12 ms·

Not going to happen, but I wonder how a mixed party ticket would do. Kamala (or whoever) + Mitt Romney as VP ? Has it ever been done? Would it work to attract

Not going to happen, but I wonder how a mixed party ticket would do. Kamala (or whoever) + Mitt Romney as VP ? Has it ever been done? Would it work to attract the center/swing vote, or more likely to be a negative?

dustinmr 2y ago
Here’s a good thought experiment: https://www.thebigquestions.com/2024/07/21/the-next-democratic-president/ https://www.thebigquestions.com/2024/07/21/the-next-democrat...
barfingclouds 2y ago
I’d be into that
mbs159 2y ago
It happens in EU countries, where it's not unusual for a right-leaning President to elect a left-leaning Prime Minister. Worth noting that a Prime Minister in the EU often has more power than the VP in the US.
RaftPeople 2y ago
That's a pretty interesting thought. I read something a few years ago that said moderates/non-affiliated make up the majority of voters with only a smaller percentage on left and right tied to the parties (somewhere maybe in 15% to 20% range on each side, can't remember exactly). So it seems like a good mix of moderate could possibly win, especially when the other candidate is so polarizing.
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  Yeah partisans arent good at winning friends and influencing people in their pathetic partisan power struggles They’ve spent nearly a decade isolating themselves in an algorithm fueled mirror room, while disassociating from everyone that doesn't already agree with them 100% instead of any color coded “wave” occurring despite their recurring delusions, there’s gridlock in the senate, no filibuster proof majority, they’ve lost affiliation and independents are the largest political affiliation in the country now with almost zero representation
- tbrake 2y ago
  Though unaffiliated myself, I still have very clear opinions on policies. This leads to voting exclusively for one party anyway. It's just the label and tribalism I reject, not their stances or some desire for a mythical "middle path". I have no idea how common this is in the "unaffiliated base" but I'd be willing to wager it's fairly common.
- vundercind 2y ago
  True-swing voters are a tiny minority. Most of the folks who say they’re unaffiliated or moderates or open to voting for either party in fact vote exactly like a self-reported partisan. They just don’t like the label. Lots of crappy reporting doesn’t differentiate between self-reported swing/moderates and true swing. GOTV matters more. Do your people show up at the polls?
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    >True-swing voters are a tiny minority. Honestly, just like undecided voters, they are either a myth or complete idiots.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    Maybe but we have also seen a swing in how politics works (gotten more extreme). During the last two decades I've gone from Republican to Democrat to independent (never-Trumper, Democrat by GOP moral forfeit). I wonder how my beliefs would have evolved if US politics didn't grow so extreme over time.
    - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
      > Maybe but we have also seen a swing in how politics works (gotten more extreme). I've seen the same and done similar. I'm now in the unhappy position of voting against instead of voting for.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      I'm in the same boat. I think everyone dramatically underestimates how many of us Trump refugees there are. Some of us are never trumpers and actually voted for Biden, some of us held our nose and voted for Trump. But the extreme right that fuels MAGA doesn't have as much support as people think, and the main reason why Trump stands a chance this year is because the left has made no overtures whatsoever to the center and center-right.
      - vundercind 2y ago
        Going along with the… let’s say poorly supported by the facts notions that illegal immigrants are meaningful in terms of rising violent crime rates (which—to avoid accidentally contributing to the problem, no, they’re not rising) or fentanyl smuggling, and backing that not just with rhetoric but with policy in some cases is, I think, one thing the democratic campaigns believe they’re doing to reach out toward the center and center right. It’s definitely not aimed at democrats even a hair left of… idk, Reagan I guess, given the whole amnesty thing. So they are trying some stuff.
dawnerd 2y ago
Was thinking that too and it might be a brilliant way to get the folks on the right that don't want to vote Trump but also not necessarily a dem. Also it could be a great marketing tactic to be like 'we're bringing unity back' or something to that. And theoretically no reason it couldn't happen other than both parties definitely not being on board with it.
- Macha 2y ago
  I think the problem is that both parties have moved, the democrats shifting left and the republicans shifting right (and to put the cards on the table, I think the republicans have shifted a lot more rightward than democrats have leftwards). This leaves people pretty unwilling to go for a split the difference approach. Like if you ask people in favour of a centrist position, they're probably picturing someone in the middle of Bill Clinton and George W Bush, and thinking " I could manage with that". But for a lot of the core democratic vote, they see a Romney as the result of drawing a line down the middle and they already decided he was too right wing for them. Or similar, the republicans are worried that splitting that line down the middle ends up at Hilary, who they already didn't like. So while a lot of people express support for compromise and consquently centrism, you'll get into a lot of infighting when you try to decide what the centrist position actually is..
  - xapata 2y ago
    Democrat leadership and large donors may have moved left, but the voters haven't. Which is why Biden was having trouble with some groups previously thought locked-in Democrat.
  - MrMan 2y ago
    [dead]
woodruffw 2y ago
> Not going to happen, but I wonder how a mixed party ticket would do. Kamala (or whoever) + Mitt Romney as VP ? I think it would be very hard to convince the liberal-progressive base (i.e. the core of the party) of the DNC to go for this. > Has it ever been done? Before the 12th Amendment was passed, the VP came from the opposing party[1]. This didn't work particularly well in practice, which is why nobody remembers the 12th Amendment :-) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_Unite...
