Who should Romney choose as VP candidate?

[southsider2k5]

We'll see if this goes anywhere good, but I wanted to hear what people thought about who Romney should choose as his VP running mate. There are a bunch of different directions he could go, not to mention all of the people out there who could have run for President, but chose not to do so.

 

Mitch Daniels? Jeb Bush? Chris Christie? Jindal? Ron or Rand Paul? One of the failed candidates from this cycle? Someone else?

[StrangeSox]

Someone like Rubio might allow Romney to pivot to the center harder while still having someone movement conservatives love on the ticket.

[EvilMonkey]

I think Rubio has the best initial impression of them all, but damn they had better vet him hard and fast, just to be safe. I have heard many of his speeches, and he can talk circles around just about anyone. I would say he would make Biden look like an idiot in a debate, but Joe already does that to himself.

[kjshoe04]

This topic got me thinking. Do you know anyone that has ever voted for a candidate based on his VP choice?

[StrangeSox]

Rubio's at least been on the national stage for a few years now, but I'm sure they're going through thorough vets of multiple candidates right now. No way they pull another "game change" last-minute pick.

[caulfield12]

Biden's a better debater than even Obama, if he steers away too much from policy-wonk/procedural/technical language.

 

Rubio's already having his bio attacked, in terms of his story of the family fleeing Cuba under Castro when it actually happened well before he came into power.

 

That's why they're already trying to hurry to release his biography as early as possible.

 

With his lack of experience, there will be a ton of pundits saying it's a naked play to get back in the race with Hispanic voters.

 

My actual concern on the Romney side will be that people realize he would (eventually) be a much more charismatic and interesting president than Romney can/will ever be, so bringing him onto the ticket would not be unlike the Palin/McCain scenario, with 1/3rd of the speculation being about 2016 and how Rubio will be one of the leading candidates, rather than the top line presidential candidate.

 

But a ton of things can change with the economy and world events between now and November, still 7 months, more or less.

 

 

Jindal's still too wounded from his national exposure giving the Republican response a year or so, Daniels might be the best pick, Christie's too bellicose and polarizing, Ryan's still too obscure, it's too early for another Bush on the ticket, it's going to be hard to find the right choice just like 4 years ago. A lot of GOPers are expecting defeat at this point, so there's going to be a lot of enlightened "self-interest" out there in terms of the benefits versus the negatives of being on the losing side of a presidential election, even as the VP candidate. It hasn't been the best move for Gore (well, that's another story), Kemp, Lieberman, Edwards or Palin in terms of a way forward to the presidency.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2012 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

This topic got me thinking. Do you know anyone that has ever voted for a candidate based on his VP choice?

 

It's a minor issue at best in most cases. I think Nate Silver looked into this recently.

[Y2HH]

Biden's a better debater than even Obama, if he steers away too much from policy-wonk/procedural/technical language.

 

Rubio's already having his bio attacked, in terms of his story of the family fleeing Cuba under Castro when it actually happened well before he came into power.

 

That's why they're already trying to hurry to release his biography as early as possible.

 

With his lack of experience, there will be a ton of pundits saying it's a naked play to get back in the race with Hispanic voters.

 

My actual concern on the Romney side will be that people realize he would (eventually) be a much more charismatic and interesting president than Romney can/will ever be, so bringing him onto the ticket would not be unlike the Palin/McCain scenario, with 1/3rd of the speculation being about 2016 and how Rubio will be one of the leading candidates, rather than the top line presidential candidate.

 

But a ton of things can change with the economy and world events between now and November, still 7 months, more or less.

 

 

Jindal's still too wounded from his national exposure giving the Republican response a year or so, Daniels might be the best pick, Christie's too bellicose and polarizing, Ryan's still too obscure, it's too early for another Bush on the ticket, it's going to be hard to find the right choice just like 4 years ago. A lot of GOPers are expecting defeat at this point, so there's going to be a lot of enlightened "self-interest" out there in terms of the benefits versus the negatives of being on the losing side of a presidential election, even as the VP candidate. It hasn't been the best move for Gore (well, that's another story), Kemp, Lieberman, Edwards or Palin in terms of a way forward to the presidency.

