Woman, Minority, or Openly Agnostic President?

[JackRiddler]

I like the question from another thread well enough that I want to see it as a poll. But I'm going to expand it.

Who are we going to see first? Tell us your reasons.

Time limit: 200 years.

[JackRiddler]

1. I voted woman

And I expect if she's a strong, no-nonsense candidate she will take it in a landslide. Might take another 20 years, though.

[_Jumper_]

2. A Latino president in 20-30 years

The vast majority of bigots who would not vote for a minority candidate are Republicans. A Democratic minority will be able to win relatively soon. I pick Latino because they are the largest minority.

Race will be a non-issue in about 50 years. Interracial marriage will do to race what interethnic marriage among whites did to ethnic antagonisms.

Sadly, thanks to the religious reich, we will not have a female president as long as they remain a force in America. America will likely become less religious over time but it is hard to pinpoint a point in time when America will become as secular as every other industrialized nation.

[tritsofme]

8. ..

>>America will likely become less religious over time but it is hard to pinpoint a point in time when America will become as secular as every other industrialized nation.

I dont know if I agree with that statement, from what I have read, Hispanics are on the average more religious than the the American population as a whole, with massive amounts of immagration from Latin American countries continuing over the years, it would seem to me that the country will become more religious, not less. Maybe my speculation is way off, but thats the way I see it.

[TexasMexican]

17. Viva Los Estados Unidos Americanos.

Hispanic President is the next major thing.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackRiddler]

4. Gimme a break

KKK? Wow, you don't mince on the rhetoric, do you?

I don't judge anyone by their race or gender or religious belief. (Well, maybe by the latter. I don't like the people who are longing for Armaggedon, for example.)

These categories are "real" in our society. The question underlying this poll is:

When will an electoral majority be mature enough not to judge people by these categories?

FYI, I recently had this discussion with a former black congresswoman... who didn't think I was KKK - how delusive of her.

Her opinion was that "openly agnostic" was far less likely being elected to ANY high office than a black person or a woman.

[Zero Division]

5. My guess is a woman...though I certainly wouldn't make any bets

I do have this deep fear that the GOP is going to run an American version of Margaret Thatcher one of these days :scared:.

I have a bad feeling that it's going to be extremely difficult for a liberal woman or minority to be elected to the highest office in the land.

[MrChupon]

6. Colin Powell

I don't like it either, but considering he might run (and possible erode the black dem vote), if you made me wager money, I'd put it on a Black man before a woman or any of the other answers.

[newyawker99]

20. Hi MrChupon!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[DrFunkenstein]

7. Agnostic? Easier To Say You Pray But Never Go To Church

"I've spent some time reading and thinking about it and trying to study it and I've arrived at not so much a sense of the differences but a sense of the similarities in so many ways; the value system roots and the linkages between the Torah, the Koran and the Bible and the fundamental story that runs through all of this, that connects us-and really connects all of us.

I've always been fascinated by the Transcendentalists and the Pantheists and others who found these great connections just in nature, in trees, the ponds, the ripples of the wind on the pond, the great feast of nature itself.

I think it's all an expression that grows out of this profound respect people have for those forces that human beings struggle to define and to explain. It's all a matter of spirituality.

I find that even - even atheists and agnostics wind up with some kind of spirituality, maybe begrudgingly acknowledging it here and there, but it's there."

http://www.americanwindsurfer.com/mag/back/issue5.5c.html

<>

[JackRiddler]

10. well there you go...

showing why the least likely out of the three (black, woman or agnostic) is probably agnostic. (I doubt gay would ever become acceptable to the majority, either.)

Who says "agnostic" excludes spirituality? To me, it merely means someone who does not accept either divine teachings or the existence of God or gods as discrete omnipotent beings based on faith or on third-party assurances, but on personal experience.

(One is agnostic until such time as God actually settles the matter by being a bit more open about his/her/its/their existence. Hasn't talked to me yet, however. Maybe I'm too dense to see Her pattern?)

In no way does this rule out spirituality. I would say most organized religion (especially the kind that elevates the authority of holy texts), if anything, is anti-spiritual.

Anyway, the majority of Americans will accept anybody before they let an open agnostic or atheist in, no matter how good he/she is. (Note: Mitterand was once such, in France!)

[laura888]

9. Colin Powell has a shot...

...repubs love him and I'm sure he would get much campaign $ to serve as mouthpiece in another capacity.

[Kinkistyle]

11. I don't believe Clinton was REALLY religious

I don't really believe Clinton is really a religious man, despite what he says and does. I think he goes to church and stuff to maintain an image.

