Veepstakes 2012

[Angry-Hatter]

So the Romney Campaign just started dropping hints that a VP announcement is imminent, and a flurry of rumors are abounding about how Condolezza Rice is the front runner for the spot after Drudge reported that she was.

I thought that this would be a good time to start a thread about your predictions on who Mittens is going to pick for the VP slot, and here's a prediction that I feel pretty confident about making:

Condolezza Rice is not going to be Romney's VP pick.

This to me smacks of the Romney campaign floating names around to make it seem like they are actually considering them when in actuality they aren't. Rice is such a name. Nominating a black woman would be a bold and ballsy move by Romney, one that is likely to get a lot of attention, but in the end, I think there are way too many drawbacks to nominating Rice for her to be a serious front runner. She is inescapably linked to the Bush administration in a way that is hard to overlook; her service as Bush's Secretary of State is what she is primarily known for, and it would be much too easy for the Democrats to bring this up in the campaign. The Bush brand is still toxic, and I sincerely doubt that Romney would want to seem connected with it any more than he has to. She is an Alabama native and a California resident, so she is unlikely to deliver any kind of home state advantage for Romney. She's unlikely to bring any more women voters than Sarah Palin did for McCain in 2008, and I find it difficult to imagine that she's going to persuade many black voters to trade in a black President for a black VP.

All in all, I think it is way more likely that Romney is going to pick a boring old white guy, ala Rob Portman, Mitch Daniels, or John Thune, than that he'll pick a VP with historic characteristics threatening to outshine his own, already painfully pronounced brand of boringness.

Who do YOU think Romney is going to pick? *points at you*

[BrianEtrius]

Here's the thing about Romney's vp candidate, whomever it will be: it's going to be a nonfactor to most voting groups. Any serious candidate who's thinking of running in 2016 is staying far far away from Romney's campaign, and for good reason: there's too much contraversy surrounding the campaign.

Romney's VP pick will probably be the following:
a) more conservative than himself
b) a Senator or Rep

At this point in the race, most people have decided their vote. The one key group left is the independents, but for Romney, another challenge is still convincing conservatives he's their guy, hence a more conservative vp. But will it have a bigger effect on the election as a whole? Romney might get a 2% bump. It's actually similar to Obama in 08; Romney needs a pick to bring together the party to try to win.

[TheMason]

I think Mitt Romney is going to stun the world when he reveals: 1) his VP is going to be RuPaul and 2) RuPaul is a closeted Tea Partier.

But seriously folks...

I'm wondering about Marco Rubio:

1) He could help shore-up Florida, a key swing state.
2) He could help the Republican party repair strained relations with the Hispanic vote.

One of the things about the VP is he can be more aggressive (ie: less boring) than the presidential candidate. Afterall, it's his/her job to be the attack dog.

As for Condi, I agree with AH. She is smart, capable and qualified to be both VP and president. BUT, she is too attached to the Bush brand and thus would make it easier for Obama to run against Bush a second time. (Before anyone corrects me...I know his opponent was McCain, but 2008 was more about Bush than who the Republicans put up to succeed him.)

[BrianEtrius]

At 7/17/12 10:17 PM, TheMason wrote: Marco Rubio

I have a hard time believing even if it was offered, Rubio would take the vp nod. Rubio's a great raising star within GOP and probably a likely contender for 2016, so why would he try to associate himself with probably the antithesis of the current American public, Mitt? It makes no sense running with a guy who's the perfect image of the Wall Street CEO when your sorry is that you're a poor immigrant achieving the American dream? (which, by the way, isn't all necessarly true either) While it would make logical sense for Romney again, I don't see anyone who's serious about 2016 coming close to the Romney campaign.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 7/17/12 10:44 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

At 7/17/12 10:17 PM, TheMason wrote: Marco Rubio

I have a hard time believing even if it was offered, Rubio would take the vp nod. Rubio's a great raising star within GOP and probably a likely contender for 2016, so why would he try to associate himself with probably the antithesis of the current American public, Mitt? It makes no sense running with a guy who's the perfect image of the Wall Street CEO when your sorry is that you're a poor immigrant achieving the American dream? (which, by the way, isn't all necessarly true either) While it would make logical sense for Romney again, I don't see anyone who's serious about 2016 coming close to the Romney campaign.

I'm somewhere between the two of you, because while I do think that Rubio would have the ability to put Florida and a larger portion of the Latino vote in play, I'm finding it less and less likely that he's going to get picked. He keeps saying that he's not interested, and I think that Brian is right that at this point he'd probably turn it down if he's asked, but more than that, it appears that he hasn't even been vetted by the Romney campaign, so he might not even get asked at all. But hypothetically, if he were to be offered the VP slot, I think he would still be better off for 2016 or 2020 by accepting, for a number of different reasons.

