Handicapping the GOP Veepstakes

[etv78]

elucidator-But those C. American leaders weren't Communists. (the eyeroll is directed toward the policy, not elucidator)

[RTFirefly]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Christie's chances have just gone to zero.

[Skammer]

What about Scott Walker? The tea party loves him, and it looks like his schedule will be freeing up..

[BobLibDem]

Dear Mitt: Take my governor, Rick Snyder. Please.

[smithsb]

Originally Posted by Chronos

I'm surprised more folks aren't looking at Mike Huckabee. He's wingnut-style crazy, and appeals especially to the evangelical crowd where Romney is weaker, but he's also genuinely likable.

No campaigning "fire-in-the-belly". Pardoned a lifetime criminal who subsequently killed four police officers in Washington. His own "Willie Horton" moment.

Clemmons at the time of Huckabee’s pardon, had been given 95 years in prison which is where he should have been on Sunday November 29, 2009 when he shot in cold blood four police officers in Lakewood, Washington.



Read more: http://www.politicolnews.com/huckabe...#ixzz1rf0ssAwt


I'll join the Portman oxcart. He can't seem to move the meter himself in Ohio. A decent campaign performance would get some exposure and maybe a FOX gig. Moving up from the Palin standard would seem pretty easy.

Chrisite has foot-in-mouth disease. Rubio has the youth and possibly smarts to wait a bit.

[Lantern]

If Romney picks Rubio, the combined Washington experience of the ticket is basically Rubio's couple of years in the Senate.

Question: when was the last major party ticket with so little Washington experience?

Perhaps it doesn't matter but I suspect foreign policy is going to be a bit of a weakness for Romney and it would be exacercabated if he goes with Rubio.

[Kolak of Twilo]

And I'm going to come back in and add Santorum to the list of possible choices. The fact he bowed out before the Pennsylvania primary thereby allowing Romney to solidly claim the crown could improve his chances. Mittens does need to shore up his right flank and Santorum really has nothing to lose by joining forces.

[Gagundathar]

I was going to suggest Santorum myself before Kolak of Twilo (curses... foiled again) ninjaed me.
His (Santorum's, not the worthy Kolak's) timely withdrawal is telling, even if it can be justified by his familial crisis.

So, what does Santorum bring to the plate?

>> A very vocal opposition to gay rights and abortion, both of which are Pavlovian triggers to the salivating hordes of morons who call themselves 'conservatives'.

>> An unflinching adherence to a ancient and hidebound religious belief structure based upon a hierarchy which has condoned slavery, genocide and rampant child abuse.

>> A visceral reaction approaching violent dyspepsia when considering the words of a former POTUS who lauded the concept of 'separation of church and state'.

>> A belief in a powerful supernatural entity who has hurled the flaming triune of 'pride, vanity and sensuality' against the very bulwarks of hallowed American institutions. One can only assume that Mr. Santorum's cable provider has cross-connected the Inspiration Channel with whatever outlet harbors the wretched abberation that is known as TMZ.

In other words, Santorum's religious zeal and vituperance neatly balance out the bland Wonder-Bread qualities that defines Romney's public persona.
Together they just might be able to convince fully 40% of the voting populace to crawl out of their cardboard boxes precariously perched over the heat exhausts in the various alleyways of Corporate America and stagger bum-fuddled to the polls this coming November to stab their styluses next to the big black 'R' on the presidential ballot.

Hooray for the Republic!

[bienville]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Runing-mate T.R. overshadowed nominee McKinley on the GOP ticket in 1896; never again.

Dude, you either misspelled G.H. or you misspelled 1900.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

and then there's a tier of prospects with chances rated at between 8% and 11%: Chris Christie, Rob Portman, Paul Ryan, Susana Martinez, and Bob McDonnell.

It's fun to say "Romney-McDonell." Try it. Try it with a straight face. Try it without thinking "Corporate Clown."

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

It's fun to say "Romney-McDonell." Try it. Try it with a straight face. Try it without thinking "Corporate Clown."

I agree, but given that our pundit class largely approves of corporate clowns, that usually doesn't tend to be much of an electoral handicap in and of itself.