- rzz3 2y ago
  But there’s no one else to vote for, they’d still vote for her with Romney as the VP. With that vs Trump as the other option, she’d still get the votes from the progressive base and potentially bring over a few more independent voters.
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    The US doesn't have mandatory voting; when people are thoroughly demotivated by their party's platform but are unwilling to vote for the other party, they stay home. (I'm not saying whether or not I would. But I think this kind of brinkmanship is a very dangerous game to play, especially in the context of a cross-party ticket.)
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Assuming the Democrats go with Harris, I can say whole heartedly that I won't be voting this year. I view voting as a responsibility to pick a candidate I want to lead rather than a vote to block someone I don't want to lead. This time around I have seen no candidate I could feel even mildly comfortable with. I'm not happy about it, but given my view on why I should vote I don't feel comfortable voting for Trump, Harris, or Biden. Voting for one to spite another would require me first to change my mind on what a vote means or cave on my principles.
      - 2y ago
shortrounddev2 2y ago
It used to be (like, early 1800s) that the VP wasn't elected directly; whoever lost the election became VP. Jefferson and Adams were political adversaries, but when Adams won the election in 1796, Jefferson became VP
- mikrotikker 2y ago
  Thats sounds awesome. Imagine forcing Trump to work under Kamala.
632brick 2y ago
The only example I could think of that sort of fits that bill: "National Union Party was a wartime coalition of Republicans, War Democrats, and border state Unconditional Unionists that supported the Lincoln Administration during the American Civil War. It held the 1864 National Union Convention that nominated Abraham Lincoln for president and Andrew Johnson for vice president in the 1864 United States presidential election." (wikipedia) Great success as an electoral pairing, not so much afterwards with Johnson's reconstruction policies resulting in all former Republicans leaving the National Union Party and an impeachment.
temporarely 2y ago
I have a "radical" idea: why not actually let the constituency of this party make the choice.
- lann 2y ago
  Or actually radical: switch from our terrible first-past-the-post voting system to - say - ranked choice (or one of many alternatives; they're almost all better than fptp) and then primaries won't be so important and parties won't have so much power over our kinda-democratic-but-actually-oligarchic political system.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    California state primaries are top-2, not FPTP turning the general election into essentially a run-off. Parties still dominate. Same with my city elections which use RCV. I’m not sure why they would reduce party influence either. Features like being robust against spoilers would seem to most benefit major party candidates.
    - lann 2y ago
      Top-2 is a primary system, not a voting system. When combined with (essentially a generalized version of) FPTP you get most of the same problems.
      - Aloisius 2y ago
        It's a two-round voting system. It is, by definition, not FPTP. There only functional difference between it and say, the original French two-round system that Maurice Duverger (of Duverger's law) contrasted with FPTP is that someone who wins an outright majority in the first election (an open "primary" in California) is not immediately elected. The fact the second round is FPTP doesn't change the overall voting system. With only two candidates for a single seat, most voting systems degenerate to FPTP, but none of the issues related to FPTP are present either (there are no clones, no strategic voting, etc.)
    - 2y ago
ethagnawl 2y ago
> Has it ever been done? McCain/Lieberman almost happened in 2008.
- jeffbee 2y ago
  Arguably it was Gore/Lieberman that was the cross-party ticket, since Lieberman was just a Republican in a trench coat.
- cheema33 2y ago
  As a liberal, I thoroughly despised Lieberman. I had a much more favorable opinion of McCain. If my only two choices were McCain/Lieberman vs McCain/Palin, I would hold my nose and vote for the second.
mattnewton 2y ago
Moderate Republicans who won't just vote for Trump are a dying breed. I don't think they are worth courting over just convincing young people and women to turn out to vote, purely on demographics. I could be ideologically blinded by this though.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  This is what The Lincoln Project and The Bulwark have been working on the last few years.
SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
[flagged]
- RoyalHenOil 2y ago
  Romney is literally a member of the Republican party and not a member of the Democrat party. What are you even talking about?
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    He has no appeal with Republican voters. Doesn't matter how he himself votes or that he's a member of the party.
    - MrMan 2y ago
      [dead]
    - bezier-curve 2y ago
      He's not a Democrat either. The Republican base turning its back on the moderates in their faction is not really the Democrat electorates' problem.
    - roughly 2y ago
      In fairness, that’s because the Republican Party has changed dramatically since Romney was their presidential candidate.
jrflowers 2y ago
This is an interesting thought experiment. What would the US be like with a completely impossible ticket? Would we flourish under a Lenny Bruce-Knuckles the Echidna ticket? What if Misty and Brock were the respective RNC and DNC chairs? These are the sorts of questions the status quo politicians don’t want us to be asking
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
  This is one of the best Hacker News comments I've read in a while.
- jackcosgrove 2y ago
  I'm still waiting for the Al Franken-Jill Stein dream team to take the stage.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
[flagged]
- kid64 2y ago
  It would be extremely odd for anyone in your right-wing media bubble to be "excited" about Harris, how is this a relevant data point?
_heimdall 2y ago
I'd prefer John Kasich over Romney, but a cross-party ticket is one of the few scenarios I can see actually getting me to the polls this time around.
- kbmckenna 2y ago