 

Bold: No, he isn't...not in any circumstance, not ever. Obama is a heavyweight debater and orator, in the same division of the likes of Reagan. Biden, meanwhile, belongs in Dan Quayle's division.

[Harry Chappas]

This topic got me thinking. Do you know anyone that has ever voted for a candidate based on his VP choice?

 

cemented Obama for me especially with how old McCain was.

[LittleHurt05]

Sarah Palin

 

/thread

[Y2HH]

This topic got me thinking. Do you know anyone that has ever voted for a candidate based on his VP choice?

 

I've never voted for someone based on their VP choice...however, I HAVE voted against someone based on their VP choice.

[NorthSideSox72]

Rubio says he's out. Somehow doubt they'd go for a Bush right now. Christie, I hate to say it, but his weight will be an image issue. He's also a little brash.

 

I think Romney may have made a deal with Gingrich, for Newt to either be VP or in his cabinet, in exchange for staying in the race as long as possible to keep Santorum at bay. They had a private meeting a couple weeks ago.

 

Neither of the Paul's are going to work at all.

 

I think he goes for either Paul Ryan or Bobby Jindal - if he doesn't have a VP deal in place with Gingrich as noted above.

 

[farmteam]

We'll see if this goes anywhere good, but I wanted to hear what people thought about who Romney should choose as his VP running mate. There are a bunch of different directions he could go, not to mention all of the people out there who could have run for President, but chose not to do so.

 

Mitch Daniels? Jeb Bush? Chris Christie? Jindal? Ron or Rand Paul? One of the failed candidates from this cycle? Someone else?

 

Why would Mitch Daniels take it? He probably had a decent shot at getting the Prez nomination and didn't run -- I'd imagine the same reasons that kept from entering that race would also keep him from wanting to be VP.

 

I think Rubio has the best initial impression of them all, but damn they had better vet him hard and fast, just to be safe. I have heard many of his speeches, and he can talk circles around just about anyone. I would say he would make Biden look like an idiot in a debate, but Joe already does that to himself.

The only debate I ever watched Biden in was the VP debate in 08, and he did a good job. It would have been really easy to come off as too abrasive or whatnot towards Palin, or invoking too much of her media portrayal, but he completely stayed away from that. Sounding like an idiot in soundbites and coming off as one in a debate are two different things.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Mitch Daniels doesn't exactly exude charisma.

 

Paul Ryan isn't a bad speculation, but the GOP already seems to be bristling against Obama positioning himself as running against the Ryan budget policies.

 

Bobby Jindal flopped pretty hard a couple of years ago in his post-SOTU address.

[Texsox]

IMNSHO Allen West

[Texsox]

I bet you thought I would say Perry

[southsider2k5]

I bet you thought I would say Perry

 

I was thinking exactly that. Then I thought "He did that on purpose".

[caulfield12]

Sarah Palin picked Allen West, that's enough of a reason to think it would flop, just on that endorsement alone.

 

Having a Tea Party favorite isn't going to help much, because those people were always going to vote against Obama anyway and it's not like he has the magnetism of a Rubio to get people excited about him as a personality in and of itself.

[Balta1701]

Rubio says he's out. Somehow doubt they'd go for a Bush right now. Christie, I hate to say it, but his weight will be an image issue. He's also a little brash.

They all have to say they're out right now...they can't actively campaign for the position while they have another job. The end result of that would be them losing both their current job and losing the VP spot. Everyone knows he's a candidate...the real question will be whether he turns it down if asked after vetting. Ditto Haley, from SC.

 

I think it'll be Rubio...unless there's a private deal already struck.

[Balta1701]

Bold: No, he isn't...not in any circumstance, not ever. Obama is a heavyweight debater and orator, in the same division of the likes of Reagan. Biden, meanwhile, belongs in Dan Quayle's division.