1: Name recognition. Being the VP candidate for the Republicans pretty much guarantees that he's going to have practically universal name recognition come 2016, which counts for a lot when people decide who to go for in the primaries.

2: Campaign experience. Running for statewide office is not the same as running nationwide. It would be an invaluable learning experience to be out on the stump throughout the country for a couple of months.

3: Romney might actually win. Yeah, crazy concept right? If Romney wins, then Rubio is the first Latino Vice President and the instant front-runner for the 2020 election regardless of whether Romney wins re-election in 2016 or not.

4: Even if Romney doesn't win, it's extremely easy to push Romney under a nearby bus. The McCain campaign was by all accounts an unmitigated disaster, and Sarah Palin was possibly the worst VP candidate in recent memory, and yet she was able to garner quite a robust following and was competitive in early primary polling. She could have been a force in the primary season had she had any driving motivation to do anything other than cash in on her sudden rise to fame. So, if all else fails, it's not impossible to imagine Rubio stabbing Romney in the back once the dust has settled and begin to explain to the American people how Rubio, a "real" conservative Republican, would have done everything differently from what Romney did. Rubio 2016: I'm not Obama or Romney.

That said, I don't think it's going to be Rubio anymore. He'd have to walk back a whole lot of statements he's made to the effect that he doesn't want to be on the ticket, and actions from the Romney camp would lead one to believe that they are just fine with him not being there.

[Feoric]

Firstly I highly doubt he will announce his VP pick this early on. Announcing the VP this early would be a colossal blunder for very little gain. A VP announcement should be a big deal to dominate the entire news cycle throughout the week, not buried on a Friday - unless the plan is to dominate the Sunday talk shows with it, so they're not talking about something else. But, why go for that? I'm not certain about who is going to pick at all, and honestly, I don't think he is either. Some of the speculative front runners have been out making appearances lately; I think the Romney team is still gauging their performance. If he does drop a name Friday, I would bet he rushed the decision this week to try to push the Bain story and his secretive tax forms out of the news cycle. Those two are some pretty big issues for him at the moment and for him to make an announcement this Friday would mean the Romney camp is really hurting. I personally suspect for no real reason that he'll go with Rob Portman. He's almost as boring as Romney.

[Warforger]

At 7/17/12 10:17 PM, TheMason wrote: 2) He could help the Republican party repair strained relations with the Hispanic vote.

When have Republican party relations with the Hispanic vote EVER been good? Reagan?

At 7/17/12 10:44 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

At 7/17/12 10:17 PM, TheMason wrote: Marco Rubio

I have a hard time believing even if it was offered, Rubio would take the vp nod. Rubio's a great raising star within GOP and probably a likely contender for 2016, so why would he try to associate himself with probably the antithesis of the current American public, Mitt? It makes no sense running with a guy who's the perfect image of the Wall Street CEO when your sorry is that you're a poor immigrant achieving the American dream? (which, by the way, isn't all necessarly true either) While it would make logical sense for Romney again, I don't see anyone who's serious about 2016 coming close to the Romney campaign.

Um even if it was at the time of the Cuban Revolution most of the people fleeing were the richer people, mid-middle class to upper class who were going to be the targets of the regime and they already had the capital and the skills to succeed in America anyway, later immigrants i.e. from the 70's onward were/are more poor and less educated and it would be more notable if they succeeded.

[Feoric]

At 7/17/12 10:44 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

At 7/17/12 10:17 PM, TheMason wrote: Marco Rubio

I have a hard time believing even if it was offered, Rubio would take the vp nod. Rubio's a great raising star within GOP and probably a likely contender for 2016, so why would he try to associate himself with probably the antithesis of the current American public, Mitt? It makes no sense running with a guy who's the perfect image of the Wall Street CEO when your sorry is that you're a poor immigrant achieving the American dream? (which, by the way, isn't all necessarly true either) While it would make logical sense for Romney again, I don't see anyone who's serious about 2016 coming close to the Romney campaign.

I think the GOP knows at this point that the Romney campaign is a best a losing battle and at worst toxic, but I think Rubio or anyone for that matter would take the VP nomination if they wanted it, even if they knew it was going nowhere. It's an extremely useful opportunity to get experienced in the more vigorous vetting process during presidential races and it's also a great platform to appear to more people so you're a familiar name the second time around in 2016 or whenever. I personally don't think Romney's stigma is going to brush off on his VP, Romney fits the idiosyncratic image of an out of touch multimillionaire and Rubio doesn't even come close to it. After reading this article I think it's likely now more than ever that Rubio is at least being given heavy consideration for the position.