  Even if you don't want to vote for president or vice president, you should consider voting in the other elections in the other state/local elections.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    I should have been more clear here. I will likely still cast a ballot but leave President empty. Above I meant that I wouldn't be voting for President if the options are Trump and Harris, but I should have clarified that. Thanks for calling that out.
dheera 2y ago
No. The staunch Republicans will still vote for Trump and the only way to beat that is for there to be an incredibly cohesive force among a population that isn't very cohesive in the first place. The Republicans actually have it easy, they align and bond on lots of things. The center and left align on very few things and fight amongst themselves. A mixed ticket isn't going to align them better.
- macintux 2y ago
  I’m curious: what do the Republicans align on, besides “Win at all cost” and “Liberals are bad”? Trump doesn’t care about the budget, doesn’t care about protecting our allies, doesn’t care about abortion. I’d wager he doesn’t care about immigration, either, except as a way to get votes.
  - dheera 2y ago
    > what do the Republicans align on Christianity, God Bless America, conservative immigration law, well-being of rural people and small towns, second amendment, Made in USA, white-normalized culture ... Democrats very rarely align. They fight between factions about whether BLM, LGBT, or Stop Asian Hate is more important, ffs. They can't even come together and fight for all of the above.
    - macintux 2y ago
      Christianity is a tough sell, given Trump. Other than promoting coal, what has Trump done for rural America’s economy? And the IRA was a huge investment in “Made in USA”, whereas Trump spent years promoting an infrastructure week that never materialized.
      - tshaddox 2y ago
        > Christianity is a tough sell, given Trump. Evangelicals love Trump (in one of the biggest “this massive group of people clearly was lying about its stated moral principles” reveals in recent memory).
dredmorbius 2y ago
As much as it pains me to suggest a Cheney, Liz Cheney would be another strong contender.
- jimt1234 2y ago
  Or Adam Kinzinger.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    A few others who'd voted for impeachment (House) or conviction (Senate). Those are: House (10): John Katko (R-NY), Jamie Herrera Beutler (R-WA), Adam Kinziger (R-IL), Dan Newhouse (R-WA), David Valadao (R-CA), Peter Meijer (R-MI), Tome Rice (R-SC), Fred Upton (R-MI), Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH), Liz Cheney (R-WY). <https://www.npr.org/2021/01/14/956621191/these-are-the-10-republicans-who-voted-to-impeach-trump https://www.npr.org/2021/01/14/956621191/these-are-the-10-re...> Senate (7): Richard Burr (R-NC), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Mitt Romney (R-UT), Ben Sasse (R-NE), Pat Toomey (R-PA). <https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/15/967878039/7-gop-senators-voted-to-convict-trump-only-1-faces-voters-next-year https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-up...> In terms of public awareness, I'd roughly rank Romney and Cheney the overall leaders (previous GOP Presidential candidate, and daughter of a previous GOP VP), then perhaps Collins, Murkowski, Burr, Sasse, and trailing those Kinziger, though that's my own seat-of-the pants / /dev/ass estimate. As mixed-party tickets, any of those named, possibly excepting Sasse, might be draws, though Cheney or Romney would lead my own picks. Both reluctant but pragmatic.
    - jimt1234 2y ago
      The more I think about it, the more I like the mixed-ticket idea. It would take the media spotlight off Trump for at least a few minutes.
      - dredmorbius 2y ago
        I've been kicking the thought around myself. One of TFG's prime superpowers is claiming the media limelight, and all that's been going on with the Democratic ticket since 27 June has robbed him of that. Hell, a week ago he came within an inch of being permanently removed from any future, let alone a political one ... and that's scarcely being discussed. I'm not convinced that "no news is bad news", and that all attention is good, but ... at least in terms of attention, the Dems have been winning this battle for the past several weeks. The other thought is that the general election all but certainly swings not on converting voters but motivating them. Or demotivating. I've been thinking of a Harris-Whitmer ticket, which would play to Dem strengths among Blacks, women, blue-collar/industrial voters, and one of the key swing states (Michigan (15 EV)). Other states in play are Nevada (6), Wisconsin (10), Pennsylvania (19), and Georgia (16). MI, WI, and PA currently lean Dem, which would give an electoral majority, taking NV and Georgia (very slightly GOP) would ice that cake. An argument against a split ticket is that there might be a greater chance of strongly motivating marginal Democratic voters. The argument for a split ticket might be to take dissatisfied Republicans (or former Republicans), though how much any of the candidates listed above might draw is questionable. Romney is strongly associated with Utah, which will all but certainly go GOP (99% by 538's forecast), Cheney with Wyoming, similarly inclined, and with a small population (and electoral vote) to boot. Whether either can draw GOP votes from elsewhere, and most especially in critical states such as those listed, or perhaps AZ (surprisingly close), NC, FL, or TX (rather more distant likelihoods, but potentially huge if doable) is the question. It'll be interesting watching this play out, no doubt. The more I think about it, the less I think a split ticket works, though I think it's worth considering in future.
dataviz1000 2y ago
Did you read the New York Times today? [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/21/opinion/biden-west-wing-aaron-sorkin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/21/opinion/biden-west-wing-a...
bastawhiz 2y ago
You'd have to get Romney on board with it. You'd be electing a Democrat administration with a Republican VP. It's not split, it's just a blue ticket with a red VP. If you want to bolster the ticket, get someone that people already like. Hell, get Obama or Sanders to come back as the VP.
- Macha 2y ago
