LGBTQ Candidates and Identity Framing in Elections: Meet Mayor Pete Buttigieg

• In Event: Queer(ing) Candidates

Abstract

Recent work has shown that voters still penalize LGBTQ candidates. At the same time, the number of openly LGBTQ candidates running for office has reached record numbers. Among them, Pete Buttigieg’s candidacy in the presidential primary caught fire far more than most observers predicted. Did Buttigieg perform so well because sexual orientation is no longer an issue in the Democratic electorate? Or did he do so well despite being a gay man, because he could contrast any negative lingering impact of sexual orientation with other characteristics often positively evaluated by the electorate, such as military experience, elite education and religiosity? To explore these questions, we administered a survey to a nationally representative sample of more than 6,000 likely American voters during the 2020 primary. We embedded a framing experiment asking voters to choose between Pete Buttigieg and Donald Trump in a potential election matchup. We kept the presentation of Donald Trump constant but randomized Buttigieg’s presentation. Buttigieg was introduced in one of the following ways: a neutral (mayoral) Pete, a gay Pete, a proudly gay Pete, a veteran Pete, a religious Pete, a proudly gay and veteran Pete, and a proudly gay and religious Pete. Our results strongly suggest that a gay candidate was electable, even though voter support decreased when Buttigieg was presented as a proudly gay man with his husband. Other characteristics, such as Buttigieg’s military background, more than made up any negative effect of sexual orientation.

Authors

• Gabriele Magni, Loyola Marymount University

• Andrew S. Reynolds, Princeton University