"This poll marks the first time Obama has received 70% of the vote in Latino Decisions polling on the presidential election over the past 20 months... Two concerns for Romney may be that 13% of self-identified Latino Republicans say they will cross-over and vote for Obama and 60% of Independents plan to vote for Obama. In contrast only 2% of Democrats say they plan to vote for Romney. Looking at voters with a validated vote history in 2008 Obama leads Romney 72% to 20%, and Latinos who reside in one of 13 critical battleground states (AZ, CO, FL, IA, IN, MI, MO, NC, NV, OH, PA, VA, WI) lean very heavily towards Obama, 71% to 21% for Romney."

These are absolutely horrific numbers for Romney and Rubio is going to act as the best tool to help get those Latino votes. They're not insignificant, either, especially in battleground states.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 7/18/12 11:44 PM, Feoric wrote: After reading this article I think it's likely now more than ever that Rubio is at least being given heavy consideration for the position.

Yeah, except according to Republican sources, Rubio isn't even being vetted. That's an article from today. If they were thinking about tapping Rubio then they are definitely leaving it for the last minute.

[Camarohusky]

If Romney knew what was good for him, he'd pick a moderate running mate. The Republicans are going to have a much harder time getting the independents to side with them than the hardcore conservatives. While a far right VP might energize some of the base it runs the high chance of scaring away many independents who are flat out afraid of the extremes, both left and right. The chance of Romney losing far right voters by picking a moderate VP is much much less.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 7/19/12 02:42 PM, Camarohusky wrote: If Romney knew what was good for him, he'd pick a moderate running mate.

So name one moderate Republican. They're in pretty short supply nowdays.

[BrianEtrius]

At 7/19/12 02:49 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: So name one moderate Republican. They're in pretty short supply nowdays.

Jon Huntsman. Though a full Mormon ticket is political suicide.

More about Rubio.....

In a normal election I would agree with you. Rubio, if he wants to get his name out there, should take the nod. However, you have to look at the whole GOP base and they're still not happy. And Rubio, if he's serious, needs to appeal tothis whole group. That isn't going to cut it with Romney's campaign. There's too many questions that if you wanted to try to appeal to the common voter you'd be made a laughing stock.

One of the first questions the vp nod is going to have to answer is what's Romney hiding in his tax forms? Answer that question the wrong way and the press is going to be all over your ass. That alone can kill 2016 dreams.

My money's on Tim Pawlenty.

[Korriken]

At 7/19/12 02:42 PM, Camarohusky wrote: If Romney knew what was good for him, he'd pick a moderate running mate.

That's the typical left mantra...

The Republicans are going to have a much harder time getting the independents to side with them than the hardcore conservatives.

I'd disagree with that. Romney flip flops enough as is. having someone with some actual political principles would balance it out some, rather than someone who says, "I agree with you!" to absolutely everyone they meet that can cast a vote.

[Feoric]

At 7/19/12 04:31 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/19/12 02:42 PM, Camarohusky wrote: If Romney knew what was good for him, he'd pick a moderate running mate.

That's the typical left mantra...

hahaha. It's actually conventional political wisdom. Example: John McCain and Sarah Palin. You don't want your VP to be too far left or right of the nominee and of what people want. That's why I think Romney is going to go with Rob Portman; a moderate milquetoast Republican.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/19/12 04:31 PM, Korriken wrote: I'd disagree with that. Romney flip flops enough as is. having someone with some actual political principles would balance it out some, rather than someone who says, "I agree with you!" to absolutely everyone they meet that can cast a vote.

But how would someone with views that horrify the average American boost Romney's poll numbers?

[Korriken]

At 7/19/12 05:59 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

But how would someone with views that horrify the average American boost Romney's poll numbers?

Except, their views don't horrify the average american. Not any worse than the last 3.5 years of the Obama administration, anyway.

you seem to have this thing stuck in your head that 95% of people are leftists and that the only way a republican could possibly win an election is to try and be center of the road.

I'll put it like this. Obama won the election for 2 reasons. brainless retards who fell for the whole 'historic election' and the economy going down right before the election. McCain had a pretty good chance, even after how hardcore the media demonized him and Palin and made him out to be a geezer that could die at any moment and made her out to be a moron, up until the economy went down.

Don't be so certain that people are "horrified" by someone's positions because you don't like em. If they were so mortified by them, every election would be a landslide victory for the democrats, and they're not. Obama won by what, 7% of the popular vote? big deal, Bill Clinton won by a bigger margin than that, and he didn't have brainless college kids rushing out to vote in such a 'historic' election.

and don't bother with the "electoral college results" Those aren't even historic, given that Bush sr got 79.2% of the electoral votes in 1988 (then lost reelection)

why bring up Obama? just to make my point. if people were so horrified by non liberal thought, Bush Jr would not have won either election, and McCain wouldn't have stood a snowball's chance in hell, even before the economy tanked.

