America has many political dynasties, but I can’t remember a time where two members of the same political dynasty were on a presidential ticket of a major party, let alone won. So, how could there be a winning ticket with both the President and VP being related. Ie: ‘Kennedy/Kennedy’ or ‘Bush/Bush’. Is it possible? And if something like this happened what would be the implications of such an administration be?
AHC/WI: Nepotistic Presidential Ticket
- Thread starter The_Russian
- Start date
Wouldn’t matter if they won over 270 without that state. And even while George Bush Sr and Jr as Texans, Jeb is a Floridian. JFK was from Massachusetts but RFK was a senator from New York.
Voters would likely be put off, and the running mate would be highly unlikely to add any value to the ticket.
Crazy Boris
Banned
I could see JFK/RFK as a fringe idea supported by a small minority that just really loves the Kennedys, but I don’t see it getting approved by the Democrats as a whole.
Peter Rabbit would be wise to stay out of Mr. MacGregor’s Current Politics garden.
I would go with Dubya rolling all sixes after 9/11, Cheney dying of a heart attack or something, and the GOP deciding to groom Jen by making him VP in 2004.
Deleted member 109224
Bobby or Ted Kennedy and Sargent Shriver? Shriver was a Kennedy by marriage.
Schwarzenegger with a Kennedy VP, since Schwarzenegger was married to Sargent Shriver's daughter (if you get around the birthright citizenship issue).
Hillary Clinton/Anthony Weiner if you accept the 'Huma was basically Hillary's Second daughter' argument.
The Udall Family seems like another possibility. If you include the Hunt and Lee branches of the family, they've managed to get elected in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah and from both parties. Mike Lee of Utah (R) and Gordon Smith of Oregon (R) both are Udall family members from different states, and folks might not notice the connection. If Gordon Smith hadn't lost in 08 (a pretty close thing) then by 2011 there'd have been four Udalls in the Senate: Tom Udall (NM), Mark Udall (CO), Mike Lee (UT), and Gordon Smith (OR).
Schwarzenegger with a Kennedy VP, since Schwarzenegger was married to Sargent Shriver's daughter (if you get around the birthright citizenship issue).
Hillary Clinton/Anthony Weiner if you accept the 'Huma was basically Hillary's Second daughter' argument.
The Udall Family seems like another possibility. If you include the Hunt and Lee branches of the family, they've managed to get elected in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah and from both parties. Mike Lee of Utah (R) and Gordon Smith of Oregon (R) both are Udall family members from different states, and folks might not notice the connection. If Gordon Smith hadn't lost in 08 (a pretty close thing) then by 2011 there'd have been four Udalls in the Senate: Tom Udall (NM), Mark Udall (CO), Mike Lee (UT), and Gordon Smith (OR).
If you're simply listing possible tickets without further comment, you're keeping with the spirit if not the letter of the law.
If you say _________ is great or only an idiot would vote for them you're definitely crossing the line into Chat.
I feel like this would be next to impossible after 1967, when the federal anti-nepotism law was passed. It would open any candidate to charges of nepotism from their opponent (although I suppose it wouldn't matter much if a landslide were expected).
**facepalm**
I really don’t want this thread locked for current politics. Please for the love of God, don’t do this.
Especially considering as neither of them have the Udall last name.
Crazy Boris
Banned
I have to ask, is there any legal restrictions that would prevent someone’s spouse being their running mate? Not necessarily a certain recently-incumbent New Yorker and his wife, but I think a Franklin/Eleanor ticket could be really interesting.
No, the only such clause that exists is Electoral Votes cannot be cast for two people of the same state by the state they come from.
If Al Gore Sr. (TN) ran with Al Gore Jr. (TN) as his running mate and they won Tennessee, thry couldn’t constitutionally cast their electors for them. Every other state could and it’d be a simple matter of one of them changing their state of residency (like Dick Cheney did in 2000).
I’d say two elections cycles or over 8 years for in depth discussion is a good rule of thumb. 2012 doesn’t have that much bearing on current politics and is the latest point that I wouldn’t put in chat.
EDIT
Come on, 6-7 months ago is by definition current politics.
That’s totally allowed under the Constitution. Not sure if other laws would get in the way, byt I don’t believe any such limitations would be Constitutional.
Last edited:
By that rule, Obama and Romney are kosher in their current forms; anyone else would have to involve a substantially older POD (like Hillary Clinton going rogue in the 80s or something.) I got away with a DBWI of Trump being POTUS in the late 80s because I made him different and because there was a POD available at that time, but anything involving an active politician would need a POD of at least 15-20 years ago to work.
So, with that in mind…Oprah becomes mayor of Chicago in the early 2000s, runs for POTUS in 2020, and her running mate is Dr. Phil. Different kind of nepotism but still there nonetheless.
Really needful bring current politics there? You want make one certain bear angry?