RE: A McCain/Clinton Ticket? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


CarrieO -> RE: A McCain/Clinton Ticket? (7/18/2008 7:24:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

....dunno about McCain/Clinton.......a far better, unlikely combo would be Obama and Powell.........



now there's an interesting thought.




Hippiekinkster -> RE: A McCain/Clinton Ticket? (7/18/2008 7:26:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

**Fast reply**

The last CBS poll I saw showed that 20% of her supports were going to vote for McCain. So I can see the argument made that it is Obama's duty to win those votes.

Political speculation is much safer and cheaper than Oil speculation....
And 20% of the voters in the primary in WV didn't vote for Obama solely because of his "race". Hmmm.




DarkSteven -> RE: A McCain/Clinton Ticket? (7/18/2008 7:27:12 PM)

Just what IS it about the VP slot?  A President has LOTS of goodie posts to award.

Bill Clinton truly shone at the economy.  Perhaps McCain could announce that if elected, he would make Hillary Secretary or the Treasury?




TheHeretic -> RE: A McCain/Clinton Ticket? (7/18/2008 7:42:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CarrieO

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

....dunno about McCain/Clinton.......a far better, unlikely combo would be Obama and Powell.........



now there's an interesting thought.



         That defeats the whole purpose of cashing in on the rascist element of the standard Dem block.  McCain will very likely bring a woman onto the ticket, but it certainly won't be Hillary.  He has some good options among the Governors.




FirmhandKY -> RE: A McCain/Clinton Ticket? (7/18/2008 11:08:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