[Feoric]

At 7/19/12 07:16 PM, Korriken wrote: Except, their views don't horrify the average american. Not any worse than the last 3.5 years of the Obama administration, anyway.

Who is "their" views? We're discussing a hypothetical VP candidate who is multiple steps away from being a moderate, not anyone in particular.

you seem to have this thing stuck in your head that 95% of people are leftists and that the only way a republican could possibly win an election is to try and be center of the road.

No, this applies to the left too, believe it or not. There's a reason why you'll never find a Democrat running for president that will pick a VP that's a card carrying socialist.

brainless retards who fell for the whole 'historic election'

haha, wait, it wasn't?

McCain had a pretty good chance, even after how hardcore the media demonized him and Palin and made him out to be a geezer that could die at any moment and made her out to be a moron, up until the economy went down.

McCain did have a good chance but his campaign collapsed towards the end with the whole "bomb iran" stunt and the worst VP pick in recent history. The economy already tanked when this happened.

Don't be so certain that people are "horrified" by someone's positions because you don't like em. If they were so mortified by them, every election would be a landslide victory for the democrats, and they're not.

Uh, nobody here is saying this? What are you responding to here?

Obama won by what, 7% of the popular vote? big deal,

Yeah, it is a big deal. You'll do anything to trivialize the fact that Obama won the Presidential race, it seems.

Bill Clinton won by a bigger margin than that, and he didn't have brainless college kids rushing out to vote in such a 'historic' election.

Brainless college kids? Here, take your own advice: Don't have such a level of disgust by someone's positions just because you don't agree with them.

and don't bother with the "electoral college results" Those aren't even historic, given that Bush sr got 79.2% of the electoral votes in 1988 (then lost reelection)

...what?

why bring up Obama? just to make my point. if people were so horrified by non liberal thought

Good lord nobody even remotely insinuated this.

[Korriken]

At 7/19/12 07:45 PM, Feoric wrote:

Who is "their" views? We're discussing a hypothetical VP candidate who is multiple steps away from being a moderate, not anyone in particular.

are you serious? who the hell do you THINK we're discussion (hint: read all of the posts)

No, this applies to the left too, believe it or not. There's a reason why you'll never find a Democrat running for president that will pick a VP that's a card carrying socialist.

Didn't we elect one?

haha, wait, it wasn't?

not any more historic than any other election.

McCain did have a good chance but his campaign collapsed towards the end with the whole "bomb iran" stunt and the worst VP pick in recent history. The economy already tanked when this happened.

Uh, nobody here is saying this? What are you responding to here?

go back to general. If you can't figure out such a simple thing as to what I'm responding to, you don't belong here.

Yeah, it is a big deal. You'll do anything to trivialize the fact that Obama won the Presidential race, it seems.

Brainless college kids? Here, take your own advice: Don't have such a level of disgust by someone's positions just because you don't agree with them.

If you vote for a politician for reasons other than "I agree with this person on the issues I find important" then, you're a moron. Voting for a person because of their skin color or because "he's a good talker", or worse, are reasons why you should not vote.

you miss the point. the fervor that Obama was able to whip up, Clinton didn't have. He still won by a bigger margin than Obama. It's all facts. People love to gloat about how Obama won by a huge 'landslide' when really, it was nothing special. 7% more than #2, which respectable, isn't all that out of the ordinary. Compared to 2000, yeah it's huge, but 2000 was an anomaly.

...what?

go read the 1988 election results.

Good lord nobody even remotely insinuated this.

sigh.

At 7/19/12 05:59 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/19/12 04:31 PM, Korriken wrote: I'd disagree with that. Romney flip flops enough as is. having someone with some actual political principles would balance it out some, rather than someone who says, "I agree with you!" to absolutely everyone they meet that can cast a vote.

But how would someone with views that horrify the average American boost Romney's poll numbers?

there. This is what I was responding to. not you.

The point is, Americans are not necessarily horrified by non 'centrist' views. Will Americans vote for a card holding Socialist? not if he waves his card in the air, yelling "down with free enterprise!" However, if his views can be kept quiet enough and his PR team can successfully suppress and play off the opponent's pointing them out, then yeah, he CAN get elected.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/19/12 08:24 PM, Korriken wrote: However, if his views can be kept quiet enough and his PR team can successfully suppress and play off the opponent's pointing them out, then yeah, he CAN get elected.

Seriously, what hardcore conservative does this description apply to?

... *crickets*...

