It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Would you support a McCain/Clinton ticket?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   
TIME had an interesting article last week, and all of the news agencies are talking about what great friends McCain and Hillary Clinton are (one news reporter joked that Clinton, "traded up") and how that would affect the election for President if they ran against each other.

What if McCain ran for President, and picked Hillary as his Vice President? Who would support that? Would people's hatred of the other side, be swayed to come together? (Maybe they would create a 'centrist' party, and I saw McCain as President, because of his age, Hillary could run for President after stint as VP)





posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Chances are, no. McCain alienated a large majority of the Republican party fairly recently. If you want details, do a search on subject lines for "John McCain is an Idiot" here at ATS. We'll see with the Roberts nomination, but I suspect we're going to discover McCain is going to have a lot of the GOP and their supporters breathing down his throat. If it turns out MoveOn's ad exploiting the victims of Katrina is representative of the Democratic party, McCain's political career as a Republican is over. If, however, it is not representative of the Democratic party and they make good on their promise, I could see that happening.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 02:54 AM
link   
I live in Canada, but I spend more time following American politics because of the worldwide implications of U.S. policy.

I would like to see Clinton as the first female President, and I think she could do the job if she had the right handlers.

Could Rudy toss his hat in the ring???



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Any of the RINO's are fine with me. They're mainstream and piss off the radical right.


Just like the Clinton's compromises have always infuriated actual progressives.

The DNC has been quite comfortable in the middle for a while now (in spite of what you may have heard otherwise :@@ ). Too much so for some. Like MoveOn or DU or KOS, none of whom represent the actual Democratic Party and hate it more than anyone on FR.

The RNC, however can't even see the middle if you go by some factions (that claim to speak for the RNC) and think any compromise is treason, so the RNC just needs to decide if they want to win the middle or keep playing games as they have with shadow campaigns painting popular moderates (McCain, Ahnold, Gouliana) as radical traitors to make the fringe happy and painting the fringe (DeLay, Santorum, Frist) as mainstream in joint stage appearances where they talk out of both sides of their mouth about NOTHING!

America may be stupid, but they don't stay stupid forever.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
What if McCain ran for President, and picked Hillary as his Vice President?


For me, it depends who else was running. I have lost a lot of faith in McCain because of his seemingly blind loyalty to Bush. I don't understand why he keeps supporting Bush's policy, while taking out of the other side of his mouth.

Likewise, Hillary is playing the political game, seemingly moving toward central to make herself more appealing to the masses. That kind of thing doesn't thrill me.

But if they're running against a Cheney/Rice ticket... I say, "McCain/Clinton in '08!" OTOH, if they're running against Barack Obama, or any number of other politicians for which I still have some respect, sorry, they're not getting my vote.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Yeah! Let me vote for that ticket! I want to see my country stay screwed up, and if I get the chance, let me accelerate the downward spiral!
Give me that, a new mix of old people with old ties to very old organizations! I don't want an actual change, I just want a new spin on the sport of politics!

Please, someone, tell the nurse I'm due for my meds. I might start thinking lucidly again. Can't have that happen. Must stay within the matrix.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Time Magazine is reading my posts! Either I have ESP or the big shots are reading my stuff for ideas.


I suspect the democrats will throw up one of their more prominent members who hasn't got too many nasty soundbytes of recent vintage. I sort of suspect that John McCain may defect and be taken on as a VP by Hillary- that's her only shot in hell at winning, and it's the only reason I can concieve of for McCain's self-destructive snubbing of his party, which is only ensuring him zero chance at a nomination


politics.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   
The stand down, sell out that is John McCain in the 21st century would be beaten & eaten by the 20th century version McCain, tiger cage half submerged wouldn't even be necessary.
We'll see by the early indicators & how that'll force a amalgam ticket.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Well, that could spell the merging fo the democratic and republican parties in the US

If that happened, maybe one of out third parties will step up and become what this country needs to gain a few more years of sanity.

So, no I wouldn't vote for those two

But, it could make for intersting politicking.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   
I won't vote for anyone with an R or a D behind their name (except Ron Paul).

I'm sick of the two-party monopoly. I say everyone vote third party, provided we actually have elections.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
I'm not overly fond of either to tell the truth. It also depends what the situation will be like in Iraq, they are both pro-Iraq war...and I most certainly am not.

...I don't even think Hillary will be the Democratic candidate in 08' despite all the buzz.

...as for McCain, I'm so sick of people labeling him as a "moderate", there is nothing moderate about his voting record. He is a conservative...a conservative who will be another yes man for the neocons (AKA death squad).

I don't think a bipartisan ticket is a good idea, but if I had to pick a Republican I respect and admire to run with a Democrat it would be Chuck Hagel or Ron Paul (who isn't really a Republican anyway).

It's really too early to tell, who knows what will be going on in the country by then. Again, I really don't think a bipartisan ticket would be a good idea...I don't see it going over well for either side.

[edit on 9/10/2005 by Lecky]



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst

I'm sick of the two-party monopoly. I say everyone vote third party, provided we actually have elections.


What is the reason or the history behind your two party system???

In most other democratic nations we have more choices.
Everytime I see a third person on the ticket in U.S. elections it becomes a joke with only a few percent of the vote going to that candidate.

Do you want it that way, or is all the big lobby and corporate money going to the two main parties so that anyone else stands no chance of winning???

Let's face it, money decides who wins in the United States.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
In 1888 The United States adopted Australian style ballots aka secret ballots.
Previously candidates printed a ballot for themselves and the voter would submit the "party ticket" of the candidate he chose. Hence when a candidate is nominated we say he is "on the ticket". Of course that wasn't very secretive.

So as of 1888 the government printed ballots with the names of all candidates, but that meant a limited number of candidates. The parties which were in control at the time designed the rules for ballot access (this is done at the state level so it varies from state to state). The requirement generally consists of getting x amount of signitures and/or registrations for your party. The number is generally very high and they must be obtained well in advance of the elections.

The existing parties are the exception to the rule. If a party had been on the ballot for the previous election, they would be on the ballot for the next election as well. Only the individual candidates need signitures, and the national average requirement for getting into a party primary and thus inheriting the party's traditional spot on the ballot is about one tenth of the national average requirement for getting a new party or independent onto the ballot for the general election.

Ross Perot was the first man to get onto every state's ballot in about a century, and one of only a handful since 1888.

In short, the reason that America's political system is so limited is because the secret ballot with it's ballot access issues was introduced specifically to ensure the parties against rivals, and as such our process was designed without truly open primaries and subsequent run-offs.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
What if McCain ran for President, and picked Hillary as his Vice President? Who would support that? Would people's hatred of the other side, be swayed to come together? (Maybe they would create a 'centrist' party, and I saw McCain as President, because of his age, Hillary could run for President after stint as VP)



I wouldn't vote for either. They're bought and paid for.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Nevermind. McCain is officially a Republican again.

He just broke the McCain-Feingold Law.

Viva la corruption.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join