  Obama can't be VP either as the rules are that anyone ineligible to be president can't be elected as VP (there's apparently some debate over whether they could become VP via being promoted from lower down in the succession in the event of a presidential vacancy). Sanders could, but I think he has the double issue of his two prior failed campaigns - a lot of his more motivated voters from previous times might have a "boy who cried wolf" reaction a third campaign. He also doesn't really disarm the "too old" criticism, even if all evidence points to him aging a lot better than either Biden or Trump so far - Biden 2020 vs Biden 2024 would give a lot of people pause even if Sanders gave the world's best debate performance at this point. There's also the fact that Sanders has been actually pretty influential in Biden's presidency, which I think is why he came out so strongly in favour of Biden a few days ago.
  - bagful 2y ago
    Asking sincerely — what has Joe Biden done that he would not have without Sanders’ influence over the past four years?
    - joshuamorton 2y ago
      It's not obvious how much of this is Sanders' impact on Biden vs. Sanders' impact on the party as a whole, but Biden's pro-union and pro-worker stances are pretty pronounced compared to Obama and Clinton (and remarkably so compared to Trump, and Bush). So he's easily the most pro-worker/union president in my lifetime, which is a fairly Bernie-ist position. Same with (partial) student debt relief, and you see shadows of the Green New Deal in the Inflation Reduction Act.
jader201 2y ago
The VP used to be the runner up [1]. E.g. the current administration would be Biden and Trump. I couldn’t imagine that working today, as divided as the parties have become (especially in the last 20 years). [1] https://www.senate.gov/about/officers-staff/vice-president/senate-elects-vice-president.htm https://www.senate.gov/about/officers-staff/vice-president/s...
- batguano 2y ago
  Didn’t even work well then, which is why the 12th Amendment passed quickly
more_corn 2y ago
The purpose of the VP is life insurance. They must be like you but more so.
richiebful1 2y ago
It would be more politically palatable to pick a Senator Joe Manchin or Governor Andy Beshear. In other words, a Democrat so moderate that they can win in the reddest of states
- lupire 2y ago
  Manchin is Independent (unless he thinks he can beat Harris at the convention) which might be even better in this case.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Manchin has burned far too many bridges.
noqc 2y ago
I think establishment unity against Trump would work very well.
bbsm_777 2y ago
> Has it ever been done? Yes Lincoln’s re-election was a unity ticket that included Lincoln (Republican) and Johnson (pro-war Democrat)
loughnane 2y ago
I had a similar thought. It would be bold to pluck a republican of the old order as a gesture to the many republicans who now feel like men without a party. Romney would be an interesting choice. I remember this[0] article in the globe where a columnist who dragged him during his presidential run apologized after seeing how bad things could be. Like you say though, hard to imagine any party conjuring the courage to do something like that even if they thought it was wise. [0] https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/07/20/sorry-mitt-romney/OsRRuxUlldZanzewxhuSTN/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/07/20/sorry-mitt-romn...
- lolinder 2y ago
  > hard to imagine any party conjuring the courage to do something like that even if they thought it was wise. They would if they sincerely believed that losing this election would doom democracy. If they nominate a straight polarized political ticket instead of one that can actually unify everyone who doesn't want to see a second Trump term then we know that they don't actually believe their own apocalyptic rhetoric.
  - Spivak 2y ago
    I think both choices are defensible here depending on what factors you think are more important. If you think you can actually sway moderate Republicans away by giving them a home in the VP (I think Romney would only do numbers as the actual nominee) then a split ticket makes sense. If you think mobilizing your base like Obama in 2008 and get more of the non-voting population to show up at the polls then a "polarized" ticket makes sense.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Yeah, I don't think split ticket with Harris is honestly the way to go. To pull it off you'd need a Democrat from closer to the center who can credibly pitch a narrative of healing a bitterly divided nation and fixing the poisonous rhetoric that is driving us apart. Nominate someone like that with a Romney (but not necessarily actually Romney) as VP and you'd have a ticket that's actually designed to address the democracy-ending problems that the Democrats purport to see. Nominating Harris with another left-leaning running mate may make the most sense from a purely strategic perspective, but I don't think that's because anyone seriously expects her to win at this point or because it's actually their best shot at protecting democracy from the impending apocalypse. They're just hoping that having her in the president slot leads to fewer losses in the rest of the races.
therealrootuser 2y ago
In principle, if you got everyone to agree to it (and this would be a big if), this would probably be an interesting enough ticket that it might just win. Maybe. In practice, Romney is 77 years old and is ready to retire - and think how often age has come up as a factor in the presidential race recently. Romney isn't running for reelection, but if he had wanted his senate seat for another 6 years, I am quite certain it would have been his. So ultimately, I don't think Romney would go for it, simply because he wants to spend more time with his (large) family.
kcplate 2y ago
> Has it ever been done? McCain considered Lieberman
saghm 2y ago
There was a group trying to do this literally for this election, but they couldn't get anyone to actually join the ticket: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Labels#2024_presidential_ticket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Labels#2024_presidential_ti...
AbstractH24 2y ago
I had thought of Adam Kingsinger or Liz Cheney, but Romney is also an interesting option. None are likely, maybe Liz Cheney the most though (imagine if her father campaigned for her).
lupusreal 2y ago
Romney appeals to the sort of people who own multiple houses. Most Trump supporters are working class concerned about the price of groceries, who would probably be better served by a left-wing pro-labor politician but won't vote for one because they abhor the progressive social policies that get bundled with that in America. So they vote for the guy who plays lip service to their problems while talking smack about progressive social stuff. Romney is politically obsolete. He serves no further purpose in American politics.