[Feoric]

At 7/19/12 08:24 PM, Korriken wrote: are you serious? who the hell do you THINK we're discussion (hint: read all of the posts)

I read all of the posts, that's why I'm confused by all your strawman arguments. We were having a discussion about who is likely to be Romney's VP. Camarohusky made the point that it's politically expedient for Romney to have a moderate as his VP pick, but then you went on to say this in direct response to his post:

I'd disagree with that.

So it can't be interpreted in any other way that you think Romney should pick a more activist Republican as his VP. The thing is, who? We were discussing Pawlenty, Rubio and Portman, which aren't as far to right as, say, Cain, Bachmann, Palin, Santorum, etc. When I said "who is they" I mean which Republicans are you talking about here when you say "their views don't horrify the average american?" Because it's pretty clear, for example, Palin did, and Cain was a laughingstock. So who the hell are you referring to? The names already dropped in this thread? Someone not yet named? Because the names being discussed here aren't exactly hard line republicans with the exception of Pawlenty and possibly Rubio. They're pretty moderate compared to the aforementioned players on the far right of the field.

Didn't we elect one?

Wait, you unironically think Obama is a socialist? Do you think his birth certificate is fake, too? Because they're both equally ridiculous things to think.

not any more historic than any other election.

Wow. He was the first black president. I'm just gonna leave it there.

go back to general. If you can't figure out such a simple thing as to what I'm responding to, you don't belong here.

I need to go back to general because you made a strawman argument that made no sense and I called you out on it? Nobody here said anything that even remotely insinuates that Americans are horrified of any opinion by Republicans. Camarohusky's point was that the average American voter doesn't want someone with the same political beliefs, as, say, Joe Arpaio, because yes, he legitimately horrifies a lot of people in this country. You somehow thought that meant "all Americans are afraid of Republicans" and your evidence that this isn't true is because "not all Democrats win in landslides," which I guess is a manifestation of the victim complex the right wing seems to have these days.

If you vote for a politician for reasons other than "I agree with this person on the issues I find important" then, you're a moron. Voting for a person because of their skin color or because "he's a good talker", or worse, are reasons why you should not vote.

You're not so subtly hinting that you think a large amount of votes that Obama received were by (your definition of) morons or just the fact that he's black. How many people are going to vote for Romney simply because he's not Obama? People don't always vote the way they should but that doesn't mean their vote doesn't count. Sorry.

go read the 1988 election results.

No, I get that part. I'm just confused why you bothered to type this because it has absolutely nothing to do with anything we were discussing. There seems to be a trend where you never turn down any opportunity to derail threads to let everyone know how much you despise Obama and his voters, and it's getting really stale at this point.

sigh.

True. Sigh.

But how would someone with views that horrify the average American boost Romney's poll numbers?

there. This is what I was responding to. not you.

That's the beauty of message boards. Anyone can jump in on the conversation!

The point is, Americans are not necessarily horrified by non 'centrist' views.

Of course not. Not every President is going to be dead center, nor should they be. At certain times we need a little bit of liberal policies, and every now and then we need a little bit of conservative policies. Some are going to be more right or left than others. If that's what the people want, so be it. I don't think anyone here disagrees with this.

Will Americans vote for a card holding Socialist? not if he waves his card in the air, yelling "down with free enterprise!" However, if his views can be kept quiet enough and his PR team can successfully suppress and play off the opponent's pointing them out, then yeah, he CAN get elected.

Or, if a large enough chunk of Americans thought ideas derived from socialist principles would best solve the problems the country is facing as opposed to any other proposed ideas of fixing the hypothetical problem.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 7/19/12 04:31 PM, Korriken wrote: Romney flip flops enough as is. having someone with some actual political principles would balance it out some, rather than someone who says, "I agree with you!" to absolutely everyone they meet that can cast a vote.

I find it amusing that you believe that being a moderate precludes principle. Perhaps it is understandable when Mitt Romney is the current standard bearer for the "moderate" label, when in actuality all he is is a blatant opportunist who would adopt whichever position best serves his own interests, regardless of what positions he has taken in the past. If that is the definition of "moderate", then yeah, I wouldn't much recommend tapping another "moderate" as VP. Now, if there was a person who genuinely believed in a pragmatic and balanced approach towards governing, someone for whom an idea is not instinctively discarded based solely on whether it originated as a "liberal" or "conservative" idea, someone who is willing to reconsider a position after compelling evidence has been presented, someone who doesn't condemn or attempt to demonize based on people's opposing viewpoints or lifestyle, I would say that either party would benefit from having such a candidate on their ticket.

Good luck finding someone like that in the Republican party though.

At 7/19/12 11:41 PM, Austerity wrote: I'm almost certain that Romney will choose Marco Rubio as his running mate.