<chuckles softly>

~~~The "Firm", starts the weekend early.~~~

If that happened,I`d eat my hat.


Maybe a lot of people would be willing to eat their hats, if a McCain/Clinton ticket was approached the right way.

I don't think such a ticket is likely: I just think it's possible.

In fact, I think such a ticket, correctly introduced and framed, could make for a historic realignment of the political forces in America.

People think (and mostly act) in pretty much predictable ways.  Politics isn't much different.

But today is a pretty unique time, politically, similar to the time when Reagan was able to forge a new political coalition from the right and the left, that shook up the normal consensus.

There is a lot of ... distaste ... for both parties right now.  Most conservatives are disgusted with the Republican party.  Many normal party Democrats are disgusted with the Soros/MoveOn/Code Pink side of their party.  The broad middle feels frustrated with both sides.

A McCain/Clinton ticket could appeal to that broad middle as well as a majority of both parties.  McCain could (politely) tell the most conservative wing of the Republican party to take a hike.  Clinton could tell the most irrational leftist/socialist side of the Democratic party to go fish ... and pull together a coalition of the middle, without the constricting baggage of the ideologues from either side.

Likely?  No.

Possible?  I think so.

Firm




TheHeretic -> RE: A McCain/Clinton Ticket? (7/19/2008 12:09:48 AM)

        Possible?  Lots of things are possible, Firm.  It's possible the lotto ticket I bought with the change from $10 on my last trip to the liquor store, and haven't checked, was a winner, and I didn't need to go to work this week.

        I cannot see this thing you are running are running up the flagpole.  I'm trying, and I just can't get there.  This isn't stirring the pot of the political landscape, it's tossing in a cherry bomb.  Anarchy for the hell of it.

        Can you expand on how she would, in any way, be a greater credit than debit to his campaign?




FirmhandKY -> RE: A McCain/Clinton Ticket? (7/19/2008 2:07:19 AM)

The question is "Would McCain gain more than he lost, if he had Hillary as a VP candidate?"

Right now, I'm not sure I'd vote for McCain. If I do, it will be with my forefinger and thumb pressed tightly on the sides of my nose.  Except for some minor cosmetic differences, I don't see very much politically separating her and McCain.  More of appearances, based on who their primary base of support has been.

Hillary has a pretty devoted base. If she didn't have to pander to the loony leftist, she could easily be considered a centrists by many (not me, but just saying ...).

Both McCain and Hillary are opportunists, more interested in their own power, than in any particular set of principles.

If McCain doesn't win, he ain't gonna run again.  This is his last shot.

If Hillary isn't Obama's VP (which I find unlikely), and Obama wins ... Hillary ain't never gonna get another shot.

Hillary's only reasonable chance (other than a putsch as I mentioned before) is to get the VP slot this time.

If she convinces McCain that she is the only way that he can win, as an opportunist, I think McCain might take it.  He's never particularly cared for the conservative base, anyway.  He just as soon see the Republican party mirror his "more centrist" roots.

Hillary likely wouldn't even have to change parties.  Not changing parties would actually be better.

A dual party Prez/VP would have some strong advantages in getting legislation passed, an excellent PR angle, and would likely result in an actually strong "third" populist party taken straight out of the middle.

Again ... just some thinking outside the box, not necessarily a prediction.

Firm




smartalex -> RE: A McCain/Clinton Ticket? (7/19/2008 2:53:07 AM)

Fast Reply--

The incumbent is not a sure nominee for the next election, and other candidates are usually around. The lack of competition is fairly recent.

One could draw some comparisons to 1968, for example, if this next administration makes unpopular decisions about an unpopular war. (But then we'd likely have some other creep. Pun intended, for the historically literate.)




TheHeretic -> RE: A McCain/Clinton Ticket? (7/19/2008 7:58:12 AM)

         Firm, there are just too many realities that have to be ignored to even speculate on such a possibility.  I'm sorry to say it, but the conclusion I'm heading towards is that you must have taken the psilosybin thread WAY to seriously. [:D]




dcnovice -> RE: A McCain/Clinton Ticket? (7/19/2008 8:28:49 AM)

<fast reply>

[sm=pigsfly.gif][sm=pigsfly.gif][sm=pigsfly.gif]

[sm=pigsfly.gif][sm=pigsfly.gif]

[sm=pigsfly.gif]






slvemike4u -> RE: A McCain/Clinton Ticket? (7/19/2008 8:29:40 AM)

Creep....Committee to Re Elect the President....
           




Musicmystery -> RE: A McCain/Clinton Ticket? (7/19/2008 10:20:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: smartalex

Fast Reply--

The incumbent is not a sure nominee for the next election, and other candidates are usually around. The lack of competition is fairly recent.

One could draw some comparisons to 1968, for example, if this next administration makes unpopular decisions about an unpopular war. (But then we'd likely have some other creep. Pun intended, for the historically literate.)



However, in that election, President Johnson annoiunced he "would not seek, and would not accept" the nomination of his party.

Different from not being the sure nominee, as you put it--though perhaps it's still what you meant.

Johnson labored under an unpopular war, but he was able to skillfully work Congress, and was one of the most productive of our presidents.

The CREEP Nixon reference opens a host of parallels, though, that are beyond the scope of this thread, so I'll reluctantly leave it there.

The Muse

[P.S. --- I'll post a related piece tonight on my blog: John Quixote and the McCainocrats]




Alumbrado -> RE: A McCain/Clinton Ticket? (7/19/2008 1:23:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Creep....Committee to Re Elect the President....
          


I've still got an 'Eat Beans and Rabbit Stew' sticker somewhere.




Griswold -> RE: A McCain/Clinton Ticket? (7/19/2008 5:06:58 PM)


Ain't gonna happen.




FirmhandKY -> RE: A McCain/Clinton Ticket? (7/20/2008 10:34:21 AM)

FR:

Ok, for all you "can't think out of the box very well" posters ...

How about a McCain/Lieberman ticket?

Lieberman: Obama's Iraq Trip Only Possible Because of McCain
July 20, 2008 12:03 PM

"Look, the fact is that if Barack Obama's policy on Iraq had been implemented, Barack Obama couldn't go to Iraq today, it wouldn't be safe," Sen. Joe Lieberman, Ind-Conn., told Chris Wallace this morning on "Fox News Sunday."

"Barack Obama, John McCain saw the same difficulty in Iraq," Lieberman argued, "John McCain had the guts to argue against public opinion, to put his whole campaign on the line because, as he says, he'd rather lose an election than lose a war that he thinks is this important to the United States..."

Lieberman continued: "Sen. McCain and I and others want us out of Iraq, sooner rather than later, but want us out in a way that does not compromise all the gains that American and Iraqi forces have made in Iraq ... And frankly, we want to stay there to a victory, because we don't want all those who have served in the American uniform there to have served, or in some cases died, in vain. Remember this, Chris, we wouldn't be having this discussion about how to get out unless the surge, which John McCain courageously fought for, taking on the president of his own party, popular opinion, risking his campaign, and which Sen. Obama opposed, worked. So, that's the good news."

Firm




Musicmystery -> RE: A McCain/Clinton Ticket? (7/20/2008 10:42:45 AM)

This one I can believe.

I doubt it would come to fruition, but this one is more realistic.

(Lieberman was, after all, re-elected as an independent, and he has been a supporter of both McCain and McCain's stance on Iraq.)

And Lieberman is already a pariah among many Democrats.





TheHeretic -> RE: A McCain/Clinton Ticket? (7/20/2008 10:58:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

How about a McCain/Lieberman ticket?




      Much better, Firm.  Lieberman has his own negative baggage within his party, but there isn't much chance of that percentile voting McC anyway.

      What has blocked me from being able to visualize your initial offering was the number of people who simply despise Clinton, that would change their vote away from McCain if he added her.

     Now I'm curious.  Have we ever had someone stand for veep on behalf of both parties?




Musicmystery -> RE: A McCain/Clinton Ticket? (7/20/2008 5:27:12 PM)

~Fast Reply~

I'm not certain of this, and I've just come from a funeral, lots to do and don't have time to research it---

...but didn't we used to independently elect the Prez and VP? That would allow for different parties. I just don't remember. Anyone know?

I DO know that until the turn of the 20th century we didn't even directly elect our U.S. Senators (they were appointed).

Please cite your sources if you have them--I'd like to look into this further, and presumably, so would others.

Thanks!




Thadius -> RE: A McCain/Clinton Ticket? (7/20/2008 5:46:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~Fast Reply~

I'm not certain of this, and I've just come from a funeral, lots to do and don't have time to research it---

...but didn't we used to independently elect the Prez and VP? That would allow for different parties. I just don't remember. Anyone know?

I DO know that until the turn of the 20th century we didn't even directly elect our U.S. Senators (they were appointed).

Please cite your sources if you have them--I'd like to look into this further, and presumably, so would others.

Thanks!


Originally the VP was the person that got the second most votes in the electoral college, with ties to be settled in congress with each state getting a single vote.
quote:

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3 states:

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall choose from them by Ballot the Vice-President.


With the ratification of the 12th ammendment in 1804, it was changed mainly because of the Jefferson / Burr election of 1800.

Source: http://www.consource.org/index.asp 




Musicmystery -> RE: A McCain/Clinton Ticket? (7/20/2008 5:55:39 PM)

Thadius, you rock!

Best,

Tim




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.109375