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo

And I'm going to come back in and add Santorum to the list of possible choices. The fact he bowed out before the Pennsylvania primary thereby allowing Romney to solidly claim the crown could improve his chances. Mittens does need to shore up his right flank and Santorum really has nothing to lose by joining forces.

I was thinking that, too. I still believe Rubio would be more politically helpful to Romney, but Santorum might not be a bad pick from Romney's POV.

[Boyo Jim]

Rubio said just last week, "I am not going to be vice president.", and that is one of many similar statements he's made. Other prominent Hispanic Republicans have been even more explicit in saying they would refuse the position if offered to them.

There is some opinion that the Republicans and Romney in particular have so alienated the Hispanic population that elected Hispanics fear destroying their own political futures by getting too close to Romney. That doesn't explain, though, why Rubio endorsed Romney, though it was an at best lukewarm endorsement.

[elucidator]

Santorum? Santorum!?! Now, Universe, I know I haven't been a very good pantheist, but if you could just give me this one sign.....

[The wind of my soul]

Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo

And I'm going to come back in and add Santorum to the list of possible choices. The fact he bowed out before the Pennsylvania primary thereby allowing Romney to solidly claim the crown could improve his chances. Mittens does need to shore up his right flank and Santorum really has nothing to lose by joining forces.

I disagree. Romney does not need to shore up his right flank. The far right definitely likes Romney more than Obama, and just because they're not excited about him doesn't mean they'll stay home.

Romney doesn't need to worry about winning over conservatives, it's the middle that'll make it or break it for him. The smartest move he can make, imho, is to pick a moderate to share the ticket with him.

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by The wind of my soul

I disagree. Romney does not need to shore up his right flank....

Many others feel differently: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/11/politi...iref=allsearch

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

I was thinking that, too. I still believe Rubio would be more politically helpful to Romney, but Santorum might not be a bad pick from Romney's POV.

He wants someone that will rally the base without turning off independents.

Originally Posted by The wind of my soul

I disagree. Romney does not need to shore up his right flank. The far right definitely likes Romney more than Obama, and just because they're not excited about him doesn't mean they'll stay home.

I think this reflects an incomplete understanding of why Romney might need to shore up his right flank.

We're a pretty aware, involved group on this board. I'd bet that 90% or more of the American citizens of voting age on this board will vote in this year's Presidential election.

But not everybody's like us. There are millions of people on both sides of the political divide who will vote in a predictable manner IF you can get them to the polls, but don't particularly feel their vote matters, and are more likely than not to not bother to vote, if left to their own devices.

What you need to rally the base for is to get these marginally involved people who lean your way more motivated to vote, and to make sure they get to the precinct on election day, or participate in early voting, or whatever. The base is the source of your volunteer network, your precinct workers, your get-out-the-vote people.

If your base isn't motivated, they'll still vote, but they won't do all that other crap. And then the marginally involved people who lean their way won't show up in very large numbers - and that's where a candidate who doesn't motivate the base loses out.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

It's fun to say "Romney-McDonell." Try it. Try it with a straight face.

Didn't they build the F-15?

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by The wind of my soul

The smartest move he can make, imho, is to pick a moderate to share the ticket with him.

Hey, nothing would make me happier than if good ol' Mittens chooses someone like Susan Collins, George Pataki or Jim Edgar. Those are just about the only moderate Republicans I can think of under 80 years old and I'm sure they would get a wonderfully tepid response from the base.

[elucidator]

Ronald Reagan. I know what you're thinking, that "two-term" Amendment to the Constitution! But that's two terms of the same office, he had two terms as President and is perfectly at liberty to take a term as Vice President! Sure, being dead and all, bit of a drawback. But the Constitution insists that you must be of a certain age or older, you must have been alive for a required number of years, thirty five if memory serves. Doesn't say anything about still being alive, now does it?

If I had to choose between a living Santorum or a dead Reagan, its pretty clear what the sensible choice would be. Tanned, rested and ready!