What makes you so certain? There has been absolutely no indication from the Romney camp that they are even vetting him, and Rubio has emphatically stated on multiple occasions that he doesn't want to be Romney's VP candidate.

If so, New Mexico will probably become a red state this election even though it was thought that Obama had it in his pocket, and Florida could very well become red as well.

Perhaps, but there are probably many other states that would flip towards Romney before New Mexico would. Also, it would probably be a mistake to think that all Latino's are equal; Rubio is a Latino of Cuban decent from a Cuban rich state (Florida). Cuban Americans tend to be more Republican leaning than other Latino groups, so having a Cuban American on the ticket might not do that much to attract Latino voters of Spanish or Mexican heritage (the largest Latino groups in New Mexico, incidentally). I'm sure it couldn't hurt with the Latino vote to have Rubio on board, but I'm not sure it would help the Romney campaign too much outside of Florida either.

Now, picking someone like New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, a Latina of Mexican heritage, might be a different story. That might actually help Romney quite a bit among Latino voters in New Mexico as well as in other Latino heavy states (including Florida).

If Romney gets Florida it will become much easier for him to win.

Correction: Unless Romney gets Florida, it will be next to impossible for him to win.

[Angry-Hatter]

So the Romney camp just released their short list of VP candidates. 13 mostly unsurprising names are mentioned, and they are as follows: Ohio Senator Rob Portman, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, South Dakota Senator John Thune, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

Of these thirteen people, I would say that only about 4 of them are even close to being considered by the Romney camp: Portman, McDonnell, Thune, and Pawlenty, in that order.

A quick rundown of the other "potential" candidates and why I think they haven't got a chance.

Rice: See my first post in this thread.

Martinez: Seems very appealing on first glance, young, Mexican-American female Governor of a swing state, but she's only been a Governor for about a year, and she's among the many candidates who have stated emphatically that she doesn't want the position.

Santorum: The only reason Dick "Poop Stain" Santorum is on this list is because there are probably quite a few of his former supporters who still haven't quite warmed up to Romney yet, and so they are making it seem like they are seriously considering him in order to win over some of those voters. Santorum and Romney have been at each other's throats too much during the primary season, which would make it all too easy for the Democrats to endlessly run re-runs of the two of them slinging mud at one another. It's highly unlikely that he'd deliver his home state for Romney as Pennsylvania voted him out of office in 2006 by a 17% margin.

Ayotte: Another good-on-paper political newbie. She's relatively young, female, and from a swing state (albeit a very small one with only 4 electoral votes). However, picking Ayotte would mean the ticket would consist of two New Englanders, which isn't optimal if you're looking to make a regionally balanced ticket. She hasn't been nearly as dismissive of the idea of running for VP as some of the other contenders though, but she's likely too green to be in the running.

Christie: A big fat guy with a big fat mouth, likely the polar opposite of the no-frills Mitt Romney, and I very much doubt that Romney would enjoy seeing his running mate going ballistic and cussing out some random heckler at a rally. Like many on this list, he's newly elected and has made several statements to the effect that he's not very interested in running for national office. He's said that he would at least have a conversation with Romney about the prospect if he's asked, but when he was asked previously about the prospect of jumping into the primary race to run for the Presidency, he said that he simply wasn't ready to be President, which is kind of the one thing you're supposed to be ready for as Vice President. Tricky to walk that one back. New Jersey is probably too blue for Romney to flip it even if he picked Christie.

Jindal: Not exactly an electrifying personality, and might put a lot of people watching the VP debates to sleep. Then there's that tiny thing about him helping out with an exorcism when he was in college, something he apparently still thinks is no big deal, nothing weird about that at all. Add to this that he's from Louisiana, a safely red state, and there's little upside to having Jindal on the ticket other than as a token brown person.

Rubio: See my previous posts in this thread.

Ryan: Author of the wildly controversial Ryan Budget which would make severe cuts and changes to Social Security and Medicare, and while Romney fully supports Ryan's proposed budget plan, having Ryan on the ticket would be an open invitation for the Democrats to tie the Ryan Budget around Romney's neck and run a bazillion ads aimed at seniors in Florida about how the Romney campaign wants to kill Social Security and Medicare. As mentioned, Florida is a must-win for Romney, so I doubt he'd risk it by picking such a potentially explosive individual such as Ryan as his counterpart. Ryan's home state of Wisconsin is unlikely to be in play this election, and having Ryan on the ticket is unlikely to change that; he is, after all, only a Representative, one who has only ever run for office in his safely Republican district and has never been on a statewide ballot.

