Thanks for the research. Clearly tickets with no DC experience are rare though I am really surprised a major party nominated a candidate with zero political experience of any kind. I glanced through the Wiki entry on Willkie ; he was far behind Dewey in May but as the only internationalist in the field he benefitted enormously from Germany’s dramatic military victories that summer and at the convention in June he won the nomination on the sixth ballot. It must have been really dramatic.
I’m going to take a wild guess, based solely on her statements that she doesn’t want the job, that she doesn’t want the job.
See also: Dave Petraeus, Colin Powell.
The latest rumor is that a decision has been made. My prediction: Pawlenty, to be announced Thursday. In time to get a couple weekday news cycles and make the rounds with the Sunday talking heads.
Time will tell, but in the meantime, it’s worth remembering that Drudge has a long history of getting this wrong.
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/07/12/drudges-terrible-record-of-vp
I don’t see this happening but I guess I can dream! Having a pro-choice running mate would torpedo any chance Romney has of winning in November.
Seriously, at this point it appears the smart money would be on Pawlenty or Portman.
Mitt is not known for making bold moves so even with all the talk of a female or Hispanic running mate I think going with the safe choice of a slightly less dull white male is more likely.
Slightly less dull than who? Cause I can’t imagine someone duller than Romney. Dumber yes, but not duller.
I guess the campaign bio will be entitled “Dull and Dullerer”
Exactly my point. Mitt is so dull I can imagine him looking at Pawlenty and thinking he positively oozes charisma.
Portman doesn’t exactly light up a room either, but he might help a little in Ohio, I guess, and has tons of Washington experience. He’s smart and grounded, conservative but not a zealot.
Portman was Bush’s budget director. Think we might hear that mentioned once or twice if he’s the pick?
I already pinkie-swore about Condi - we libs won’t say a thing. Go ahead and put Bush’s budget director in the Veep slot. ;D
In reality, unless Romney’s pick is a bigger disaster than Palin it probably won’t matter. I think the election will be about Obama and secondarily about Romney. A couple of weeks after the announcement has been made the Veep nominee will just be a name on a bumper sticker.
It just occurred to me: Portman would already (as would just about any public officeholder these days) have released a lot more of his past taxes than Romney has, which will hopefully lead to the question, “Why do we know more about your running mate’s taxes than we do about yours, Mr. Romney?”
Rick Perry today joined the chorus saying that Romney should release his past taxes.
Pawlenty is definitely whitebread, but while governor of MN he had a theme concentrating on “Wal-Mart Republicans, not country club Republicans” that I think would really resonate with conservative voters. It’s a version of the “main street, not Wall Street” vision of Obama, but obviously more targeted at conservatives and attempts to battle against the perception of conservatives as a bunch of rich white men.
He did also stick very closely to his pledge and did not raise income taxes while governor of Minnesota. That doesn’t mean that other taxes didn’t go up - most localities were forced to raise property taxes to cover the costs schools and law enforcement and such, and he left the state’s finances in worse shape then he got them, but he didn’t raise MN income taxes, that is certain.
I don’t care for the guy, and I think he had a pretty crap administration, but I can see how Pawlenty is at least a solid choice, with a message that could resonate.
I think I have found the ideal candidate, if precedent is anything to go by.