[mkecane]

http://www.rollcall.com/news/in_pivo...html?pos=hftxt

Foster Freiss, a major supporter of Santorum (ewwww), apparently thinks Wisconsin freshman senator Ron Johnson should be on Romney's short-list for VP candidates (see the last paragraph of the story). That would play really well, I think. One rich white guy was born into money, and the other rich white guy married into money.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by mkecane

http://www.rollcall.com/news/in_pivo...html?pos=hftxt

Foster Freiss, a major supporter of Santorum (ewwww), apparently thinks Wisconsin freshman senator Ron Johnson should be on Romney's short-list for VP candidates (see the last paragraph of the story). That would play really well, I think. One rich white guy was born into money, and the other rich white guy married into money.

Apparently Johnson is firing most of his Senate staff because they assumed that their job was to work on the nuts and bolts of legislation, and he wants his staff to focus on messaging.

Gotta admit, he'd be perfect for the ticket. I can't imagine anyone who quite so completely symbolizes what today's GOP is about.

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

ERROR.... CANNOT PROCESS.... MUTUALLY INCOMPATIBLE CONSTRAINTS


It'll be a WASP for sure. He doesn't need anyone from a red state, they would crawl over broken glass in the nude to vote against Obama. Tim Pawlenty fits the bill, and Pawlenty surely had the veep spot in mind when he whiffed on the softball setup in that debate. Plus Pawlenty has the advantage of making Romney seem charismatic by comparison, a remarkable feat indeed.

Very early in the primary process I thought Pawlenty would have as good a shot as any of them. Wasn't he the first one out? Goes to show.

A ticket of two governors just doesn't feel right. I think Romney needs to go to the Senate or the House. Rubio makes some sense. Sure, he's lied about the Cuban thing. So what? These guys get away with stuff like that all the time.

With all their anti-immigrant stances, the GOP would do well to have an Hispanic on their ticket. Even a Cuban.

I suppose Romney could go with Ryan and declare a race based on competents vs. the incompetent Democrats. Problem is, between the two of them they might be able to dredge up about as much human warmth and empathy as my pet iguana.

A note on Huckabee. My wife, about as lefty as I am, really likes the guy and I can't talk her out of it even though she disagrees with most of his stances, she never watches Fox and she's not even an evangelical. That's LIKE-ABLE!! But he's just another ex-governor.

[smithsb]

What's the over/under on the number of women and Hispanics the GOP will try to cram on to the stage at the convention?

I remember one convention where every black Republican in the nation was on prominent display. (I don't see Rep. Adam West getting an invite but I could be wrong.)

[Skammer]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

A note on Huckabee. My wife, about as lefty as I am, really likes the guy and I can't talk her out of it even though she disagrees with most of his stances, she never watches Fox and she's not even an evangelical. That's LIKE-ABLE!! But he's just another ex-governor.

I started a similar thread on Huckabee a couple of months ago. He's so nice, and reasonable, and relatively respectful of his opponents -- it's very disarming. I disagree with him on a lot of issues, but unlike so many Republicans, it doesn't make me want to punch him in the mouth.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by smithsb

I don't see Rep. Adam West getting an invite but I could be wrong.

That's Mayor Adam West to you.

[lawbuff]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Ronald Reagan. I know what you're thinking, that "two-term" Amendment to the Constitution! But that's two terms of the same office, he had two terms as President and is perfectly at liberty to take a term as Vice President!

Assuming he was alive, there would be a Constitutional problem here?

The 12th AM states:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice–President of the United States.

Now, the 20th, sure, is only concerned about being "Elected" President, but I am not going out on a legal limb to say, if a person is elected Veep, they are in effect elected President, therefore Reagan would be ineligible, or you can bet if it was tried, and it never has been by any 2 term Ex, the opposing party would get it's lawyer's on that big time.

[lawbuff]

Opps, make that the 22nd AM, not 20th as above.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by lawbuff

Assuming he was alive, there would be a Constitutional problem here?

Yeah, it couldn't happen for the reasons you stated though I'm certain elucidator knows it.

This is the same reason I didn't include Gov. Terminator in my list of Republican moderates. In addition to the recent penis problems he has had, he wouldn't be eligible because he is a naturalized citizen as opposed to being born in the USA.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by lawbuff

I am not going out on a legal limb to say, if a person is elected Veep, they are in effect elected President

That's ridiculous. Getting elected Veep is getting elected to the possibility of succeeding to the Presidency should the President die, resign, get impeached and removed, become permanently incapacitated, etc.

