Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
32 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Election 2016 Clinton/Bush combined ticket (Original Post) RedstDem Nov 2014 OP
No. Qutzupalotl Nov 2014 #1
well there's that. RedstDem Nov 2014 #3
someone about 10 years ago floated a 'unity ticket' like this wyldwolf Nov 2014 #2
N. it was Kerry/McCain. mylye2222 Nov 2014 #19
N. That was (supposedly) floated by Kerry. A pundit or writer proposed McCain/Biden wyldwolf Nov 2014 #21
Makes me ill even thinking about that. MoonRiver Nov 2014 #4
I think it would establish a temporary 3-party situation Proud Public Servant Nov 2014 #5
Progressives have reason and intelligence on their side RedstDem Nov 2014 #6
But the Tea Party has money and organization Proud Public Servant Nov 2014 #9
Progressives have reason on their side? Savannahmann Nov 2014 #11
Centrism RedstDem Nov 2014 #12
Pure BS Andy823 Nov 2014 #17
you'll need to be a little more specific RedstDem Nov 2014 #30
There is no political civil war, there is a coup d'etat. LawDeeDah Nov 2014 #7
I think it is time we come to grips with that fact. MoonRiver Nov 2014 #8
I think of that pair as a single centrist party than two seperate ones. n/t Dawgs Nov 2014 #10
A presidential ticket no one likes will only unite the country AGAINST the government. hughee99 Nov 2014 #13
No one likes? former9thward Nov 2014 #20
I suspect a lot more people like her because they think she can win, hughee99 Nov 2014 #22
Many didn't vote for her? former9thward Nov 2014 #23
She went from "overwhelming favorite" hughee99 Nov 2014 #24
More people voted for her than Obama. former9thward Nov 2014 #25
thanks for keeping that bit of history alive. Not being sarcastic. northoftheborder Nov 2014 #28
No problem. Did your research also turn up the Michigan primary results? hughee99 Nov 2014 #29
Go suck an egg pscot Nov 2014 #14
Hmmm...If Hillary were first on the ticket bhcodem Nov 2014 #15
I'd rather see a Sanders(I)/Warren(D) combined ticket....one I could vote for. Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2014 #16
When were those old days? DavidDvorkin Nov 2014 #18
before ray gun RedstDem Nov 2014 #31
Nope DavidDvorkin Nov 2014 #32
Nope JustAnotherGen Nov 2014 #26
yeah, because the ideological gap between them is so wide that joint ticket should please everybody corkhead Nov 2014 #27
 

RedstDem

(1,239 posts)
3. well there's that.
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 10:33 AM
Nov 2014

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)
2. someone about 10 years ago floated a 'unity ticket' like this
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 10:29 AM
Nov 2014

... I forget who did it... but the candidates in their scenario would have been McCain and Biden.

wyldwolf

(43,867 posts)
21. N. That was (supposedly) floated by Kerry. A pundit or writer proposed McCain/Biden
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 07:24 PM
Nov 2014

Even said it could be a resurgence of T. Roosevelt's Bull Moose party.

Proud Public Servant

(2,097 posts)
5. I think it would establish a temporary 3-party situation
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 10:41 AM
Nov 2014

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)
6. Progressives have reason and intelligence on their side
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 10:50 AM
Nov 2014

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)
9. But the Tea Party has money and organization
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 11:01 AM
Nov 2014

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)
11. Progressives have reason on their side?
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 11:14 AM
Nov 2014

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

CHRIS MATTHEWS: What bothered me about him [today] he keeps talking about common ground. Damn it, there's very little common ground between left and right, but what there is is compromise. You do something for me on minimum wage, I'll do something for you in corporate tax reform. You give me something on corporate tax reform and I'll get rid of some of the loopholes or I'll do something on trade for you. He never talks about trading and compromising, he always talks about common ground. Well, damn it, you can not run a government on common ground.

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)
12. Centrism
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 01:04 PM
Nov 2014

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.

 

RedstDem

(1,239 posts)
30. you'll need to be a little more specific
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 08:37 PM
Nov 2014

Are referring to Obama not tearing the right wing a new one, or something else?
Can't read minds

MoonRiver

(36,926 posts)
8. I think it is time we come to grips with that fact.
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 11:00 AM
Nov 2014

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......

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
13. A presidential ticket no one likes will only unite the country AGAINST the government.
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 01:09 PM
Nov 2014

Why would putting 2 candidates no one likes on the same ticket make things any better?

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
22. I suspect a lot more people like her because they think she can win,
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 12:59 AM
Nov 2014

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)
23. Many didn't vote for her?
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 12:07 PM
Nov 2014

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)
24. She went from "overwhelming favorite"
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 12:10 PM
Nov 2014

To a virtual dead heat really quickly. Thanks for making my point

former9thward

(32,023 posts)
25. More people voted for her than Obama.
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 12:16 PM
Nov 2014

I had forgotten that until your posts made me research it. Thanks for that.

northoftheborder

(7,572 posts)
28. thanks for keeping that bit of history alive. Not being sarcastic.
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 12:42 PM
Nov 2014

I hope someone writes a book about the details of that primary some day, and how who won what.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
29. No problem. Did your research also turn up the Michigan primary results?
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 05:21 PM
Nov 2014

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)
14. Go suck an egg
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 01:13 PM
Nov 2014

Just kidding. Ha ha. But seriously. It sounds like a really bad idea. One I would not vote for.

bhcodem

(231 posts)
15. Hmmm...If Hillary were first on the ticket
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 05:38 PM
Nov 2014

and Jebby second. But of course Hillary would need a food taster? Nah, never!

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
16. I'd rather see a Sanders(I)/Warren(D) combined ticket....one I could vote for.
Thu Nov 6, 2014, 05:46 PM
Nov 2014

Versus one I won't vote for.

 

RedstDem

(1,239 posts)
31. before ray gun
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 08:43 PM
Nov 2014

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)
32. Nope
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 09:03 PM
Nov 2014

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)
26. Nope
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 12:19 PM
Nov 2014

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)
27. yeah, because the ideological gap between them is so wide that joint ticket should please everybody
Fri Nov 7, 2014, 12:26 PM
Nov 2014

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Election 2016 Clinton/Bus...