Christian Populism Has Had Its Day In USA

Post Reply New Topic

My prediction is that the next election in America will be one that shakes off the Christian populist agendas - pro-life and anti-homosexual marriage. The reason is that the favourite to be the Republican candiate for the next election is Rudolph Giuliani, who hailing from New York has a cosmopolitan outlook.

He is certainly not anti-abortion and it's doubtful he will be anti-gay marriage. You may wonder how on earth he will become leader of the Republicans, the answer is he's simply the most likely winner.

He's got name recognition, has built a patriotic reputation for being Mayor of New York during the 9/11 terror attacks. He's somebody who people can envisage as a leader. The Democrats' most likely candiate by far is Hillary Clinton. Rather attractive and centrist, she could well be the first female President.

Since she won't be battling it out against populist agenas manipulating Conservative Christian prejudices - pro-life and anti-homosexual marriage - she'll have to take much less flak than her predecessors.

Ultimately, she's younger and has more sex appeal/appealing physical qualities than Rudolph Giuliani. Americans like looks. And, perhaps, American women will vote for her in their droves having had enough of male-dominated politics at the top rung of the political ladder.

How refreshing it'll be to have campaigns that won't have abortion and gay marriage splashed all over them. Could this be the election in which the American electorate all vote solely on economic issues? Well, if not, at least Hillary Clinton's got a pretty face to fall back on.

This is a bad day for us Conservatives. What are we going to do? We must plan on an attack plan against her. But we have to remember that if we assault too fiercely we're only proving how scared of her we are. How do we balance things, hm? Is that a noose?

1) I've heard more about McCain running thn Giulliani.
2) There will be anti-abortion and anti-homosexual platforms as long as there are supporters to appeal to them.
3) Since when is Clinton attractive or centerist? Or Giulliani conservative, at least outside of New York?
4) I don't expect any more or less "flak" than any other election because that's just how elections work.

John McCain (Republican)



Rudolph Giuliani (Republican)



Hillary Clinton (Democrat)



I'm frightened. I'm very, very frightened.

Gah! That picture of Hilary scares the daylights out of me! But honestly, I think that subjects like abortion and gay marriage are so controversial that it would seem absurd not to see them as heatedly debated topics in the next election.

But who's up for Rice running for president? That would make an interesting election- two women, very different ideologies... If Colin Powell was willing to be president, he could probably get elected, though.

I'd definitely be voting for Hillary.

And, btw, ante... aren't you a Brit? Why are you worried?

A lot of things could change before the next election who truly knows who will run in it to in the end. You must remember it will be well over two years before anybody will even start to run for the President of the United States.

I don't think Hillary has a chance in hell of winning the election. She really only has the support of "College Democrats", who are the largest non-voting block of voters out there. She's very far left for your average American democrat. She has too many scandals tied to her name - she was a cohort of all her husband's nonsense during his reign as Governor of Arkansas, and as President.

And there was that thing about her working with Jack Thompson to censor the videogame industry, which accomplished nothing, but hurt her standing among her target audience immensely. Notice how she's distanced herself from it after starting out as gung-ho as he was?

The only person in the Democratic party that I'd vote for right now would be Barrack Obama, and I'd vote for Obama over most Republicans (not, however, over Guilani or The Governator). I just hope the Democrats use Obama before he gets buried in red tape, gives up the good fight and becomes just another sleazy money-grubbbing, rights-trampling senator.

Fortunately, if Hillary wins, I can just move to West Virginia, where left-wing principles are generally ignored.

too many people hate hilary. There are some democrats who say "if she had been satisfying her husband enough, al gore would probably be the president right now." which is totally bogus/sexist.

Think about it from poor Bill's point of view. Could he possibly be aroused by this?



I don't think so.

Charlie Rose was talking about this last night. The two of them agreed that a ticket with McCain and Lieberman would probably not only win, but would completely destroy the two-party system. They also agreed that it will never happen, mainly because the elephant and donkey people have too much control over the electoral process and use the primaries to build momentum, whereas independents don't need to have 6 months of conventions to put their own name on the ballot.

The guest (who happens to be an ardent republican and a conservative pundit) said that Hillary is almost certainly going to be the Democratic candidate and has a very good chance at winning because she'll get most of the lower and middle-class female voters.

Does anyone else think that both parties are using gay rights as a shield to prevent stupid people from thinking about the more important issues?

Y'know, gay rights either comes down to "I don't believe in it because the Bible says it's an abomination" or "all humans are created equal under law and entitled to equal rights", and it takes zero intelligence to debate that particular issue.

But if the stupid people have gay rights to argue about, they aren't going to concern themselves with issues like big business gouging the middle class - which is going to happen regardless of whether it's a republican or democrat in office, because the big businesses are the major campaign sponsors. For one example, there are dozens more.

I'm a democrat, but I love Rudolph Giuliani and think he'd make a great president. Since I live in New Jersey, I usually see the New York news, so I've seen firsthand what a good candidate Giuliani is. He did a great job with NYC. McCain and Clinton are also very good choices. I voted for John Kerry in the last election, but I think any of these three would do a better job than him. And ANYONE would be a better president than Bush.

I'll be 19 or 20 when the next election comes! I still don't get something though; do I have to be affiliated with a party to vote in the election?

No. You can only vote in your partie's primary - that is, if you're registered Democrat, you can vote in the Democratic primary, but not the Republican primary, and vice versa if you're registered Republican. Independent parties, that I know of, don't have primaries, and if you're registered belonging to them you can't vote in the Republican or Democratic primaries.

I'm registered Democrat mainly because 1) in Maryland, a Republican vote is thrown away since Baltimore City and the Washington, D.C. urban sprawl go Democrat and make about 70% of Maryland's total population, and 2) I like to ward off the candidates I like least - in this case, Hillary - by voting against them in the primaries. Or, on the off chance that the Democratic party fielded a candidate I liked, I could vote for him/her... but so often in elections it's about trying to get the person you think will do the least amount of damage into office.

TANGENT: if there's any other Marylanders on this forum, don't bother hassling me about MD having a republican governor for once. Like I don't know that, because I do. We all know that the reason Erhlic won was because the Democrats were so confident that Kathleen Kennedy-Towson could win on name value alone that they barely campaigned. Also, Erhlic is the one person I might vote for Hillary over.