[Nikia]

14. I always thought he was religious

Anytime he spoke religiouly he seemed much more sincere than Bush or most of the self proclaimed Religious Right. Contradicting myself a bit, I remember reading a Time or Newsweek article back when he was president saying that Billy Grahm believed that Clinton was a genuine Christian.
If any recent president is agnostic, our current one is. He isn't afraid to mock God by proclaiming that he is on a mission from God because he does not really believe in God.
Of course, I am a liberal, progressive Christian so I might be biased in this. How can I or anyone else really tell if people who we don't personally know are genuine in their belief.

[JackRiddler]

21. typical

So because Bush does bad things, you're pretending you can rule out he does so out of the religious motivations he claims, as though you were inside his brain, and knew what he really feels.

What you're saying is, if he was good, it was out of religious motivation; if he was bad, it must be his agnostic side.

Your underlying scheme:

Agnostic=bad, amoral, able to do nasty things.

Religious=good, moral, likely to do good things (except when tempted by an amoral=agnostic logic).

Looking at the same facts you bring up in your post, I develop an entirely different likely explanation: Religion is a tool of opportunity for both Clinton & Bush, who both know it's important to talk a lot about how God inspires their actions. Clinton looks more sincere to smart people, because he is smarter and hence a better actor; he can simulate sincerity better than Bush. Bush is a very bad actor and not nearly as smart, so his faked sincerity plays best with people who are less well-equipped to see through it (who are ready to ignore "the smirk" because they've bought the idea that the Republican program is more in tune with both, morality and religion). Billy Graham, the head of a tax-free empire, a man who runs a religion as a racket to enrich himself, puts the divine imprimatur on both. Why? Because one of his most important assets is the unlimited access he has had to presidents, thanks in part to his ability to blackmail them by swinging around his ill-gotten influence through "religion." But on this score, they are probably all three hypocrites. Bush worse than Clinton, since he is literally claiming justification in scripture and working to undermine the separation of church and state.

[Clark Can WIN]

12. I vote Latino, probably male

But a very main stream kind of Latino. Like a fourth generation guy, somebody like Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

Please God, let it be a Democrat.

[Nikia]

15. I agree

I think that Latinos who were born in the U.S. to assimilated English speaking families face much less discrimination than Spanish speaking immigrants, especially if they are middle class or above and college educated. The potential candidate's heritage will probably allow him to capture a large percentage of the growing Latino vote and will probably not scare away that many non Latino voters.

[IronLionZion]

13. I don't have a star just yet so thanks for making this poll

from my earlier thread.

I would say woman because of good ol Hillary. She would get the progressive vote and a large chunk of the women.

[Alenne]

16. I think a white Latino

will be President first.

[absolutezero]

18. Clinton v Condi

election 2012....i have a really weird feeling this might happen.

[Silverhair]

19. What if Cheney decides not to be VP again? Bush/Rice?

That would be a very powerful combination. If only 5% of our the black & women in our base, (1 in 20 of our base, not 5% of the nation.)would vote Rep because of her race & gender, we would be in very serious trouble. She would also be a very strong campaigner as she is articulate, and brilliant. The concert pianist think would help some too. Remember Clinton on A. Hall show with the sax?

That would position her for a run of her own in 08. And I think she could get the Rep nomination.

[Speed8098]

23. Brilliant?!?!?!

You think Condi Rice is brilliant???? She's an effing moron.

She would have to be a moron if she thinks people actually believe the propaganda that she spews.

How can someone with her position come out publicly and say, "We had no idea they would use planes as missles"?
Not to mention the dozens of other soundbytes she has used.

Brilliant? NOT!

[RebelOne]

22. Of course, it's going to be a woman president.

Because Hillary is going to run in 2008 and win hands down.

[JackRiddler]

24. 2008? Do you mean she will challenge President Dean in the primaries?

[JackRiddler]

25. About one day into this poll...

And those who think they'll see a first husband before any of the other choices are in the majority with 51 percent.

The next most popular choice is none of the above, "white guys until 2204 at least."

Remember, these are what we think likely, not what we would personally support!

One poster raises a good case that race may become irrelevant during the next 50 years, thanks to intermarriage.

It's a deeply held hope of mine, and I do think the day will come but remember that most people are very stubborn about sticking to their racial and ethnic identity, and they pass that attitude on to their kids pretty well. In some ways, I understand that...

A woman would be revolutionary in some respects, whatever her politics. It would transmit changed attitudes to the whole society, although it may produce a backlash. I think people will resist the idea, but the odds are still good because women are a majority to begin with. Not to mention their family & friends!

A conservative male of an ethnic minority would only appear to be a revolutionary change, on the surface. It would be wildly celebrated but I doubt it would change very much. (Unless he was a great man, of course.)

[JackRiddler]

26. kick

k

[election_2004]

27. why is a black female not an option on the poll?

Especially if Kerry wins in 2004, watch for President Stephanie Tubbs-Jones in 2013.