Post-convention, GOP nominee admits he/she is Gay/Atheist/Muslim

[Blue3]

The 2016 GOP nominee is officially nominated at the convention (Rubio or Christie or another mainstream Republican).

A couple weeks later, there emerges video evidence that the nominee is either Gay or Muslim or Atheist. After a rough week, the GOP nominee admits it (sometime in early/mid-September) and apologizes for hiding the truth about him/herself.

What happens? And would it be a significant difference depending on which one of those 3 (gay/atheist/muslim) the GOP nominee is?

[DrScholl]

All of those would be a problem for the GOP, mainly with the evangelical base. Evangelicals would have no problem sitting it out.

[Blue3]

All of those would be a problem for the GOP, mainly with the evangelical base. Evangelicals would have no problem sitting it out.

Even when already worked up in a frenzy into thinking Hillary (or whoever) would be the worst thing to ever happen in US history?

Also, would the GOP nominee gain any votes?

And if the evangelical support does drop, would it really show, and in what states (that matter) would it show?

And are all 3 equally problematic, or are one or two of them seen as not as bad as the other(s)?

[Skill and Chance]

If socons stay home, it could make CO and VA lean D.  FL could also be pushed left, but that might be a wash.

[TJ in Oregon]

I could imagine how the gay one could happen, or maybe the atheist one, but how does one under such political scrutiny get outed as a secret Muslim on videotape?

[Mr. Morden]

Not sure how a high profile presidential candidate could pull off being a closet Muslim.  I mean, sure, it's possible to believe whatever you want in private, but how common is it for someone to be an adherent to a major religion yet tell absolutely no one in the world about it, practicing the religion entirely in private (or being a famous person who only tells a few people about it, and they keep it secret)?

In any case, for any presidential nominee of either party who lied about their religion in such a fundamental way, either hiding the fact that they were atheist or Muslim, it would come across as a pretty big betrayal of the voters, to have lied to them about something so important to them.  There'd be tremendous pressure for them to drop out of the race, even after they were nominated, and have the electors choose someone else.  Faithless electors would be a big risk.  And yeah, this would be an issue for the nominee of *either* major party.

I actually think voters would be more forgiving if the nominee came out as gay....but much moreso on the Democratic side than the GOP side.  The bigger thing there would be if the nominee in question had been married and lying to his spouse about his sexual orientation.  Then it would be seen as a big betrayal, and again, significant pressure on them to step down and hand the nomination to someone else.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If such an unlikely event were to happen, I can't see it causing anything other than the withdrawal of the nominee.  Any long term consequences to the politician in question would depend on where ey lives and whether it was a case of em simply being secretive or a case of em actively portraying emself as something other than ey were.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I actually think the gay one could be survivable and even a galvanizing moment in some ways, providing the candidate was single. I can't think of any Republicans who would hypothetically fit the bill, though. If the candidate is married or recently divorced, though, game over. It makes him look like a liar and hypocrite. Same if he's been historically anti-gay.

Atheist has the biggest range of responses, I think. If the candidate is just honest that he moved away from religion and no longer identifies as a believer, but remains credibly conservative, I think they could survive. It would be like Arnold Vinick, only with a more progressive country. But if they come off in any way as an anti-theist, they're done.

I can't see any way that a "secret Muslim" GOP nominee wins a single state.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I actually think the gay one could be survivable and even a galvanizing moment in some ways, providing the candidate was single. I can't think of any Republicans who would hypothetically fit the bill, though. If the candidate is married or recently divorced, though, game over. It makes him look like a liar and hypocrite. Same if he's been historically anti-gay.

I'm surprised you didn't think of Lindsey Graham given all the innuendo about him that swirls about him from time to time.  He's the most prominent unmarried Republican I can think of right now, tho there may be some others as equally prominent.  However, even if Graham be gay I think he won't explore that side of himself until after he leaves politics.  He strikes me as someone whose first love is politics and who is faithful enough to that love to not endanger it by a dalliance with someone else of any gender.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Gay = decent loss of votes, defeat is inevitable.

Muslim = huge loss of votes, strong 3rd party candidate

Atheist = Doesn't even get 2nd place

[BlueSwan]

I actually think the gay one could be survivable and even a galvanizing moment in some ways, providing the candidate was single. I can't think of any Republicans who would hypothetically fit the bill, though. If the candidate is married or recently divorced, though, game over. It makes him look like a liar and hypocrite. Same if he's been historically anti-gay.

Atheist has the biggest range of responses, I think. If the candidate is just honest that he moved away from religion and no longer identifies as a believer, but remains credibly conservative, I think they could survive. It would be like Arnold Vinick, only with a more progressive country. But if they come off in any way as an anti-theist, they're done.

I can't see any way that a "secret Muslim" GOP nominee wins a single state.

Pretty much agree with this.

Infact, it would be strange if there aren't several closet gays and atheist politicians out there - especially the latter, I suspect. Closet muslims? Doubt it.

In this day and age it really would be sad if not believing in god(s) disqualifies one from the presidency, unless of course said person was a huge hypocrite.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

None of these would happen, but it'd be hilarious.

