Another name out there is Indiana governor Mike Pence. He’s as boring as can be, with a history of flirting with the Tea Party and turning down federal money for pre-k.
Yeah, because we all know it was that well known Democrat, Rudy Giuliani who made a name for himself by taking on the mob in New York.
And how much Republicans are in favor of unions.
And how Republicans dominate New York politics.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
And enacting religious bigotry laws. A true modern day Republican.
I was thinking Agriculture, since he can simple eat any surplus production and keep prices high.
The calculation a possible VP candidate has to make is based on that an association with a disastrous Trump run is the end of a political career in most but not all states but possibly of help in a media commentator/celebrity one. Add in the one in five chance of a Trump win and actually being VP which does come with its own perks, including the longshot of being president.
Christie’s political career is otherwise already over. He really has nothing to lose. Whatever consulting sort of job he was going to score will still be there and possibly a media spot chance enhanced … and again the non-zero chance of a win. If nothing else fading out of any revalency is delayed.
Gingrich also has no downside.
Corker’s and Sessions’ current careers are not harmed by a Trump association. From Trump’s perspective they add a wee bit more current inside the beltway gravitas, embellish his core message some, but will gain less free media than Gingrich or Christie will.
Really they all have “credibility” … unless one defines that running with Trump equals not being credible.
If “credibility” is based on and defined as having realistic future national political aspirations then yeah, credible candidates may be hesitant to accept.
A bazillion people called it the instant Christie endorsed Trump but it’s better form to save the “I called it” for after Christie actually gets it.
Memories are short, apparently. He was charged with a total of 84 ethics violations while in the House. Only one of them stuck, a charge for violating federal tax law. He was fined $300,000 (the cost of the investigation), and eventually was forced to resign.
Newt! Oh, God yes! Newt! Wait, Christie! The Pillsbury Death Boy, Christie! Absitively posolutely gotta be Christie! Or maybe Newt! Yeah, Newt!..
No downside for Gingrich to take the VP spot, he can’t be hurt much more by Trump since his career isn’t exactly great now. There might be downside for Trump is Gingrich is VP, but Trump doesn’t exactly have a plethora of good options.
I mean downside for him.
The comment was focused on who’d be willing to take the gig. There is no downside to Newt associated with his taking the gig.
Downside to Trump? Not sure on the scale of this election and the mud that will be slung that Newt’s tax law violation will be of any interest to anyone. He’s got bigger negatives than that. And so does everyone else who might seriously consider saying yes …
I am having some fun imaging a VP debate with either Gingrich or Christie against say Liz Warren or Al Franken. Any of those would be fun as all of the above can think on their feet and can debate with passion and facts. Kaine … would be destroyed by either of them.
Trump has said (though Trump says a lot of things) that he wants an insider who can help getting legislation through which would seem to favor Gingrich. Plus, he can always toss Christie the AG spot as a participation trophy.
Not that Trump picking Christie would be a shock or surprise. But, if we were gambling, I’d pick Gingrich.
Does “either of them” mean Warren or Franken, or Gingrich or Christie?
Ah, I see. Sorry for the pre-coffee misreading. No downside for Newt himself, but he presents a target of opportunity for the Dems. Christie on the stump would come off as the bloviating bully that he is (much like Trump).
Gingrich or Christie. That’s who a potential Dem VP candidate would be debating against.
Love them or hate them, there is no question that both Gingrich and Christie can handle themselves well on a debate stage. Kaine? I don’t see it.
Warren and Franken could both handle and likely best any of 'em, they each are wonks with stage presence and the ability to think fast, but it would be a fight to watch.
Chefguy, all who might take the job are target rich. In some way that might perversely help Trump, by drawing some fire from him, diluting it to some degree.
Give me my non-existent victory or give me death!
So, what’s the current consensus about Bridgegate? That because of Christie’s experience as a prosecutor he knew better than to keep any digital or hardcopy records?
Has everyone forgotten Sarah Palin? If John McCain thought she was qualified to be President in case of his death surely most other Republicans agree. See this recent article about her support for Trump:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/sarah-palin-attacks-never-trump-225031
Ha ha. Well at the time I was saying that Christie was a horrible pick as I didn’t think he balanced the ticket region-wise or personality-wise, Trump doesn’t need an attack dog. So I’m not willing to admit my hypothetical error til reality drags it through my teeth. 
It’s gotta be Newt. Two thrice-married adulterers leading the party that lectured the nation about “family values.” Perfect.
I read somewhere that Tancredo was demanding civics testing before anybody could vote. I could get behind that, if it eliminated a lot of the Republican voters.