There's a huge difference between that and getting elected President. To equate the two is rubbish.

At any rate, the wording is clear, and there's no Catch-22, so to speak. The 22nd Amendment bans anyone from being elected to the Presidency more than twice, or more than once if they've already served more than half of someone else's term. But it doesn't bar a two-term President's succeeding to the Presidency by other means. So a two-term President would be eligible to be President; he'd just have to get there through succession rather than election. So he would certainly be eligible for the Vice-Presidency under the 12th Amendment.

[enmity01]

I'd have to suggest Huckabee as well. He's very charismatic and personable, unlike Romney and will attract independents and women. He has cred with the conservative wingnut crowd.

Romney is in a difficult position. He has the advantage of so many in his party despising Obama, but nobody really seems to have really warmed up to Romney. He and his campaign have made more than a few gaffes and missteps, but nothing truly devastating. The "Etch-A-Sketch" label though is going to be a hard one to shake. (pun not intended) Pawlenti, Portman, etc. are too milquetoast to energize anybody, while Ryan, Christie, and Rubio have baggage and would alienate moderates. So he really needs to have the charisma on his ticket that Huckabee could provide.

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by lawbuff

Assuming he was alive, there would be a Constitutional problem here?....

Earlier threads on the topic:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=591163
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=453146
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=442759
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=333302

[Icarus]

The chatter is starting to lean toward Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio).

There was also an interview on NPR over the last weekend with a former campaign manager who put his money on Portman.

[Icarus]

Originally Posted by enmity01

So he really needs to have the charisma on his ticket that Huckabee could provide.

Totally disagree - he needs to be able to shine brighter than his VP.

[Elendil's Heir]

Portman, one of my two U.S. senators, is blander than bland, and I'm not convinced he could deliver Ohio if Romney weren't going to carry it anyway (which he very well might). He is more or less a centrist and wouldn't particularly help Romney on his right flank. He would be a safe but not especially advantageous pick.

[Chronos]

Totally disagree - he needs to be able to shine brighter than his VP.

Romney, or any similarly boring candidate, is in a lose-lose situation: He needs to spice up the total amount of interest of his ticket, but he also needs to avoid a VP who would eclipse him. These two goals are, of course, mutually contradictory.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Icarus

Totally disagree - he needs to be able to shine brighter than his VP.

Romney is maybe the only candidate in the world who could make Al Gore look dynamic in comparison.

[Lantern]

Portman has moved up in Intrade to 16% though he is still behind Rubio. I think it would be a smart choice; the media pundits would swoon and give Romney a few days of positive coverage for making a statesmanlike decision. This re-positions his candidacy and gets moderates to take another look at him.


Romney has three broad options:
a)Pick someone who appeals to moderates without alienating his base
b)Pick someone who appeals to his base without alienating moderates
c)A dream pick who can appeal to both moderates and the base

Obviously c would be best and perhaps Rubio would fall in that category but perhaps not and he may not be available. Huckabee is another possibility but he may not be available either.

If c is not possible I think a is better than b for Romney. The polls are a bit all over the place right now but I still think Obama has a structural advantage of a few points. It's Romney who needs to take calculated risks and appeal to moderates in the expectation that the base will be sufficiently motivated by the propsect of beating Obama.

[Balance]

Originally Posted by Icarus

Totally disagree - he needs to be able to shine brighter than his VP.

Then he'll need a really dim bulb for a running mate. Fortunately for him, the GOP appears to be prepared for this contingency.

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Romney, or any similarly boring candidate, is in a lose-lose situation: He needs to spice up the total amount of interest of his ticket, but he also needs to avoid a VP who would eclipse him. These two goals are, of course, mutually contradictory.

Boring but highly qualified would do it. Conservative with very solid intellectual and public policy, especially budgetary policy, chops. From a swing state that he really needs to carry.

Portman might be the least poor fit.

[DSeid]

Sometimes the tactic is to go to VP candidate who serves as your Pit Bull, making the attacks that you have to appear too Presidential to make yourself, but that the VP choice can get away with ... who would be good for that role?

