Bipartisan 2016 Ticket

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
Original poster
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
In this forum we are mostly biased either left or right. Imagine a bipartisan ticket. Once before there was actually a Republican on the short list for the VP position on a Democrat ticket. He didn't get asked. While we all know it is highly unlikely and of course, Republican would want the R on the top, while the Democrats would want the D on the top... Who would you want? I'll start.

Governor Chris Christie (NJ-R)
Senator Mark Warner (VA-D / Former VA Governor)

When this country was founded the candidate that got the most votes was President. The candidate that came in second was Vice President.
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,439
United Kingdom
Having a bipartisan executive branch would never work in the U.S. unless it also adopted a true multi-party legislature.

Have you seen how awful Congress functions, and you suggest bringing this into the executive branch as well?
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
In this forum we are mostly biased either left or right. Imagine a bipartisan ticket. Once before there was actually a Republican on the short list for the VP position on a Democrat ticket. He didn't get asked. While we all know it is highly unlikely and of course, Republican would want the R on the top, while the Democrats would want the D on the top... Who would you want? I'll start.

Governor Chris Christie (NJ-R)
Senator Mark Warner (VA-D / Former VA Governor)

When this country was founded the candidate that got the most votes was President. The candidate that came in second was Vice President.
I believe we actually had that once. IIRC, have a look at Lincoln's first term. I believe he was a Republican, while the vPOTUS was Democratic, or perhaps Whig.

I can verify that later, but I believe that was right. Now, that will never happen nowadays thanks to the 22nd amendment. For it to truly happen, someone would have to take out the POTUS, vPOTUS, Speaker of the House, and President Pro Tem. Then it would all boil down to how the people voted for Congress that last election. The 22nd Amendment really through a spanner in the line of succession.

BL.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,834
Midlife, Midwest
Chris Christie?

I think we can do better, so I'll pass on that one, thanks.

A bi-partisan Presidential ticket makes about as much sense as a viable third party candidate. In other words - its a "nice idea" that runs into the buzz saw of political reality.

To begin with, the Vice President has pretty much zero power. And the only way he or she could get some is if the President dies while in office. Can you say conflict of interest?

Secondly, I think it fair to say that such an idea presently holds appeal only to Republicans. Thanks to Gerrymandering and Vote Suppression, the GOP has managed to create semi-permanent a House Majority, and look to strongly build their Senate presence, despite garnering a significant minority of actual cast votes and voters. The one thing Republicans can't win right now is a Presidential Election, thanks mainly to their loathsome behavior on things like jobs, justice, and infrastructure.

So: No. It will never happen, and we should be thankful it won't. We're better off passing zero legislation than letting the Republicans weasel their way into establishing the sort of Slave-Holding Theocratic Military Dictatorship they (not so secretly) dream of creating.
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
Original poster
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
I believe we actually had that once. IIRC, have a look at Lincoln's first term. I believe he was a Republican, while the vPOTUS was Democratic, or perhaps Whig.

I can verify that later, but I believe that was right. Now, that will never happen nowadays thanks to the 22nd amendment. For it to truly happen, someone would have to take out the POTUS, vPOTUS, Speaker of the House, and President Pro Tem. Then it would all boil down to how the people voted for Congress that last election. The 22nd Amendment really through a spanner in the line of succession.

BL.
You are correct. Andrew Johnson was the Pro War Democrat who was selected by Abraham Lincoln, a Republican to be his running mate.
 

localoid

macrumors 68020
Feb 20, 2007
2,428
1,722
America's Third World
I believe we actually had that once. IIRC, have a look at Lincoln's first term. I believe he was a Republican, while the vPOTUS was Democratic, or perhaps Whig. ...
It happened during Lincoln's second term, not his first.

Andrew Johnson, a "war Democrat", was Lincoln's running mate during Lincoln's second term. The Republicians used the name "National Union Party" during the 1864 presidential election.

Hannibal Hamlin was Lincoln's running mate during Lincoln's first term. Hamlin switched parties, from Democratic to Republican, in 1956.
 