dustinmr 2y ago

Here’s a good thought experiment: https://www.thebigquestions.com/2024/07/21/the-next-democratic-president/ https://www.thebigquestions.com/2024/07/21/the-next-democrat...

barfingclouds 2y ago

I’d be into that

mbs159 2y ago

It happens in EU countries, where it's not unusual for a right-leaning President to elect a left-leaning Prime Minister. Worth noting that a Prime Minister in the EU often has more power than the VP in the US.

RaftPeople 2y ago

That's a pretty interesting thought. I read something a few years ago that said moderates/non-affiliated make up the majority of voters with only a smaller percentage on left and right tied to the parties (somewhere maybe in 15% to 20% range on each side, can't remember exactly). So it seems like a good mix of moderate could possibly win, especially when the other candidate is so polarizing.

yieldcrv 2y ago
Yeah partisans arent good at winning friends and influencing people in their pathetic partisan power struggles They’ve spent nearly a decade isolating themselves in an algorithm fueled mirror room, while disassociating from everyone that doesn't already agree with them 100% instead of any color coded “wave” occurring despite their recurring delusions, there’s gridlock in the senate, no filibuster proof majority, they’ve lost affiliation and independents are the largest political affiliation in the country now with almost zero representation
tbrake 2y ago
Though unaffiliated myself, I still have very clear opinions on policies. This leads to voting exclusively for one party anyway. It's just the label and tribalism I reject, not their stances or some desire for a mythical "middle path". I have no idea how common this is in the "unaffiliated base" but I'd be willing to wager it's fairly common.
vundercind 2y ago
True-swing voters are a tiny minority. Most of the folks who say they’re unaffiliated or moderates or open to voting for either party in fact vote exactly like a self-reported partisan. They just don’t like the label. Lots of crappy reporting doesn’t differentiate between self-reported swing/moderates and true swing. GOTV matters more. Do your people show up at the polls?
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >True-swing voters are a tiny minority. Honestly, just like undecided voters, they are either a myth or complete idiots.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  Maybe but we have also seen a swing in how politics works (gotten more extreme). During the last two decades I've gone from Republican to Democrat to independent (never-Trumper, Democrat by GOP moral forfeit). I wonder how my beliefs would have evolved if US politics didn't grow so extreme over time.
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    > Maybe but we have also seen a swing in how politics works (gotten more extreme). I've seen the same and done similar. I'm now in the unhappy position of voting against instead of voting for.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    I'm in the same boat. I think everyone dramatically underestimates how many of us Trump refugees there are. Some of us are never trumpers and actually voted for Biden, some of us held our nose and voted for Trump. But the extreme right that fuels MAGA doesn't have as much support as people think, and the main reason why Trump stands a chance this year is because the left has made no overtures whatsoever to the center and center-right.
    - vundercind 2y ago
      Going along with the… let’s say poorly supported by the facts notions that illegal immigrants are meaningful in terms of rising violent crime rates (which—to avoid accidentally contributing to the problem, no, they’re not rising) or fentanyl smuggling, and backing that not just with rhetoric but with policy in some cases is, I think, one thing the democratic campaigns believe they’re doing to reach out toward the center and center right. It’s definitely not aimed at democrats even a hair left of… idk, Reagan I guess, given the whole amnesty thing. So they are trying some stuff.

dawnerd 2y ago

Was thinking that too and it might be a brilliant way to get the folks on the right that don't want to vote Trump but also not necessarily a dem. Also it could be a great marketing tactic to be like 'we're bringing unity back' or something to that. And theoretically no reason it couldn't happen other than both parties definitely not being on board with it.

Macha 2y ago
I think the problem is that both parties have moved, the democrats shifting left and the republicans shifting right (and to put the cards on the table, I think the republicans have shifted a lot more rightward than democrats have leftwards). This leaves people pretty unwilling to go for a split the difference approach. Like if you ask people in favour of a centrist position, they're probably picturing someone in the middle of Bill Clinton and George W Bush, and thinking " I could manage with that". But for a lot of the core democratic vote, they see a Romney as the result of drawing a line down the middle and they already decided he was too right wing for them. Or similar, the republicans are worried that splitting that line down the middle ends up at Hilary, who they already didn't like. So while a lot of people express support for compromise and consquently centrism, you'll get into a lot of infighting when you try to decide what the centrist position actually is..
- xapata 2y ago
  Democrat leadership and large donors may have moved left, but the voters haven't. Which is why Biden was having trouble with some groups previously thought locked-in Democrat.
- MrMan 2y ago
  [dead]

woodruffw 2y ago

> Not going to happen, but I wonder how a mixed party ticket would do. Kamala (or whoever) + Mitt Romney as VP ? I think it would be very hard to convince the liberal-progressive base (i.e. the core of the party) of the DNC to go for this. > Has it ever been done? Before the 12th Amendment was passed, the VP came from the opposing party[1]. This didn't work particularly well in practice, which is why nobody remembers the 12th Amendment :-) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_Unite...