[Boyo Jim]

I'm going with this Portman guy. Why, because I've never heard of him, and I follow politics pretty closely. So he perfectly fits the profile I laid out earlier -- someone almost completely unknown with nothing really to lose who wants to play in the big leagues. So long as he's not an embarrassment like Sarah Palin, that's the best Romney can expect. All the serious players will be ducking his calls 'cause he's a loser,

I'll throw in one more outlier -- Huckabee, because he's already bee a loser and he has no political future to speak of, he would have nothing to lose by becoming Veep. And afterward, even if he loses, he can probably demand double his going rate at Fox.

[The wind of my soul]

Originally Posted by DSeid

Sometimes the tactic is to go to VP candidate who serves as your Pit Bull, making the attacks that you have to appear too Presidential to make yourself, but that the VP choice can get away with ... who would be good for that role?

Did you specifically say this with Christie in mind?

[Elendil's Heir]

The hard right already has doubts - big and well-justified doubts - about Romney's conservative credentials. Christie would do nothing to please them.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

The hard right already has doubts - big and well-justified doubts - about Romney's conservative credentials. Christie would do nothing to please them.

I'm with some others here. I think Romney can count on the hard right's hatred for Obama to carry them. He need someone either more centrist or someone who's essentially a blank slate as far as national image goes.

[Elendil's Heir]

Christie is to the left of Romney on some issues, isn't he? Picking him would only piss off the right more. So far, Romney's had trouble getting the right fired up for his candidacy. He needs those people motivated for this fall to work at phone banks, ring doorbells, give money, etc.

[Icarus]

Rubio signals he would not accept VP.

Reading between the lines of his comments - he's positioning himself for a run at the top spot next time. He's betting that Romney will lose.

[Enlightening Meditation]

I think Mike Huckabee will be chosen if he wants to be on the ticket. I didn't want to run for Pres this year, so he may be content to keep the TV gig.

Otherwise, Thune, Rice, or Portman are likely choices.

Marco Rubio, Susana Martinez, Mitch Daniels, and Bobby Jindal have all signaled or at least implied that they do not want to run as VP this year.

Paul Ryan probably wants to stay in The House given that Obama likely wins re-election. If interested, he'd be on the short list.

Bob McDonnell wants to be VP, but probably wont be chosen. Romney will already have issues with the female vote and McDonnell's consideration of the transvaginal ultrasound requirement bill is a negative distraction.

Rick Santorum provided a trove of negative attacks on Romney during the primary campaign. That hasn't stopped some VP picks in the past, but this campaign was exceptionally divisive.

I'm not sure if Jeb Bush want the VP slot or not, so don't rule him out.

Chris Christie is likely too liberal and northeastern to pair with Romney, and he's got some potential scandals brewing in New Jersey.

Rand Paul and Jim Demint are longshots.

[The wind of my soul]

Originally Posted by Icarus

Rubio signals he would not accept VP.

Reading between the lines of his comments - he's positioning himself for a run at the top spot next time. He's betting that Romney will lose.

Isn't it an unspoken protocol that any possible candidate for VP indicates that they're not interested? I wouldn't read too much into his denial.

[elucidator]

Its like the mating dance of the preying mantis. You can't appear interested as in "desperate", but you can't be like "Fuck no, why would I climb aboard a sinking ship?" Gotta be like "This is a great honor, which I am reluctant to accept because I'm an 'awww shucks" kinda guy, but if my party and my country presses this laurel on to my brow, I will try to be worthy..."

All the choices have problems. Rubio would create almost as many problems as he would solve. On the one hand, the Pubbies will swear up, down and sidewise that they have no problems, none at all, with a Hispanic, of course not! On the other hand, they don't want to be seen as "pandering", pandering is bad, mmmkay? And, of course, the truth of the matter is that many of the Republican debase do have a problem with that.

Condi? Baggage. Between Iraq and a hard place. And she'd have to get married. To a man.

Christie is fat and obnoxious. Huckabee is fat, obnoxious and ignorant.

Right now, my money is on Portman, because he's dull. Which is to say, not that he has any positive selling points, he just doesn't have as many negatives.