General Question

gimmedat's avatar

Would you be against a Democrat/Republican ticket for pres/V.P.?

Asked by gimmedat (3943points) June 20th, 2008 from iPhone

I have heard rumblings that Obama is considering liberal Republican Chuck Hagel as a running mate. Would Hagel’s Republican affiliation dissuade you from voting for Obama?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

14 Answers

Randy's avatar

Not me. I think it will win over votes. Its combining the two political parties.

Wait, now that I think about it, its combining the two political parties. This could be bad. What would be left? Independents? No thank you.

Hmmmm, tough one. I’ll see how it plays out.

jlm11f's avatar

I personally wouldn’t mind it. It would have to depend on the people running of course. A bad democrat and bad republican together isn’t going to win any accolades from me. But if the combination is right, and i agree on all the major points with both candidates, then i think it’s a great idea! the combination of the 2 parties will make both parties happy and will make getting voted for easier and will provide a good balance to the system. So to answer your second question, no that wouldn’t dissuade me from voting for Obama.

Randy's avatar

@PnL- But what if this is the start of a new, “great party”. Then what if in the future we only have one party running for office? It sounds like a good idea at first, but when I think about it, I’m kinda scared of it.

Zaku's avatar

No. In theory it could be a good idea.

nayeight's avatar

Egh, I’m not for it. Obama should pick a VP that is a democrat & shares his views on important issues. But I’m still voting for him because McCain is just unacceptable.

Randy's avatar

Could you please explain Zaku?

Zaku's avatar

Theoretically (also since I haven’t researched Hagel yet), if a Republican vice-presidential candidate agrees with the Democratic presidential candidate on policies and they can get along and communicate and have respect and contacts in both parties, I see several novel possibilities for understanding, compromise, communication and accomplishment.

As I’ve said on other threads, I think there’s a huge breakdown in US politics that tends to degrade many discussions into us vs. them stalemates even when it’s not necessary. I also find the Republican/Democrat and even the Liberal/Conservative dichotomies to be counterproductive and largely meaningless and false. A mixed-party ticket could embody and demonstrate the possibility of moving past all that nonsense, and on to new conversations.

Randy's avatar

Now I do see your point, and before I state my case, I feel the need to add that I’m neither liberal nor conservative. Now, a joining in the parties can lead to much more civilized political conversation and hopefully a better US economy, sure, but if Democrats and Republicans begin to join up and help each other (basically becoming one party) who else will the Americans vote for? It’s not like there is many choices now, but the fact of the matter is, we do have a choice.

breedmitch's avatar

I also like the idea in theory, but let’s not forget that the VP’s main role is to assume the presidency in case of the President’s death. Having a republican in that office would seem like an invitation for disaster. How long before some crazed conservative tries to take back the country for his party by… you know.

TrenchMouth's avatar

I would like to see a liberal Republican and Obama run together. That would be quite the momentous change in the “politics as usual” (Which I am getting very sick of hearing, btw.).
I am only concerned about the fact that Hillary is getting so much push to be the VP selection at this point that he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
It’s not that I don’t like her, I’d just hate to see the first major choice Obama has to make be dictated by the press. That would not bode well for his potential presidency.
Time will tell, but I for one am for a joint ticket. I think, if nothing else, it would be refreshing and would force people to reconsider some things they may have thought were set in stone. That’s never bad right?

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

@trenchmouth

Do you mean the same way the press decides who the President is??
If Obama was going to “change” as much as he says he will, do you think the press would have even let him into the position he is? I think he wouldve been Ron Paul’d by the press.

I would love to see a Ron Paul/ Dennis Kucinich ticket. I think these 2 guys are the only truth tellers out of the candidates(w the exception of Gravel, but hes a lil crazy), and would love 4 years of public debate from the pres and vp. I dont know if they could necessarily solve all the problems, but at least we could identify the real problems.

Zaku's avatar

@Randy – If the Democrat and Republican parties vanished in a puff of logic, I don’t think we’d be left with less to choose between. Rather, I think we’d have more meaningful choices – we’d need to look at each candidate and what they actually say, instead of assuming there was some meaningful one-dimensional axis we were tugging on.

TrenchMouth's avatar

@chris6137
I think the press is schizophrenic and I wouldn’t try to reason out why it is they would “ron paul” a ron paul and not do the same to an Obama. The only thing they should fear is not having a story to tell or, what is becoming more likely now for the first time, someone else telling it better and faster.
Maybe they would like the Ron Paul-type changes but simply warmed up to Obama. Maybe race is still a juicier subject in the US than gender. Or maybe they are more afraid for screwing up the gender story. I couldn’t even begin to imagine.

I second the notion that Gravel is indeed nuts.

Mr_Chairman's avatar

I would say that Gravel, Kucinich and Paul are all nuts.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther