She’s an attractive woman but other than that shallow comparison, on what planet does Sen. Ayotte “resemble Sarah Palin”? Seriously, neither physically or politically does she, in the slightest, resemble Palin.
Rob Portman, Ohio’s GOP U.S. senator, is getting some more attention. He’s pretty bland, not especially well-known even here, and I really doubt he could deliver the state: Rob Portman, a Master of Washington’s Inner Workings - The New York Times
Portman is safe and he’s Romney’s kind of guy.
Crane
If the Palin debacle taught us anything, surely it’s that the public wants VP candidates they’ve heard of. Ayotte and Portman have all the name recognition of an extra in Friday the 13th Part 9 (notwithstanding the low level buzz about Portman as the presumptive frontrunner).
I don’t think you’re actually replying to me as I made no mention of Palin, just pointing out who the potential female candidate mentioned probably was.
If you’re responding to what Finagle wrote (that I replied to), they just say that the comparisons would be inevitable (which is certainly true) but that this time the person would be qualified for the position.
Susan Martinez of New Mexico is the ideal image candidate. I suspect she is being given serious consideration. However, Martinez is capable of defending a position - she would upstage Romney.
I believe it will be Portman - someone as bland as the candidate.
Crane
Ayotte’s qualifications aren’t really distinguishable from Palin’s (or Obama’s, for that matter). She’s a half term senator who was previously her state’s Attorney General.
In this day and age, why is this even “news”? Of course he’s considering female candidates. The alternative being “no women need apply” doesn’t exactly fly any more.
It’ll be news if he actually picks one.
That was the lesson of the Palin debacle? I don’t think anyone outside of Alaska had ever heard of Palin and yet she was insanely (and I use the word deliberately) popular with the base. The public’s lack of familiarity with her paid huge dividends initially because the first impression was “fiscally conservative governor with high favorability ratings in her home state”. It was only after the crazy and the stupid started kicking in that things fell apart.
So I think a dark horse candidate can succeed if they actually have the goods.
Well, okay, it’s not that the public wants candidates they’ve heard of. It’s that you should pick a running mate you’ve heard of.
Whether it was a strategy or not, Palin drew crowds. Before Palin McCain was cancelling rallies due to non- attendance. He was going to Biker Rallies to chase the crowd. Palin drew them in droves, primarily as the result of her brilliant convention speech (the peak of her career).
I doubt that Batty Bachmann would have the same draw. Martinez could be a surprise. She would attract serious, rational Republicans in place of the wingnuts. Might be a turning point.
Crane
Quite true, but realistically, I don’t think there’s ANYONE nowadays who could “deliver” any state for his party.
Drudge is reporting (from no source) that Condoleezza Rice is near the top of the list. I can’t imagine that she wants the job.
Mittens, please put Condi on the ticket. We Dems just hate reminding people of the foreign policy lies and screw-ups of the Bush Administration. We would remain silent about that bit of history if you put the poster girl for the Iraq War Catastrofuck in the # 2 slot. We pinky swear - Condi is the one for you!
Speaking from the Right…
Just who is Condi Rice supposed to appeal to? At least 90% of the black vote is safely Obama’s, and Condi can’t help there.
And Condi has been outspokenly pro-choice, which means she’d alienate conservative voters who ALREADY have good reason to mistrust Romney.
A stupid choice, if Drudge is right.
Women presumably.
McCain liked to bet it all on a roll of the dice. The kind of gambler who when down makes more and more desperate bets. Palin was the epitome of that style. It is not Obama’s style; he gambles but plays poker bluffing rarely and likely counting cards … calculated risks but not Hail Marys.
And it aint Romney’s.
Romney is completely risk averse, so much so that he’d do even stupid things to avoid taking a chance at all. I’ll go with Pawlenty or Portman and if I have to choose I’d go with the former. No one who can upstage him or have any negative even if the positive they bring is equally slight. Fully vetted. The sales pitch is exclusively competence to step in to the breech, not showmanship, not oratory. The play is that those who bother to think about VPs and watch a VP debate will see a contrast between Biden’s more acerbic and sometimes foot in mouth goofy style and boring capable. His bet is on a weak enough economy that people vote for switching horses. No distractions from that.
The buzz is that Romney may announce his pick this week. Obviously it would be a good way to get the Bain story off the front page at least for some time.
Intrade has Portman at 30%, Pawlenty at 23% and Rubio at 9%. I must say I can’t see the advantage of Pawlenty. Portman seems a superior pick by far. He comes from Ohio and even if he gives Romney just a 2 point boost there that could be huge. More importantly he is widely respected across the political spectrum and considered a competent and sensible Republican, very much like Mitch Daniels. If Romney chooses him he will get several days of effusive praise from DC pundits for having made a statesmanlike pick. This will sharply change the trajectory of the race which Romney desparately needs.
By contrast Pawlenty is basically your average Republican politician and seemed awfully mediocre during the primaries. He is also pretty boring and his pick will be basically be greeted with a yawn. I suppose there is a case that Pawlenty has some extra credibility with evangelicals which is valuable to Romney but IMO that isn’t really enough.
Incidentally if Romney picks Pawlenty the ticket would have zero DC governing experience, which I don’t think has happened for a long time. Perhaps it doesn’t matter because of the general anger against Washington but the last four governors to win the White House, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush each chose running mates with significant DC experience. I think each of them ran as an outsider to different degrees and certainly I don’t think anger at Washington was less severe in, say, 1976 than today.
When is the last major party ticket with zero DC experience?
Well, as far as I can tell, assuming zero DC experience is not limited to elective office but also includes Cabinet positions or Assistant Secretary of something or other the last ticket from the Republicans would be Governors Thomas Dewey-NY and Earl Warren-CA in 1948. The last Republican ticket to win that would qualify was Governor William McKinley-OH and State Senator Garret Hobart-NJ in 1896.
As for the Democrats if appears the last ticket that would qualify was also the last to win election - Governors Woodrow Wilson-NJ and Thomas Marshall-IN in 1912.
FWIW, good ol’ Wendell Wilkie is the last of either party to never hold political office of any type.