ElectronGuru

macrumors 65816
Sep 5, 2013
1,492
360
Oregon, USA
Secondly, I think it fair to say that such an idea presently holds appeal only to Republicans. Thanks to Gerrymandering and Vote Suppression, the GOP has managed to create semi-permanent a House Majority, and look to strongly build their Senate presence, despite garnering a significant minority of actual cast votes and voters.
This is my first impression. The latest in a long list of technical maneuvers designed to offset demographic and ideological losses. You don't have to appeal to more people, if you can reduce their relevance.

We're going to end up destroying our democracy, trying to save it.
 
Last edited:

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
Imagine a bipartisan ticket. Once before there was actually a Republican on the short list for the VP position on a Democrat ticket. He didn't get asked. While we all know it is highly unlikely and of course, Republican would want the R on the top, while the Democrats would want the D on the top... Who would you want? I'll start.
We kind of have that now. President Obama is a bit conservative for my taste, while Biden is slightly liberal. But, as every VP from John Adams until now has noted, the office of VP, while kind of necessary, is actually kind of a pain to occupy. Every VP except Dick Cheney, that is.
 

Sydde

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2009
2,104
2,162
IOKWARDI
Hey, I think we should just change the rules, get rid of this "ticket" concept, let voters choose Prez and VP separately.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,668
1,741
I don't really care about whether they're bipartisan. Part of the problem is the duopoly.
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
Original poster
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
So is the president it seems. When is the last time we had a president with balls that didn't listen to his party.
Oh, I don't know about that. The left sure holds George W Bush responsible for all the things that happened during his term. It's just another standard for the current figurehead in the Oval Office.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,542
7,801
CT
Oh, I don't know about that. The left sure holds George W Bush responsible for all the things that happened during his term. It's just another standard for the current figurehead in the Oval Office.
A president follows party lines, there should not be a letter near his name once he takes office. He should be looking out for the country not the party. Party influence should stop the second the campaign is over.
 

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
When is the last time we had a president .. that didn't listen to his party.
I'm more interested in whether or not the President caves in to big corporate monopolies and the super-rich. Starting with TR, and subsequently, FDR and Truman directly challenged the big corporations. Their policies set the agenda for the subsequent decades of economic growth and limited corporate political power. Most of Eisenhower-Carter maintained the status quo. (Barry Goldwater famously called Eisenhower a "dime-store New Dealer"). Reagan really did change the course of the country, re-empowering the large corporations, and re-structuring the tax code such that inequality grew rapidly. Here we are, 30+ years later, with the wealthiest 1% the planet has ever seen. Some people are happy with that, others are not.
 

ElectronGuru

macrumors 65816
Sep 5, 2013
1,492
360
Oregon, USA
Hey, I think we should just change the rules, get rid of this "ticket" concept, let voters choose Prez and VP separately.
The ticket comes from the parties. If we could do away with the parties, we wouldn't need the ticket. Though given that we tried not to have parties the first time (humans just gravitate toward coalition), the answer seems to be more parties, not less.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,408
Pretty much he stupidest political idea I've ever heard. Why the hell would you want a VP that has different policy positions than the man/woman you voted for? The VP pretty much has 2 jobs (OK, three if you count going to state funerals), break a tie in the Senate and assume the Presidency if the President dies or becomes incapacitated. Why would you want to elect for a person who likely holds different positions that the President you voted for?
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
Original poster
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
Thank you all for insulting the idea. I noticed that no one even had any suggestions just insults. This forum is a politically polarized as our country is.

As I stated in the beginning it isn't something that is likely to happen but an across the aisle ticket has been considered in the past. In 2004, Senator John Kerry's (D) people vetted Senator John McCain (R) as a potential running mate. Even our current Vice President Joe Biden endorsed it. It was called the Unity Ticket.

Polls at the time showed that a Kerry/McCain ticket would have had a chance against Bush/Cheney.

Biden endorses a Kerry-McCain ticket - NBC News 03/17/2004

Poll: McCain/Kerry Ticket a Winner - CBS News 03/13/2002