Obama is a solid orator...but he isn't great off the cuff, and despite a lot of preparation...debates are all about off the cuff. He can go into policy details and he takes his time formulating a statement because of that...and honestly, debates aren't about that, they're about reinforcing your talking points and repeating them as many times as you can. Pausing, taking time, and illustrating detailed policy proposals is terrible TV. We don't elect guys like that, we want them to say what they have to say then get down to drinkin' beer with us.

 

No one has made headway in any debate this year with policy. Policy has only sabotaged people (Rick Perry trying to defend actual humane actions towards immigrants, for example).

[Y2HH]

Obama is a solid orator...but he isn't great off the cuff, and despite a lot of preparation...debates are all about off the cuff. He can go into policy details and he takes his time formulating a statement because of that...and honestly, debates aren't about that, they're about reinforcing your talking points and repeating them as many times as you can. Pausing, taking time, and illustrating detailed policy proposals is terrible TV. We don't elect guys like that, we want them to say what they have to say then get down to drinkin' beer with us.

 

No one has made headway in any debate this year with policy. Policy has only sabotaged people (Rick Perry trying to defend actual humane actions towards immigrants, for example).

 

But IMO, that's what makes Obama is a good modern debater...they don't actually "debate" much anymore. Obama does tend to stutter his point when put on the spot, but he has a good speaking voice, so he's not annoying to listen too. In modern debates, they can ask a question, and they often ignore whatever question it was and just reinforce an unrelated talking point or respond to an opponents previous point, despite the debate having moved onto a new subject. I guess you could say Obama isn't very good at old school debates, or debates where the moderators keep things on track, but they don't really exist anymore...more often than not the moderators have little to no control. It's more or less come down to being able to articulate/sound intelligent. And Obama is very good at that.

 

In actual debate presence, coupled with the ability to speak off the cuff, I've not seen anyone come close to Reagan in my lifetime, but of modern candidates, Obama is better than anyone that's tried.

 

** It's also possible that I only view Obama as a good debater because of the modern competition he's gone up against are that much worse. Just thinking of some debaters in recent years...Bush Jr. (not against Obama, but still), McCain, "Not Bill" Clinton,...the hodgepodge of republican candidates today. This is also probably why people believe Biden is a good debater...he was up against Palin...so of course he looked godly in comparison.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Y2HH

[Texsox]

I was thinking exactly that. Then I thought "He did that on purpose".

 

I actually posted West first, then started laughing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perry 2016

[Disco72]

I've heard rumblings that "people" have reached out to Bill Haslam (TN Gov) as a VP choice, but Haslam isn't interested. He could be someone that pops up more on the national radar in the next few years, though.

[iamshack]

But IMO, that's what makes Obama is a good modern debater...they don't actually "debate" much anymore. Obama does tend to stutter his point when put on the spot, but he has a good speaking voice, so he's not annoying to listen too. In modern debates, they can ask a question, and they often ignore whatever question it was and just reinforce an unrelated talking point or respond to an opponents previous point, despite the debate having moved onto a new subject. I guess you could say Obama isn't very good at old school debates, or debates where the moderators keep things on track, but they don't really exist anymore...more often than not the moderators have little to no control. It's more or less come down to being able to articulate/sound intelligent. And Obama is very good at that.

 

In actual debate presence, coupled with the ability to speak off the cuff, I've not seen anyone come close to Reagan in my lifetime, but of modern candidates, Obama is better than anyone that's tried.

 

** It's also possible that I only view Obama as a good debater because of the modern competition he's gone up against are that much worse. Just thinking of some debaters in recent years...Bush Jr. (not against Obama, but still), McCain, "Not Bill" Clinton,...the hodgepodge of republican candidates today. This is also probably why people believe Biden is a good debater...he was up against Palin...so of course he looked godly in comparison.

I think the best debaters can frame the issues in a way that the average person understands how it affects them and what their stake in the issue is, and what the competing interests are and what the alternative solutions may be.

 

I think Obama does that better than most.

[Reddy]

if he's willing to have Santorum (doubtful), that's the only ticket i see actually threatening Obama.