Gingrich: The same goes for Gingrich as for Santorum; he's not being seriously considered, he's only on the list in order for Romney to try to mend relations between some of Gingrich's supporters and himself. Of the people on this list, Gingrich would probably be the worst choice that Romney could make. He's simply a giant, pompous douche who nobody seems to like, least of all Mitt Romney. There's also the small matter of Gingrich's massive $4.9 million campaign debt, so picking Gingrich would come at quite a price. Additionally, Gingrich is quite old at 69 years of age, so if you want to think about the long-term, he's unlikely to be much of a standard bearer for his party after a potential 8 years as Vice President. His home state of Georgia is as safely Republican as can be, so he's not going to bring any states into play. He's fairly popular among older voters, which could be helpful to Romney in a state such as Florida (which also shares a border with Georgia), but unfortunately, he's unpopular with pretty much everyone else, which would hurt Romney no matter how you slice it.

**********

As I mentioned, I think the only people with a shot at the nomination are Portman, McDonnell, Thune, and Pawlenty, simply because they are conventional and mostly uncontroversial. Vanilla flavored. They are also among the few who haven't vomited blood at the thought of being Romney's running mate. Portman and McDonnell are from crucial swing states (Ohio and Virginia, respectively), while Thune and Pawlenty bring years of political experience (6 years in the House followed by 7 years in the Senate for Thune; 8 years as Governor of a blue state for Pawlenty). My best guess is that Romney will go with either Portman or McDonnell, based on their home state advantage.

[Warforger]

I guess if Romney were to choose Santorum he'd do it for the same reason Nixon chose Spiro Agnew; so that no one would try to assassinate him because then they'd get Santorum instead.

[Feoric]

It's gonna be Ryan and I can't fucking believe it. It's like he doesn't want to win.

[DoctorStrongbad]

Marco Rubio, would be the best VP for Mitt Romney.

[Camarohusky]

At 8/11/12 01:10 AM, Feoric wrote: It's gonna be Ryan and I can't fucking believe it. It's like he doesn't want to win.

I actually see Ryan as one of the best choices. He's conservative enough to please the base, but he comes off as not too harmful to independants, so he will not likely scare many away. It is possible that he will energize the left, as the left is not very fon dof him, but that's not too big a worry.

On a separate note, if the campaign uses "R&R" as a theme (for Romney and Ryan) I will personally slap the campaign manager...

[Warforger]

At 7/19/12 07:16 PM, Korriken wrote: Except, their views don't horrify the average american. Not any worse than the last 3.5 years of the Obama administration, anyway.

If that were the case then the VP would've been chosen quickly as no one would care.

you seem to have this thing stuck in your head that 95% of people are leftists and that the only way a republican could possibly win an election is to try and be center of the road.

The 95% of people aren't rightists either. I'd say a good estimate is that 40% of the population usually votes Democratic, the other 40% votes Republican and the remaining 20% are the independents i.e the swing vote. Independents are centrists, and you especially don't want a far right VP when far right politicians have been impractical due to Bush (hence why if Santorum was the Republican candidate Obama probably wouldn't even have to campaign to win the election just let Santorum ruin his own by talking). People like Bachmann and Perry just come up with such insanity that they're not going to attract many voters, Mitt Romney on the other hand hasn't proposed anything utterly insane.

I'll put it like this. Obama won the election for 2 reasons. brainless retards who fell for the whole 'historic election'

It's amazing how you call people retards while you yourself aren't very bright......

and the economy going down right before the election. McCain had a pretty good chance, even after how hardcore the media demonized him and Palin and made him out to be a geezer that could die at any moment and made her out to be a moron, up until the economy went down.

No no no, the media just watched Palin and let Palin make herself out to be a moron. McCain on the other hand stopped his momentum when he balked in the immigration issue.

Don't be so certain that people are "horrified" by someone's positions because you don't like em. If they were so mortified by them, every election would be a landslide victory for the democrats, and they're not. Obama won by what, 7% of the popular vote? big deal, Bill Clinton won by a bigger margin than that, and he didn't have brainless college kids rushing out to vote in such a 'historic' election.

Bullshit. 7% of the vote is a fucking huge margin (I don't think he even won that much) and is considered a landslide because most elections are usually won by 0.1-3% of the vote. Clinton's election was different because back then Ross Perot a 3rd party candidate was sucking up many right wing voters thus Clinton never won a majority both elections.

and don't bother with the "electoral college results" Those aren't even historic, given that Bush sr got 79.2% of the electoral votes in 1988 (then lost reelection)

Electoral college results aren't exactly fair, mainly because you can carry every single state in the Union except for 1 while only having at least 55% of the popular vote. This is because most states use the system where if a candidate gets a majority in a state they get all the states electoral votes.

By the way, George Bush Sr. was a moderate, he became more Conservative to accommodate the increased Conservatism after the Cold War.

why bring up Obama? just to make my point. if people were so horrified by non liberal thought, Bush Jr would not have won either election, and McCain wouldn't have stood a snowball's chance in hell, even before the economy tanked.

