Does anyone know how many pro-life-at-any-cost voters are in swing states? It’s my impression that many of these idiologically-driven* voters are in states that will go for Romney anyway.
Plus, there are some females who are generally conservative except for being pro-choice and this would help him in that demographic – not a huge demographic but it could be a key one in the swing states.
*Typo preserved intentionally.
I don’t know, but the major effect of a poor ruuning mate would be keeping those people at home on election day. They’re not going to turn around and vote for Obama. However, in swing states he’ll want to appeal to, or not annoy independents. I think a low profile candidate is his best choice overall. By doing his own about face on his moderate right past and swinging to the far right, he’s made himself suspect in the eyes of everyone, making it difficult for him to try and tack back towards the center. Romney’s best strategy now is hoping for dismal economic news. Everything he does himself from here out loses votes from one group or another. I don’t think the segment of pro-choice conservative women who would swing towards Romney based on a VP choice is very large anywhere.
I’ve done door-to-door canvassing in a number of campaigns. One that stands out in this regard was Martha Coakley for the Massachusetts Senate seat a few years back.
Coakley, you will recall, had a huge lead in the polls, which disappeared entirely–and then some–by election day. As it turned out, she was a poor campaigner, said a few things she shouldn’t have said, and had a rather arrogant view that the seat was her “own personal property” (as one person I met succinctly described it to me), and by the time the election rolled around she’d lost a great deal of support and credibility.
But in my experience it wasn’t so much that people who would’ve ordinarily supported her were voting for Scott Brown. Rather it was that she hadn’t given them a reason to get up and go out and vote. It was a nasty March day in western Massachusetts, snow and rain and cold, and you had to have a good reason to make a special trip to the polling station, and a lot of people I met just didn’t have one.
I met a number of people who wanted Coakley to win, at least in theory, who really didn’t want a Republican to win the seat, but who were clearly less than excited at going out on an unpleasant day to cast a ballot for “their” candidate. All the missteps she’d made had caught up to her. They weren’t going to go out of their way to support her. If that meant she might lose, oh well. (I have never experienced this in any other race, by the way.)
Anyhow, I think there’s a moral here, which some people have already alluded to, and it is this: The last thing you want to do as a candidate for any position is to give people who aren’t already thrilled about you a reason to stay home. For some right-wingers, Romney’s ONLY plus just now is that he is not Obama. They’ll hold their noses and vote for Romney, but it may not take much to erase that. If Mitt chooses a running mate who is not clearly and unequivocally pro-life, he will anger a lot of those supporters. Will they vote for Obama? No, just as these Coakley supporters didn’t vote for Brown. Will they stay home, as Coakley’s people did, in droves? Some, of course, won’t, they’ll just hold their noses a little harder. But I suspect some will, and if I were Romney, I’d see the risk as just too great.
In addition to all of the great reasons given above why this is a suicidal idea for Romney, think about what Condi brings to the table. National security and foreign policy chops, I suppose. But that’s inextricably linked to George W. Bush and the war in Iraq, and 9/11.
Romney needs this election to be a referendum on the economic performance of the Obama administration. Any second spent talking about Osama Bin Laden or the War in Iraq (or worse, the former president who’s name Romney won’t even say) is a wasted second for him, and a good thing for Obama. Add in another round of abortion talk and I honestly don’t see any way that this is good for him.
What I’ve seen of Condeleeza, I like her and think she’d make a great VP.
But at the same time, given what I’ve seen of the Republicans, and the discussio on this board I think she’d be an awful choice for Romney.
So on the whole, I think that such a choice would have little appeal for the moderates, but a lot of hate from the Republican base. It would be a stupid move.
Cite?
Really? :dubious:
Would you also like a cite for the earth being round?
People truly, hysterically hated Bush in 04, it didn’t mean shit when the guy we ran wasn’t someone people wanted to vote for.
You know guys, couldn’t we just continue here agreeing that some of the hate among the Republican base is due to racism? There’s not going to be any way to prove whether or not most of it is.
Yeah - “most” perhaps wasn’t the best word to choose, maybe something like significant or a lot would have been better choices…
Why is it problematic that Daniels had two different marital stints to the same woman?
I doubt it matters. But Daniels recently agreed to become president of Purdue University after he leaves office in 2013, and I doubt he would have done that if he were being considered for a spot on the Republican ticket.
Marley-Can’t find it now, but someone mentioned why Daniels and Jeb Bush didn’t run, and Daniels’ wife was the reason cited.
So, you are saying that the Republican base didn’t like Clinton, Gore, or Kerry because of policy differences, but the reason we don’t like Obama is because he is black? Would this “significant” portion of the GOP base vote for Joe Biden if he were on top of the ticket since he is white?
Racism is a strong claim and potentially insulting. As such, it would behoove you to have some evidence of it.
Can we not replay the millionth installment of “Are Republicans racist?” please?