General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsElection 2016 Clinton/Bush combined ticket
Do you think a hybrid ticket of Hillary and Jeb would lead to ending the political civil war in the US?
No, seriously
Back in the old days, I remember the two parties got along.
Qutzupalotl
(14,317 posts)The Republicans would just impeach, then we'd lose everything.
RedstDem
(1,239 posts)That is cart in front of the horse type thing.
I guess it would make more sense to establish trust first.
Right wing would need to self moderate first, and purge the crazies.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)... I forget who did it... but the candidates in their scenario would have been McCain and Biden.
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Even said it could be a resurgence of T. Roosevelt's Bull Moose party.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)And eventually one of the two extremes -- progressives or teahadists -- would wither and die...and I suspect it would be us.
RedstDem
(1,239 posts)And when the people are comparing the two, the tea baggers would evidently sound nuts. Why do think progressives would wither. Seems the crazies would be shown the door to me.
Kinda depends if it would get people out to vote.
If it depresses the vote, I guess you'd be right.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)That's what counts. And it's not just dark money; give them credit for having spent decades running for school boards, town councils, state rep offices, etc. -- the kind of unglamorous jobs that lead to a real network of power. Compared to that, being reasonable and intelligent ain't squat.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Prove it.
Progressives were the ones trumpeting that the Government shutdown would doom the Republican Party. The vote about Gun Control would doom the Republican Party. Progressives declared the Republican party dead after Romney lost. They declared the Republican Party dead after 2006. Progressives declared that the Republicans were doomed after the Sequester. Pictures of tombstones and other similar paraphernalia abounded.
Progressives said that people who warned of this day back in March, and April were spreading FUD and needed to adjust their tinfoil hats.
Progressives said that nobody would vote for a Sexist, Homophobic, Racist party like the Republicans.
Progressives say a lot, but they're rarely right. So how intelligent can they be when even after the election, they haven't yet grasped what the hell is going on? Do you know who does get it? Chris Matthews. He gets it. He understands how dangerous this time is, and the President is going to Double Down. Matthews can't figure out what the hell the President is thinking.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/11/05/chris_matthews_rips_obama_theres_something_in_this_guy_that_just_plays_to_his_constituency.html#ooid=tyc2RqcTofWCzCqMVtaAG822p6OH_vs5
He misses the main point of politics which is to be a politician and to trade. Okay, you want this? You want to take care of people who have been here illegally for 20, 30 years? Here's what I want. No more illegal hiring, and that's all in the Senate bill. But he won't sell the compromise. There's something in this guy that just plays to his constituency and acts like there is no other room out there. And that's going to be a collision at the end of this year like you have never seen. I do believe it will be like waving a red flag in front of the bull. I think Mitch McConnell is headed for a fight with the president.
Chris Matthews is starting to see what I see happening. President Obama is going to destroy the Democratic Party in a way that Bush never could do to the Republicans. Politics is the art of the possible, and that means dealing, trading, give and take. Matthews is getting frustrated, and I don't blame him. I'm there too.
President Obama is doing everything he can, to make sure that the Democratic Party is in the minority for the next decade. I don't know why, if it's ego, or poor advisors, or just incredibly disconnected from the reality. But it needs to change soon.
Now, you can moan and all that. But one thing about Clinton, he was good at the art of Politics. He could trade, and he could get something, and give away little in exchange. President Obama is going to piss off a vast majority of people, and the Democratic Party will be standing on the side of the road watching the Republican get sworn in.
I've never seen so many people who refuse to deal in facts and truth in my life. Look at the exit polling, the number of College Graduates who voted Republican was within a couple points of the number who voted Democratic. Are we saying now that half the College Grads are idiots?
We need to stop patting ourselves on the back and get serious, or we are going to get our asses kicked in 2016. From what I saw of this election, we rammed the Titanic into the iceberg, backed up, and rammed it again. The only question is will we ram the iceberg a third time going into 2016?
RedstDem
(1,239 posts)Obama is no progressive.
He was elected to put the boot on the neck of the right wing fuck ups, instead, he gave them a hand up, and cover for their fucking up.
You point out that he sucks at politics, your right, I lost a lot of faith in him during his first term.
Centrism will be the undoing of the democrats.
Sucks don't it.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Are you sure you are on the right board?
RedstDem
(1,239 posts)Are referring to Obama not tearing the right wing a new one, or something else?
Can't read minds
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)It began in earnest in 2000 when SCOTUS chose our POTUS, against the will of We the People. That's when I realized how screwed this country is. Still, I hoped......
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)Why would putting 2 candidates no one likes on the same ticket make things any better?
former9thward
(32,023 posts)It seems Clinton is leading in the polls among Democrats by a very large margin.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)than like her because they think she'd be a great president. Obviously, SOMEONE likes virtually any potential candidate, or they wouldn't have been elected to an office in the first place. If I recall correctly, Clinton was leading in the polls among Democrats by a very large margin in 2006 and look how that turned out. Once voters were given another choice, many didn't vote for her.
former9thward
(32,023 posts)Well more people voted for her than voted for Obama. Clinton 17,857,501, Obama 17,584,692. The only reason Obama won was because he did better in the undemocratic caucuses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008
hughee99
(16,113 posts)To a virtual dead heat really quickly. Thanks for making my point
former9thward
(32,023 posts)I had forgotten that until your posts made me research it. Thanks for that.
northoftheborder
(7,572 posts)I hope someone writes a book about the details of that primary some day, and how who won what.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)The one Clinton got about 320K votes and that Obama didn't compete in because of their violation of the DNC rules on the primary dates? That looks to be a little more in the total vote advantage Clinton had.
pscot
(21,024 posts)Just kidding. Ha ha. But seriously. It sounds like a really bad idea. One I would not vote for.
bhcodem
(231 posts)and Jebby second. But of course Hillary would need a food taster? Nah, never!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Versus one I won't vote for.
DavidDvorkin
(19,479 posts)I don't remember them.
RedstDem
(1,239 posts)Your making me show my age now, but believe it or not, there were republicans that were liberals, and didn't get a bunch of shit for it for from their peers.
The whole thing worked, till saint Ronnie brought in the ted Cruz types.
DavidDvorkin
(19,479 posts)Reagan made many things worse, but the Republicans before him were mostly a putrid bunch.
The big difference in that regard is that there were still some Eisenhower Republicans around, but they were already dwindling in number and had little influence on the party.
I remember the Nixon years. The GOP was saturated with and controlled by crooks then.
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)I think you'd be more likely to see a Huntsman/Manchin ticket than you'd ever see the two big Dynasty folks run together.
Since it's not even primary season yet and this Hillary/Jeb ticket is just a worst case scenario . . . I'd vote the leader R and go with Huntsman/Manchin.
No freaking way would I give a vote to Jeb Bush!
corkhead
(6,119 posts)the two parties (or at least the ones in office) agree on a lot when it comes to violating our civil liberties, bombing foreign lands willy nilly, providing cover for banksters. It is the things they don't agree on that get the attention.
The problem is that Compromise = 100% Capitulation for the other side. Look it up in the republicon dictionary if you don't believe me.