Or will we simply have the lowest voter turnout in history, as cynical Americans turn away from a "democratic process" that gives us a "choice" between two largely-identical candidates.
2007-10-07 03:19:11 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Gore supported the Iraq war when Bush invaded.
2007-10-07 03:24:23 · update #1
I don't think the parties would split. It would be a horrible choice and turnout may be low..........
2007-10-07 03:29:16 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is a world of difference between those two candidates. Giuliani is a cancer on the American soul. Conspiracy theorists have suggested that Bush was somehow behind 9-11, but Bush lacks the brains or vision to pull off such a coup.
On the other hand, consider that Giuliani does have the brains, and the connections, and the motive. Notice how he tried to exploit 9-11 to retain the mayoralty of New York City (a position that has accurately been described as the second most influential position there is in American politics).
The Religious Right will not support Rudy because he is pro choice and he has the morals of a tomcat.
Hillary may drive the boll weevils away, but they were not going to vote Democratic in 2008 any more than they did in the preceding five elections. The Democratic Core will put her in the White House, unless Cheney pulls a coup d'etat, which I won't rule out until the transition is completed.
2007-10-07 03:29:20 · answer #2 · answered by riskshark 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Voter turnout will be high, I think, regardless of who is running. Much of the impetus will be pure dread and ruthless propaganda, I believe, rather than a hope for the future and a strong platform. See the previous election for reference.
What I would like to see as a political experiment -- and potentially useful plan to unify Americans -- is a bipartisan ticket. Guiliani *and* Clinton? Ick. But, I'd be willing to vote for a bipartisan ticket, to try to set Americans back on a track that envisions future hopes, rather than fear and loathing.
2007-10-07 03:32:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Elections are manipulated and rigged by the ruling elite. Our world political leaders are personally chosen by the Bilderberg group during their annual meeting. Hillary has had her meeting with them just like her husband Bill did before he was 'selected' to be president.
Hillary will most likely be elected while we are all left bickering amongst ourselves. And you're right - there is no difference between the two candidates.
2007-10-07 07:48:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I think Democrats will vote pretty much for a Democrat this time there will be no crossover voting, Democrats are mad and there is no candidate that has the charisma of a Reagan. It won't be Giuliani, as predicted, once middle America realized he was on his third wife, has a record of hating guns and is pro choice, he was sunk. Hes now third in the polls and is causing the Republican base to think about fielding a third party candidate.
2007-10-07 03:33:16 · answer #5 · answered by justa 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
They're much more similar than one could imagine.
AIPAC has ensured that either party's candidate will comply with their agenda and they've succeeded in their two choices. They have both Hillary and Rudy in the bag.
I hope Americans voice their disappointment with the current front runners. It's a very sad circus, just when we need someone to take care of OUR country for a change.
2007-10-07 03:29:38 · answer #6 · answered by TJTB 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Of the candidates out there as of today I would vote for any Dem over any Republican. Clinton is not my favorite of the dems by a long shot but still far better than anything the Repubs have to offer. By a long shot.
I was fooled by those trying to say there was no real difference between Gore and Bush. Boy was that ever wrong!! and we have been paying the price for years now.
2007-10-07 03:22:48 · answer #7 · answered by ash 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
nicely if this grew to become into me then identity bypass with the guy who makes you snicker greater durable than all of us youve ever common. because of the fact he obviosly makes you snicker i wager its straightforward to be your self around him and the self esteem component, nicely thats not possibly an argument because of the fact the greater time you spend jointly and the greater you supplement him tell him you like him he will grow to be greater optimistic and if its persons hes not optimistic around yet he's around then you definitely thats ok. Take it as a supplement. I wouldnt bypass with the otherone because of the fact somebody who's humerless would be an uneventful boyfriend and he sounds like somebody who's continually precise and you will in no way get everywhere in an argument. loss of self esteem could be worked on yet a guy who thinks hes the bees knees and so optimistic of himself cant get replaced can he.
2016-10-21 07:59:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
have the lowest voter turnout in history
2007-10-09 01:55:45 · answer #9 · answered by elle 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What you are saying is in fact the most likely scenario...its a god damn shame how corporations have stolen democracy right from under our noses.
2007-10-07 03:23:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