I think it's less about being gay and more about being unable to pander to the "american family".
As an outsider this is really significant compared to other countries. So much of the presidency revolves around the president, his wife, his kids and his dog/s. This is just not the case in Britain at all, or in much of Europe. You will barely see the partner of whoever is running for Prime Minister and it would be considered very improper to parade the children around as a political prop.
A gay person running for president simply can't easily do many of the rituals that are part of The Presidency™.
People will say it's homophobia but it's more than that. I don't think a straight single person could win the American presidency and for the same reasons that a gay person couldn't.
I think a gay married Christian has a better chance of being president than a hetero atheist bachelor. Odds are slim for either of them, but I give a slight edge to the gay Christian.
The problem is, for a very large number of those American Christians, being gay means you cannot be a Christian, so they will disregard that aspect if not be outright indignant of it.
Would most of those people actually consider voting for the Democratic nominee anyway though? Maybe not ten years ago, but these days I'd think the vast majority of Christians unwilling to vote for a gay candidate would be Republicans regardless.
It's so persistent, and has been for such a long time. James Buchanan, the president before Lincoln, was never married and always described as a bachelor. Because apparently it's impossible to not have a first lady, Buchanan designated his niece Harriet Johnston as his first lady
French presidents don't really lean on the family life angle but it definitely seems like there's some weird spectacle going on there (maybe unintentional from the perspective of the politicians)
between Sarcozy and his wife who was a model, and then Macron and his teacherwife
honestly I didn't think of it that way but ur right, America could never have a situation like in the Netherlands where the prime Minister is basically ace
I think it’s less about being gay and more about being unable to pander to the “american family”.
Half the reason Mayo Pete ran for President was that he'd reached a dead end in Indiana under his current label of politics.
He couldn't run as a corporate technocrat waving the LGBT flag because the first was worthless outside neoliberal circles and the second only pissed off majority conservatives.
Since he wasn't any kind of actual populist, with policies people might like or a career lay voters gave a fuck about, he had no way to run for anything above Mayor in a city that voted Blue No Matter Who.
I think it's less about being gay and more about being unable to pander to the "american family".
As an outsider this is really significant compared to other countries. So much of the presidency revolves around the president, his wife, his kids and his dog/s. This is just not the case in Britain at all, or in much of Europe. You will barely see the partner of whoever is running for Prime Minister and it would be considered very improper to parade the children around as a political prop.
A gay person running for president simply can't easily do many of the rituals that are part of The Presidency™.
People will say it's homophobia but it's more than that. I don't think a straight single person could win the American presidency and for the same reasons that a gay person couldn't.
I think a gay married Christian has a better chance of being president than a hetero atheist bachelor. Odds are slim for either of them, but I give a slight edge to the gay Christian.
The problem is, for a very large number of those American Christians, being gay means you cannot be a Christian, so they will disregard that aspect if not be outright indignant of it.
Would most of those people actually consider voting for the Democratic nominee anyway though? Maybe not ten years ago, but these days I'd think the vast majority of Christians unwilling to vote for a gay candidate would be Republicans regardless.
Definitely not, which is why it was a bad strategy in the first place.
It's so persistent, and has been for such a long time. James Buchanan, the president before Lincoln, was never married and always described as a bachelor. Because apparently it's impossible to not have a first lady, Buchanan designated his niece Harriet Johnston as his first lady
French presidents don't really lean on the family life angle but it definitely seems like there's some weird spectacle going on there (maybe unintentional from the perspective of the politicians)
between Sarcozy and his wife who was a model, and then Macron and his teacherwife
and then I just think of Berlusconi lol
Also apparently short guys do generally get less support than taller ones.
honestly I didn't think of it that way but ur right, America could never have a situation like in the Netherlands where the prime Minister is basically ace
The media would like very much to stop reporting about Hunter Biden altogether.
Half the reason Mayo Pete ran for President was that he'd reached a dead end in Indiana under his current label of politics.
He couldn't run as a corporate technocrat waving the LGBT flag because the first was worthless outside neoliberal circles and the second only pissed off majority conservatives.
Since he wasn't any kind of actual populist, with policies people might like or a career lay voters gave a fuck about, he had no way to run for anything above Mayor in a city that voted Blue No Matter Who.