Gay = decent loss of votes, defeat is inevitable.

Muslim = huge loss of votes, strong 3rd party candidate

Atheist = Doesn't even get 2nd place

You think Americans would vote for a Muslim before an Atheist?

AMERICANS?!?!?

[bedstuy]

A candidate admitting that he or she is atheist or Muslim is not realistic.

If you were actually Muslim, it would be difficult to hide it.  And come on, despite what tea partiers say, there are no secret Muslims. 

If you were atheist, it would be incredibly easy to lie about it.  Many politicians already do this.  A person isn't going to jeopardize their chances by admitting they are an atheist that late in the game.   

The gay option is theoretically possible.  In 2016, it would likely lose the election for a GOP candidate.  But, it depends on the gender of the candidate (people would be more accepting of a lesbian I think), how it come to light and how the candidate handles it. 

[BlueSwan]

I find americans suspicion of atheists very strange. I feel pretty confident that we'll see an open non-believer winning the nomination of one of the two major parties before 2030. Infact, in my area of the world, being openly religious is more of a problem for a candidate than the opposite.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I find americans suspicion of atheists very strange. I feel pretty confident that we'll see an open non-believer winning the nomination of one of the two major parties before 2030. In fact, in my area of the world, being openly religious is more of a problem for a candidate than the opposite.

The US is not your area of the world.  I see no reason to think there will be a sudden large change in the widespread American view that it is better to be a believer than not.  Also, the added social contacts one gains by being a believer are advantageous to politicians on their way up.

[Stranger in a strange land]

None of these would happen, but it'd be hilarious.

Gay = decent loss of votes, defeat is inevitable.

Muslim = huge loss of votes, strong 3rd party candidate

Atheist = Doesn't even get 2nd place

You think Americans would vote for a Muslim before an Atheist?

AMERICANS?!?!?

Polling results have shown that yes, in fact, they would: http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/atheists-muslims-bias-presidential-candidates.aspx

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How can someone be a closet Muslim? That's pretty much impossible, especially for someone under such media scrutiny.

[Blue3]

How can someone be a closet Muslim? That's pretty much impossible, especially for someone under such media scrutiny.

How is it more impossible to be a secret Muslim than a secret Atheist or secret Gay?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well being a covert atheist is easy since there's no behavior needed to be one, and covert homosexual behavior can be done and got away with at least for awhile (see: Larry Craig). But you can't keep the five pillars of Islam and not be identifiable as Muslim. Someone under media scrutiny would definitely be caught if they were carrying a prayer rug to pray toward Mecca five times a day.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

None of these would happen, but it'd be hilarious.

Gay = decent loss of votes, defeat is inevitable.

Muslim = huge loss of votes, strong 3rd party candidate

Atheist = Doesn't even get 2nd place

You think Americans would vote for a Muslim before an Atheist?

AMERICANS?!?!?

It was closer than I thought, but the Muslim has the upper hand.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/06/24/more-than-50-of-americans-would-vote-for-an-atheist-presidential-candidate-but-would-you/

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Wow, interesting poll results. Good job, Murica.

[milhouse24]

Many Evangelicals would label Romney as an Atheist, Cultist, anarchist, non-christian. 

Does anyone know if white evangelical turnout was lower in 2012 for Romney than in 2008 or 2004?

[Blue3]

Well being a covert atheist is easy since there's no behavior needed to be one, and covert homosexual behavior can be done and got away with at least for awhile (see: Larry Craig). But you can't keep the five pillars of Islam and not be identifiable as Muslim. Someone under media scrutiny would definitely be caught if they were carrying a prayer rug to pray toward Mecca five times a day.

The 5 pillars of Islam are:
1. Believe in One God, and Mohammed as a prophet
2. Give to charity
3. Make a trip to Mecca once in your lifetime
4. Fast during the day for the month of Ramadan
5. Pray 5 times a day


Only the last two I mentioned would anybody have any idea about, and you can give excuses for them. You don't HAVE to go on rug and face Mecca while praying in Arabic, you just have to pray.

[CountryClassSF]

The 2016 GOP nominee is officially nominated at the convention (Rubio or Christie or another mainstream Republican).

A couple weeks later, there emerges video evidence that the nominee is either Gay or Muslim or Atheist. After a rough week, the GOP nominee admits it (sometime in early/mid-September) and apologizes for hiding the truth about him/herself.

What happens? And would it be a significant difference depending on which one of those 3 (gay/atheist/muslim) the GOP nominee is?

Then they should immediately drop out of the race or I'd go independent.

[H. Ross Peron]

The 2016 GOP nominee is officially nominated at the convention (Rubio or Christie or another mainstream Republican).

A couple weeks later, there emerges video evidence that the nominee is either Gay or Muslim or Atheist. After a rough week, the GOP nominee admits it (sometime in early/mid-September) and apologizes for hiding the truth about him/herself.

What happens? And would it be a significant difference depending on which one of those 3 (gay/atheist/muslim) the GOP nominee is?

Then they should immediately drop out of the race or I'd go independent.

Why?