Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

And Romney's VP is....

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 10
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 template Next
  • #31
    Originally posted by Lorizael View Post
    I think it would change the election process more than it would change what actually happens during the winner's term. It might make for less angry campaigns. But now I'm thinking back on recent primary campaigns and that seems like a silly thought. Obama and Clinton and Biden tore into each other during the primary, and now Biden and Clinton both serve Obama.
    There's a reason why they abolished the rule in the first place.

    Comment

    • #32
      Originally posted by Lorizael View Post
      I think it would change the election process more than it would change what actually happens during the winner's term. It might make for less angry campaigns. But now I'm thinking back on recent primary campaigns and that seems like a silly thought. Obama and Clinton and Biden tore into each other during the primary, and now Biden and Clinton both serve Obama.
      No way. President-VP is a team and you can't have them opposing each other. That would have a big effect on what happens during the term. We figured that out when Thomas Jefferson had too many disagreements with Adams and even undermined the Adams' administration.
      "Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
      "I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi

      Comment

      • #33
        Originally posted by DinoDoc
        Around the time they stopped giving the Veep slot to the 2nd place finisher in the general election.
        When did that happen. I never really studied American history, but I seem to recall Lincoln appointed VPs of his choice, and that was about 150 years ago. JFK didn't have Nixon as a VP... though that would have been fun!
        Last edited by Uncle Sparky; August 4, 2012, 21:40.
        There's nothing wrong with the dream, my friend, the problem lies with the dreamer.

        Comment

        • #34
          The runner up only became the VP in the 1796 election when runner-up Jefferson became John Adams' VP. This was when political parties were not yet truly formed. Jefferson did all he could to undermine Adams while Adams' party passed anti-sedition laws seen as against Jefferson's newly-formed party.

          Obviously, the founding fathers quickly realized this situation was a bad idea.
          "Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
          "I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi

          Comment

          • #35
            Also 1800. Aaron Burr actually received the same number of votes as Jefferson, but then the House of Representatives had to break the tie.

            It wasn't until 1804 and the 12th Amendment when it was decided Electors had to delineate their vote between President and Vice President.
            “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
            - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

            Comment

            • #36
              Originally posted by Al B. Sure! View Post
              Obviously, the founding fathers quickly realized this situation was a bad idea.
              I find that hard to believe. They did something wrong? OMG!
              "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
              "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain

              Comment

              • #37
                Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui View Post
                Also 1800. Aaron Burr actually received the same number of votes as Jefferson, but then the House of Representatives had to break the tie.

                It wasn't until 1804 and the 12th Amendment when it was decided Electors had to delineate their vote between President and Vice President.
                Oh. Well Aaron Burr was of the same party as Jefferson so it wasn't that big of a deal.
                "Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
                "I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi

                Comment

                • #38
                  It kind of was at the time .

                  Of course Burr was a Federalist 4 years prior, IIRC.
                  “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                  - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                  Comment

                  • #39
                    Well whoever he picks, it better be someone incredibly impressive. Latest polls show Obama leading by 7-9 points.

                    Comment

                    • #40
                      Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter?
                      There's nothing wrong with the dream, my friend, the problem lies with the dreamer.

                      Comment

                      • #41
                        Originally posted by kentonio View Post
                        Well whoever he picks, it better be someone incredibly impressive. Latest polls show Obama leading by 7-9 points.
                        Was it PPP or one of the other dem firms? Gallup has had them essentially tied for months. All the movement has basically been noise--it's a turnout game, now, and Romney has way more money to spend on get-out-the-vote.
                        If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                        ){ :|:& };:

                        Comment

                        • #42
                          Yes, it was one of those lamestream media outlets -

                          The latest Barack vs. Romney polls by Fox News show Obama leading Mitt by nine percentage points in the 2012 elections. Campaign ads directed at the Republican candidate regarding overseas trips and controversy about his federal tax returns, have cut into his favorable rating ahead of the convention in Tampa.

                          Thursday's poll numbers by Fox News show that in a head-to-head contest, if the election were held today, Barack Obama would earn 49% of the vote versus Mitt Romney's 40%.
                          There's nothing wrong with the dream, my friend, the problem lies with the dreamer.

                          Comment

                          • #43
                            But what have they been showing previously? Every poll has outliers. If they have 45-45 for like 3 weeks and suddenly, without warning, it jumps to 49-41, that's probably just noise.
                            If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                            ){ :|:& };:

                            Comment

                            • #44
                              When a number of polls show the same trend (which is matched by rising unfavourables for Romney) you can safely assume that's more than just noise.

                              Comment

                              • #45
                                But they haven't been showing the same trend. Other polls have favored Romney.
                                If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                                ){ :|:& };:

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 template Next
                                Working...
                                X