rzz3 2y ago
But there’s no one else to vote for, they’d still vote for her with Romney as the VP. With that vs Trump as the other option, she’d still get the votes from the progressive base and potentially bring over a few more independent voters.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  The US doesn't have mandatory voting; when people are thoroughly demotivated by their party's platform but are unwilling to vote for the other party, they stay home. (I'm not saying whether or not I would. But I think this kind of brinkmanship is a very dangerous game to play, especially in the context of a cross-party ticket.)
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Assuming the Democrats go with Harris, I can say whole heartedly that I won't be voting this year. I view voting as a responsibility to pick a candidate I want to lead rather than a vote to block someone I don't want to lead. This time around I have seen no candidate I could feel even mildly comfortable with. I'm not happy about it, but given my view on why I should vote I don't feel comfortable voting for Trump, Harris, or Biden. Voting for one to spite another would require me first to change my mind on what a vote means or cave on my principles.
    - 2y ago

shortrounddev2 2y ago

It used to be (like, early 1800s) that the VP wasn't elected directly; whoever lost the election became VP. Jefferson and Adams were political adversaries, but when Adams won the election in 1796, Jefferson became VP

mikrotikker 2y ago
Thats sounds awesome. Imagine forcing Trump to work under Kamala.

632brick 2y ago

The only example I could think of that sort of fits that bill: "National Union Party was a wartime coalition of Republicans, War Democrats, and border state Unconditional Unionists that supported the Lincoln Administration during the American Civil War. It held the 1864 National Union Convention that nominated Abraham Lincoln for president and Andrew Johnson for vice president in the 1864 United States presidential election." (wikipedia) Great success as an electoral pairing, not so much afterwards with Johnson's reconstruction policies resulting in all former Republicans leaving the National Union Party and an impeachment.

temporarely 2y ago

I have a "radical" idea: why not actually let the constituency of this party make the choice.

lann 2y ago
Or actually radical: switch from our terrible first-past-the-post voting system to - say - ranked choice (or one of many alternatives; they're almost all better than fptp) and then primaries won't be so important and parties won't have so much power over our kinda-democratic-but-actually-oligarchic political system.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  California state primaries are top-2, not FPTP turning the general election into essentially a run-off. Parties still dominate. Same with my city elections which use RCV. I’m not sure why they would reduce party influence either. Features like being robust against spoilers would seem to most benefit major party candidates.
  - lann 2y ago
    Top-2 is a primary system, not a voting system. When combined with (essentially a generalized version of) FPTP you get most of the same problems.
    - Aloisius 2y ago
      It's a two-round voting system. It is, by definition, not FPTP. There only functional difference between it and say, the original French two-round system that Maurice Duverger (of Duverger's law) contrasted with FPTP is that someone who wins an outright majority in the first election (an open "primary" in California) is not immediately elected. The fact the second round is FPTP doesn't change the overall voting system. With only two candidates for a single seat, most voting systems degenerate to FPTP, but none of the issues related to FPTP are present either (there are no clones, no strategic voting, etc.)
  - 2y ago

ethagnawl 2y ago

> Has it ever been done? McCain/Lieberman almost happened in 2008.

jeffbee 2y ago
Arguably it was Gore/Lieberman that was the cross-party ticket, since Lieberman was just a Republican in a trench coat.
cheema33 2y ago
As a liberal, I thoroughly despised Lieberman. I had a much more favorable opinion of McCain. If my only two choices were McCain/Lieberman vs McCain/Palin, I would hold my nose and vote for the second.

mattnewton 2y ago

Moderate Republicans who won't just vote for Trump are a dying breed. I don't think they are worth courting over just convincing young people and women to turn out to vote, purely on demographics. I could be ideologically blinded by this though.

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
This is what The Lincoln Project and The Bulwark have been working on the last few years.

SV_BubbleTime 2y ago

[flagged]

RoyalHenOil 2y ago
Romney is literally a member of the Republican party and not a member of the Democrat party. What are you even talking about?
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  He has no appeal with Republican voters. Doesn't matter how he himself votes or that he's a member of the party.
  - MrMan 2y ago
    [dead]
  - bezier-curve 2y ago
    He's not a Democrat either. The Republican base turning its back on the moderates in their faction is not really the Democrat electorates' problem.
  - roughly 2y ago
    In fairness, that’s because the Republican Party has changed dramatically since Romney was their presidential candidate.

jrflowers 2y ago

This is an interesting thought experiment. What would the US be like with a completely impossible ticket? Would we flourish under a Lenny Bruce-Knuckles the Echidna ticket? What if Misty and Brock were the respective RNC and DNC chairs? These are the sorts of questions the status quo politicians don’t want us to be asking

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
doctorpangloss 2y ago
This is one of the best Hacker News comments I've read in a while.
jackcosgrove 2y ago
I'm still waiting for the Al Franken-Jill Stein dream team to take the stage.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

[flagged]

kid64 2y ago
It would be extremely odd for anyone in your right-wing media bubble to be "excited" about Harris, how is this a relevant data point?

