quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: ...Think of it: a split party ticket for the first term in....years.
Who know[s] when the last time was?
1797-1801 President - John Adams (Federalist) Vice President - Thomas Jefferson (Democratic Republican)
I doubt the McCain thing will happen. Clark maybe, but not McCain.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Wasn't Adams/Jefferson during the period when, as mentioned before, the runner-up in the presidential election became the VP?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Jason posted his second while I was looking for information on his first.
That may well be the case, but I'd have to look it up to confirm it.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Now that I think about it, wasn't that the message VP Ben Kingsley tried to get through in "Dave"? His being sent to Africa, where he couldn't disrupt the EvilPres' and Frank Langella's plans?
Totally Obscure Jay said: "maybe we should choose our president by deciding which candidate we would prefer to eat barbecue with."
That has nothing to do with politics. Burgers and national security has nothing in common.
posted
If life were anything like the movie Dave, I'd feel really good about voting.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
"Then again, maybe we should choose our president by deciding which candidate we would prefer to eat barbecue with."
We already do. Because of idiots' coming up with polls like that.
"More voters also would trust Bush, 46-41, to run the family business. But voters were evenly split on whether they would rather have Kerry or Bush teach their children."
I think that that's indisputable proof that the people answering the poll questions were either lying, or utterly mentally imcompetent in every way.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't trust anyone who thinks that 87 people is a good number for a poll.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
That's still a pretty small poll: Where was this poll held nayway? The pollsters could have been asking the residents of a large trailer park for all we know.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, like we say where I come from, "There's nayway if you're a naysay!".
Seriously, what was wrong with the system the first couple of presidents had, being both Democrat and Republican in one body?! I looked at americanpresidents.org and there were a lot of them hybrids for many years. Now I don't think the presidents of those days were mutants carrying a big democrat manbaby in their gut, like in the Academy Award-nominated "Total Recall", so it must've worked like a nice marriage of views, no?
Couldn't you sort of go back to that, mend the fence, so to speak?
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
No: the VP position as a title and a paycheck back then with zero responsibilities. It was a joke and everyone knew it.
Today the VP's job is much more complex and involves issuing billion dollar contracts to companies he used to run.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
No, I meant that some presidents have had the affiliation "Democratic Republican" or "Republican Democrat", why was that merger possible in the 1700's/1800's and why is it not today?
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I believe "Democratic Republican" was the name of the party, wasn't it?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Remember, the parties do change once in a while. I think the two big parties back in the day were the Whigs and the Federalists. Or maybe the D-R and the Feds? Hmm...IIRC, it was the Civil War that thrust the Republicans into serious power.
-------------------- Fell deeds await. Now for Wrath... Now for Ruin... and a Red Dawn... -Theoden, TTT
Lord Vorkosigan does not always get what he wants!
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
quote: No, I meant that some presidents have had the affiliation "Democratic Republican" or "Republican Democrat", why was that merger possible in the 1700's/1800's and why is it not today?
Omega's right, it wasn't a merger. The Democratic Republicans were one early party, and the Whigs and Federalists were others. Then this third-party spoiler named Lincoln came along and upset everything (the Federalists were extinct at that point, IIRC). I'm not sure when the Democratic Republicans came to be known as just Democrats, but I think Lincoln's party was already known as (just) Republicans when he was elected.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
