It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Another reason a mixed presidential ticket might prove problematic is the line of succession. If a Democratic president should die in office, a number of party loyalists may feel disenfranchised if a Republican is allowed to assume the office without election. As moderate as a running mate of the opposite party may be, he or she would still be seen by many as a registered member of that party. Certain social programs or economic incentive packages endorsed by a former president may not survive under the leadership of the new one.
Originally, the president and vice president did not run together as part of a combined ticket.
Before 1804, when the 12th Amendment was ratified, whichever presidential candidate got the second highest number of votes from the electoral college became vice president. John Adams, a Federalist, was vice president to Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican. Even after this, a few candidates have run with running mates from other parties; for his second term, Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, chose Democrat Andrew Johnson as his vice president. The practice of a mixed ticket is very uncommon, however.
In modern politics, a mixed presidential ticket might survive voter scrutiny if both candidates were seen as moderates in their respective parties. There has been talk in previous elections of a moderate Republican being approached by a moderate to liberal Democratic presidential nominee, but to date nothing has proceeded past the talking stage.
While a mixed presidential ticket might be seen by the voting public as a sincere effort to bridge the gap between political parties, it might also be seen by party loyalists on both sides as a failure to produce a satisfactory same-party ticket or as little more than a noble but risky political experiment.it doesn't work.
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
so - I was thinking about this idea: How about 1st place gets President, and 2nd place (runner up) gets Vice President?
originally posted by: babybunnies
Hillary IS lying. Recent polls showed she had about 60% of the "super delegates" but these can change their mind any time they like right up to the vote for the nomination.
As recently as Friday, she had 440 delegates, with 770 needed.
A far cry from "I have the delegates"
originally posted by: grandmakdw
originally posted by: Gully
She is a big fat liar. Nothing new.
She stayed with a man who ripped her soul to shreds
through cheating, in order to gain personal power.
When, as a lawyer, she could have left him and
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer
Enough with the GoT references already sheesh!
If it comes down to Trump or Hillary, I will use my last vote ever to write in Bernie.
Sanders: Dems ‘dead wrong’ on debates
The Democratic National Committee is “dead wrong” by limiting the number of debates available to presidential candidates, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said on Sunday.
“I think that that is dead wrong and I have let the leadership of the Democrats know that,” Sanders said on CNN’s “State of the Union.
“I think this country benefits, all people benefit, democracy benefits when we have debates and I want to see more of them,” he added. “I think that debates are a good thing."
Sanders said that in addition to officially sanctioned debates from the Democratic Party, candidates running for the White House should also be forced to debate environmental issues before a panel of environmentalists, as well as issues specifically important to young voters and to “working people.”
Sanders’s comments come after critical words from former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), who on Friday accused the DNC of creating a “rigged process” to limit the number of debates to just four before the first round of voting takes place.
“I think it’s a big mistake for us as a party to circle the wagons around the inevitable front-runner,” O’Malley said earlier in the week.
Sanders appeared to agree on CNN on Sunday
“I think that rigging is a strong word,” he said. However, “I would like to see more debates.”