_heimdall 2y ago

I'd prefer John Kasich over Romney, but a cross-party ticket is one of the few scenarios I can see actually getting me to the polls this time around.

kbmckenna 2y ago
Even if you don't want to vote for president or vice president, you should consider voting in the other elections in the other state/local elections.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  I should have been more clear here. I will likely still cast a ballot but leave President empty. Above I meant that I wouldn't be voting for President if the options are Trump and Harris, but I should have clarified that. Thanks for calling that out.

dheera 2y ago

No. The staunch Republicans will still vote for Trump and the only way to beat that is for there to be an incredibly cohesive force among a population that isn't very cohesive in the first place. The Republicans actually have it easy, they align and bond on lots of things. The center and left align on very few things and fight amongst themselves. A mixed ticket isn't going to align them better.

macintux 2y ago
I’m curious: what do the Republicans align on, besides “Win at all cost” and “Liberals are bad”? Trump doesn’t care about the budget, doesn’t care about protecting our allies, doesn’t care about abortion. I’d wager he doesn’t care about immigration, either, except as a way to get votes.
- dheera 2y ago
  > what do the Republicans align on Christianity, God Bless America, conservative immigration law, well-being of rural people and small towns, second amendment, Made in USA, white-normalized culture ... Democrats very rarely align. They fight between factions about whether BLM, LGBT, or Stop Asian Hate is more important, ffs. They can't even come together and fight for all of the above.
  - macintux 2y ago
    Christianity is a tough sell, given Trump. Other than promoting coal, what has Trump done for rural America’s economy? And the IRA was a huge investment in “Made in USA”, whereas Trump spent years promoting an infrastructure week that never materialized.
    - tshaddox 2y ago
      > Christianity is a tough sell, given Trump. Evangelicals love Trump (in one of the biggest “this massive group of people clearly was lying about its stated moral principles” reveals in recent memory).

dredmorbius 2y ago

As much as it pains me to suggest a Cheney, Liz Cheney would be another strong contender.

jimt1234 2y ago
Or Adam Kinzinger.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  A few others who'd voted for impeachment (House) or conviction (Senate). Those are: House (10): John Katko (R-NY), Jamie Herrera Beutler (R-WA), Adam Kinziger (R-IL), Dan Newhouse (R-WA), David Valadao (R-CA), Peter Meijer (R-MI), Tome Rice (R-SC), Fred Upton (R-MI), Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH), Liz Cheney (R-WY). <https://www.npr.org/2021/01/14/956621191/these-are-the-10-republicans-who-voted-to-impeach-trump https://www.npr.org/2021/01/14/956621191/these-are-the-10-re...> Senate (7): Richard Burr (R-NC), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Mitt Romney (R-UT), Ben Sasse (R-NE), Pat Toomey (R-PA). <https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/15/967878039/7-gop-senators-voted-to-convict-trump-only-1-faces-voters-next-year https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-up...> In terms of public awareness, I'd roughly rank Romney and Cheney the overall leaders (previous GOP Presidential candidate, and daughter of a previous GOP VP), then perhaps Collins, Murkowski, Burr, Sasse, and trailing those Kinziger, though that's my own seat-of-the pants / /dev/ass estimate. As mixed-party tickets, any of those named, possibly excepting Sasse, might be draws, though Cheney or Romney would lead my own picks. Both reluctant but pragmatic.
  - jimt1234 2y ago
    The more I think about it, the more I like the mixed-ticket idea. It would take the media spotlight off Trump for at least a few minutes.
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      I've been kicking the thought around myself. One of TFG's prime superpowers is claiming the media limelight, and all that's been going on with the Democratic ticket since 27 June has robbed him of that. Hell, a week ago he came within an inch of being permanently removed from any future, let alone a political one ... and that's scarcely being discussed. I'm not convinced that "no news is bad news", and that all attention is good, but ... at least in terms of attention, the Dems have been winning this battle for the past several weeks. The other thought is that the general election all but certainly swings not on converting voters but motivating them. Or demotivating. I've been thinking of a Harris-Whitmer ticket, which would play to Dem strengths among Blacks, women, blue-collar/industrial voters, and one of the key swing states (Michigan (15 EV)). Other states in play are Nevada (6), Wisconsin (10), Pennsylvania (19), and Georgia (16). MI, WI, and PA currently lean Dem, which would give an electoral majority, taking NV and Georgia (very slightly GOP) would ice that cake. An argument against a split ticket is that there might be a greater chance of strongly motivating marginal Democratic voters. The argument for a split ticket might be to take dissatisfied Republicans (or former Republicans), though how much any of the candidates listed above might draw is questionable. Romney is strongly associated with Utah, which will all but certainly go GOP (99% by 538's forecast), Cheney with Wyoming, similarly inclined, and with a small population (and electoral vote) to boot. Whether either can draw GOP votes from elsewhere, and most especially in critical states such as those listed, or perhaps AZ (surprisingly close), NC, FL, or TX (rather more distant likelihoods, but potentially huge if doable) is the question. It'll be interesting watching this play out, no doubt. The more I think about it, the less I think a split ticket works, though I think it's worth considering in future.

dataviz1000 2y ago

Did you read the New York Times today? [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/21/opinion/biden-west-wing-aaron-sorkin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/21/opinion/biden-west-wing-a...

bastawhiz 2y ago

You'd have to get Romney on board with it. You'd be electing a Democrat administration with a Republican VP. It's not split, it's just a blue ticket with a red VP. If you want to bolster the ticket, get someone that people already like. Hell, get Obama or Sanders to come back as the VP.