Bush Jr. didn't win the first election, in fact if it had been handled fairly Al Gore would've won. It was just that the Republicans controlled the Supreme Court and they agreed that there should be a recount and that it should've been completed by the end of the same day they issued the ruling (this ruling of course was issued late at night). Best part is, is that he lost the popular vote. The second election again was incredibly close, seeing that if Kerry had gotten a few more hundred votes in Ohio he would've won. But there Bush won the popular vote because he mobilized the Social Conservatives.

I think I'm repeating myself constantly, the American people is not a blanket term for political idea's, it's a group of people with many diverse political ideologies. Neither party alone represents all of them, but both together they represent most of them. The American people aren't all Conservatives and they're not all Liberals, it makes me sick everytime a politician uses that term as though the "American people" agree.

[Feoric]

At 8/11/12 12:38 PM, Camarohusky wrote: he will not likely scare many away.

Not if you're under 65; the guy wants to privatize medicare. There is no way in hell Romney is getting Florida now.

[Angry-Hatter]

Well color me shocked. I did NOT see that coming.

Make no mistake about it, the selection of Paul Ryan as Romney's running mate has to be seen as a huge gamble, and one which I'm not sure will turn out all that well for Romney in the end. Despite being a fairly prominent member of the House thanks to the infamous Ryan budget plan, he is still a fairly unknown figure outside of Wisconsin with about 35% of voters being unable to say whether they like him or not. This leaves an enormous opportunity for the Obama camp to use the old Republican trick to brand Ryan in whichever way they want, something they have been very successful with in the past against Romney. I wouldn't be surprised at all if every Democratic ad or press release talking about Ryan will include a mention of how he wants to destroy Medicare and/or Social Security. Ryan will have a new name from now on: "Paul Ryan, the person in Congress leading the charge against Medicare and Social Security, made a statement today.... etc. etc." I can't imagine how choosing Ryan could play well with senior citizens, a demographic absolutely vital to winning Florida, and as mentioned, I cannot conceive of a path of victory for Romney that does not include winning Florida.

Ryan being a member of the House is bothersome for a number of reasons. For one thing, the last time a sitting member of the House was chosen as the VP nominee for a major party was in 1984 when Walter Mondale chose Representative Geraldine Ferraro to be his running mate, and the last time before that was in 1964 when Barry Goldwater picked Rep. William E. Miller as his VP candidate, and we all know how well those campaigns turned out, right? I'm not saying that they lost big because their respective VP candidates came from the House, but it does lend a somewhat ominous undertone to Ryan's candidacy. Lest we forget, the House is spectacularly unpopular at the moment, so picking one of it's members might not be the best move. Ryan might be popular in his district, but that might well be the only place. He's never run for President, he's never run for Governor, and he's never run for Senator. All he's ever done is run for the House, so he is untested when it comes to large scale campaigning. Such a dramatic shift in gears might be akin to taking a deep-water fish up to the surface only to find it explode from the sudden change of pressure.

Another consequence of picking Ryan as his running mate is that Romney is effectively conceding the foreign policy debate to Obama and Biden. As Chairman of the Budget Committee and a member if the Ways and Means Committee, Ryan has virtually no foreign policy expertise whatsoever. He's going to look like a young novice standing next to Joe Biden at the Vice Presidential debate.

On the other hand, he is a relative sweetheart of the right wing, he's young and handsome and certainly looks the part of a President/Vice President, so it's certainly possible that he's going to energize the Republican base for Romney and perhaps convince some conservatives that the moderate label has been misapplied when it comes to Romney (something I've been saying all along). It also locks Romney down when it comes to his campaign strategy. If he continues to waffle on issues that Ryan couldn't be more clear on (such as Medicare and Social Security) then it's going to make for a very awkward and contradictory campaign team. In any case, choosing a young and dynamic individual to be your VP candidate does have it's upsides as it leaves your party in much greater shape for upcoming elections if you have a pre-anointed and well-vetted nominee for the Presidency in your pocket.

Regardless, Ryan is a risky pick for an otherwise risk averse Presidential candidate, and I can definitely see a lot going wrong and a lot more going dreadfully wrong. It certainly wouldn't have been my first choice, or even my second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh choice, but my guess is that Romney isn't liking the direction that this campaign has been going so far and is hoping against hope that picking Ryan is going to shake up the race, making his rationale not unlike the one given by John McCain for picking Sarah Palin as his running mate in '08. It remains to be seen if it's going to work out better for Romney than it did for McCain.

[DoctorStrongbad]

If Romney loses the election, we can blame his VP choice.