[Brainfodder]

6. Having trouble with the Pete vs 34 felonies guy compares, Pete may have to grow his hair out or muttonchops to appear...

Man enough for the MAGA base to consider the possibility of overlooking that one thing that really gets up their keister!
Intelligence and lack of double speak and long pauses, and 2 handed water, and help walking down stairs and questions of his fitness, and....
and.... and.... never admitting that being gay wasn't really it, you just afraid he is that much better than you and happens to be gay and in actuality there was nothing ever to be afraid of in the first place and embarrassment of being wrong is the glue in the fabric of yourself centered ideals?

[Jose Garcia]

12. He actually grew a beard

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/buttigieg-eyeing-a-presidential-run-says-maybe-biden-hurt-democrats/ar-AA1EJ3xe

[Brainfodder]

15. Oh yeah I saw it, looked good on Mr. Buttigieg + all that decent person in general fluff.

[Tommy Carcetti]

9. I do have to think about 2008 and electing a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama.

And like Obama, I think Buttigieg offers a nice balance between a candidate who is both diverse and yet still palatable enough for Middle American moderate/swing voters.

The two negatives I see are this:

1. This isn't 2008, this is 2028 and we've somehow devolved in that time period and become more cynical and bigoted as a whole

2. Will we even have free and fair elections in 2028? Who knows?

But I'm all for Buttigieg if he runs. I'd certainly prefer him far more than some sort of empty suit like Gavin Newscom.

[JI7]

13. You can't really compare Obama to anyone else

but I wouldn't count Buttigieg out either as he does better than most in responding to right wing bs.

I also think there is less bigotry against gay men than woman when it comes to leadership positions.

[Tommy Carcetti]

16. He's the best "explainer" we've had since Bill Clinton.

He can make the complex very understandable. That's not an easy thing to do at all.

[thesquanderer]

30. Even more amazing about Obama is that he won against McCain, an admired centrist sane Republican.

McCain was not a loon or any kind of easy opponent with tons of negatives.

Thankfully (for us), along came Sarah Palin.

[MineralMan]

14. There are several non-heterosexual members of Congress,

plus even more in state and local offices. It's more difficult for a Presidential candidate, really, given how close those races have been in recent elections.

It is incredibly easy to lose a presidential race.

[milestogo]

17. That's true.

But Buttigieg is a very impressive candidate. When 2028 comes around we will need someone brilliant to clean up this huge mess. He has the brains and the energy to do just that.

[MineralMan]

18. I'd vote for him in a second.

However, I do not believe he can get enough electoral votes to win. I'm not going to be the one who decides, though.

[Delmette2.0]

34. Pete is the person we need as president

We need a list of his best accomplishments. His intelligence, quick wit, can laugh at himself, can take down an argument without bashing the speaker, a loving father and husband.
It is never about Pete being gay. It about his commitment to his family and the citizens of this country.

What else?

[oldmanlynn]

19. Just elect the best candidate.

Wow, we need to as the Democratic Party be inclusive of all people we should not be focused on just electing gay people that would be potentially troublesome if that were the case, we should focus in on electing the best person. The one who can win the election.

[Mr. Sparkle]

20. I would say they are about the same as electing a black candidate during the bush years

[surfered]

21. He's smart enough...

[NNadir]

22. My feeling is that if there are elections in 2028, things will be so bad...

...that a highly intelligent gay, black, woman, with a transsexual wife, openly declared as an atheist could win by a landslide.

My model is 1932 when a crippled guy who couldn't walk swept into office.

Compared to the description above, Pete isn't a road too far.

There's going to be a lot of FAFO in the next years, even among the bigots. Count in it.

[Xavier Breath]

23. As grandad used to say: "Slim to none, and Slim's left town."

[ToxMarz]

24. I would love to see him President.

I am gay.

I think there is zero chance.

The entire election would only be about that ONE THING. Nothing else will be talked about or reported. That speculation will be all there is. It will be a referendum as to whether a gay person can be elected President, and the vote will be about whether thay can or can't. Period. That unfortunately is the reality.

At this time in our history we don't have the luxury of seeing if now it might be the time. It is becoming life or death, literally among other things, if we continue to elect another republican.

Sorry.

[pinkstarburst]

25. 2028 is going to be a change year

Just like when Obama was elected.

I think we need to let go of the idea that we are going to nominate some magical candidate that changes the minds of a bunch of conservative leaning voters across rural America and gets them to vote Democrat.

Republicans and conservative leaning independents are NEVER going to vote for us. They aren't. We need to let go of that fantasy. They line up and vote for the republican candidate every time.

We need to stop going after those votes and go after OUR voters. Part of why Kamala lost in 2024 is because our voters stayed home, while republicans showed up in huge numbers. THAT is our problem.

And I guarantee you, we will not solve that problem by telling democratic voters "you have to choose from these straight white male Christian candidates, none of which you are excited about."

Who here is actually excited to vote for Gavin Newsom? Now multiply that times democratic voters across the nation, and you have a disaster.

I absolutely reject the idea that our candidate can't be a woman, can't be a gay man, can't be a Jewish man. We need to focus on getting OUR voters out, not on pandering to republicans who will never vote for us anyway.

[beaglelover]

28. In 2028? 0%.

[twodogsbarking]

29. Trump has no chance of winning, said many, at one time.

It is still unnerving to believe. I thought we had a cure for the orange plague but we were only in remission.