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.
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.