Macha 2y ago
Obama can't be VP either as the rules are that anyone ineligible to be president can't be elected as VP (there's apparently some debate over whether they could become VP via being promoted from lower down in the succession in the event of a presidential vacancy). Sanders could, but I think he has the double issue of his two prior failed campaigns - a lot of his more motivated voters from previous times might have a "boy who cried wolf" reaction a third campaign. He also doesn't really disarm the "too old" criticism, even if all evidence points to him aging a lot better than either Biden or Trump so far - Biden 2020 vs Biden 2024 would give a lot of people pause even if Sanders gave the world's best debate performance at this point. There's also the fact that Sanders has been actually pretty influential in Biden's presidency, which I think is why he came out so strongly in favour of Biden a few days ago.
- bagful 2y ago
  Asking sincerely — what has Joe Biden done that he would not have without Sanders’ influence over the past four years?
  - joshuamorton 2y ago
    It's not obvious how much of this is Sanders' impact on Biden vs. Sanders' impact on the party as a whole, but Biden's pro-union and pro-worker stances are pretty pronounced compared to Obama and Clinton (and remarkably so compared to Trump, and Bush). So he's easily the most pro-worker/union president in my lifetime, which is a fairly Bernie-ist position. Same with (partial) student debt relief, and you see shadows of the Green New Deal in the Inflation Reduction Act.

jader201 2y ago

The VP used to be the runner up [1]. E.g. the current administration would be Biden and Trump. I couldn’t imagine that working today, as divided as the parties have become (especially in the last 20 years). [1] https://www.senate.gov/about/officers-staff/vice-president/senate-elects-vice-president.htm https://www.senate.gov/about/officers-staff/vice-president/s...

batguano 2y ago
Didn’t even work well then, which is why the 12th Amendment passed quickly

more_corn 2y ago

The purpose of the VP is life insurance. They must be like you but more so.

richiebful1 2y ago

It would be more politically palatable to pick a Senator Joe Manchin or Governor Andy Beshear. In other words, a Democrat so moderate that they can win in the reddest of states

lupire 2y ago
Manchin is Independent (unless he thinks he can beat Harris at the convention) which might be even better in this case.
ceejayoz 2y ago
Manchin has burned far too many bridges.

noqc 2y ago

I think establishment unity against Trump would work very well.

bbsm_777 2y ago

> Has it ever been done? Yes Lincoln’s re-election was a unity ticket that included Lincoln (Republican) and Johnson (pro-war Democrat)

loughnane 2y ago

I had a similar thought. It would be bold to pluck a republican of the old order as a gesture to the many republicans who now feel like men without a party. Romney would be an interesting choice. I remember this[0] article in the globe where a columnist who dragged him during his presidential run apologized after seeing how bad things could be. Like you say though, hard to imagine any party conjuring the courage to do something like that even if they thought it was wise. [0] https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/07/20/sorry-mitt-romney/OsRRuxUlldZanzewxhuSTN/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/07/20/sorry-mitt-romn...

lolinder 2y ago
> hard to imagine any party conjuring the courage to do something like that even if they thought it was wise. They would if they sincerely believed that losing this election would doom democracy. If they nominate a straight polarized political ticket instead of one that can actually unify everyone who doesn't want to see a second Trump term then we know that they don't actually believe their own apocalyptic rhetoric.
- Spivak 2y ago
  I think both choices are defensible here depending on what factors you think are more important. If you think you can actually sway moderate Republicans away by giving them a home in the VP (I think Romney would only do numbers as the actual nominee) then a split ticket makes sense. If you think mobilizing your base like Obama in 2008 and get more of the non-voting population to show up at the polls then a "polarized" ticket makes sense.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Yeah, I don't think split ticket with Harris is honestly the way to go. To pull it off you'd need a Democrat from closer to the center who can credibly pitch a narrative of healing a bitterly divided nation and fixing the poisonous rhetoric that is driving us apart. Nominate someone like that with a Romney (but not necessarily actually Romney) as VP and you'd have a ticket that's actually designed to address the democracy-ending problems that the Democrats purport to see. Nominating Harris with another left-leaning running mate may make the most sense from a purely strategic perspective, but I don't think that's because anyone seriously expects her to win at this point or because it's actually their best shot at protecting democracy from the impending apocalypse. They're just hoping that having her in the president slot leads to fewer losses in the rest of the races.

therealrootuser 2y ago

In principle, if you got everyone to agree to it (and this would be a big if), this would probably be an interesting enough ticket that it might just win. Maybe. In practice, Romney is 77 years old and is ready to retire - and think how often age has come up as a factor in the presidential race recently. Romney isn't running for reelection, but if he had wanted his senate seat for another 6 years, I am quite certain it would have been his. So ultimately, I don't think Romney would go for it, simply because he wants to spend more time with his (large) family.

kcplate 2y ago

> Has it ever been done? McCain considered Lieberman

saghm 2y ago

There was a group trying to do this literally for this election, but they couldn't get anyone to actually join the ticket: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Labels#2024_presidential_ticket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Labels#2024_presidential_ti...

AbstractH24 2y ago

I had thought of Adam Kingsinger or Liz Cheney, but Romney is also an interesting option. None are likely, maybe Liz Cheney the most though (imagine if her father campaigned for her).

lupusreal 2y ago

Romney appeals to the sort of people who own multiple houses. Most Trump supporters are working class concerned about the price of groceries, who would probably be better served by a left-wing pro-labor politician but won't vote for one because they abhor the progressive social policies that get bundled with that in America. So they vote for the guy who plays lip service to their problems while talking smack about progressive social stuff. Romney is politically obsolete. He serves no further purpose in American politics.