Talk Elections

Ok, so we already had a topic, but I didn't want a poll to be included. On the forefront, to me it appears that he would need to pick someone who appeals to the evangelicals, but is presentable and likable to the public. But, he also would need to win independent voters, so he may need to pick someone who acts like a maverick and problem solver.

What do you all think?

Senator Rand Paul

Off topic: 'True Strength For America's Future' has to be the most generic, meaningless slogan ever.

Anyway, the first thing to pop into my head was Pawlenty, given how he appeals to 'moderate' Republicans and evangelicals. But he lacks name recognition and charisma so probably not. The Republicans are seriously lacking in terms of candidates in general.

Over Yes We Can, Let's Make America Great Again, and the like?

Those have clear meanings and are easily remembered. 'Yes We Can' communicates a feeling of being able to accomplish anything and optimism. 'Let's Make America Great Again' or 'Morning In America' are self-explanatory. Hell even 'I Like Ike' has some value in a commercial jingle type way. 'True Strength For America's Future' is borderline incoherent and forgettable, at best it implies the other candidates are weak people and only if you sit and think for a moment.

Yeah, you are right. Hopefully they will choose a better slogan next time.

Ah good, you can admit that. It's nice seeing someone with a little objectivity left on this site about their candidate. :P

Some likely short listers include:

John Thune
Rob Portman (if he wins that race in Ohio)
John Kasich (if he wins that race in Ohio)

Yeah, I'm thinking the GOP's VP pool is going to be fairly shallow in 2012.  Though if they do well in 2010, they might have some good people ready for 2016 or 2020.

Thune would help with the evangelicals but not much else.

Thune is terrible. I don't know why so many Republicans think he is some kind of savior.

I don't know about Thune. He appears to know his stuff, but I'm not sure if he can appeal to anyone outside the base. I wonder.

(Plus, I don't think they'd look good running together)

What about my suggestion of Rand Paul? He's "maverick" who could win over independent voters, like you said.

Thune is a porker who voted for the bail outs and similar nonsense, that and he has a reputation as not too bright. I don't see him playing well either in the current climate.

Maybe, but I don't know if the base would like him all that much. I'd like him as a future candidate for President, though.

Well the conservative base in a state like Kentucky seems to be warming to him. They are the ones propelling him to victory over the establishment candidate.

I hate Obama, but I wouldn't even consider voting for Romney unless he had a solid running mate like Rand Paul or Peter Schiff.

I think we can ditch talk of Peter Schiff, though.

What are the polls in Kentucky showing for Rand Paul?

I have a gut feeling you'll be laughing about having said that a few years down the line...

Haha, maybe... But I think Blumethal is a shoo-in. But I could be wrong... look what happened to Coakley.

Last I heard, Paul led Grayson in the GOP primary, and led both potential challengers in the general election.

Oh I don't think he'll get the nomination in CT, I just think given his money and growing reputation he could be a serious contender 4-6 years from now. Think Ross Perot in early/mid '92. Also some polls have Paul leading Grayson by as much as 44% to 25% now, granted that's with about 32% undecided.

first choice,i think,sen.thune...second:gov.tim pawlenty

As very often, you're right (or at least, I agree with you):

A "new" face: Thune (with a "plus": good for the right of the GOP) or Paul Ryan or any star rising in Nov 2010.

Or someone from a strategic state: Ohio, of course, will be the most important one (Florida is still there, but you can't be sure to influence every part of Florida with only one name... !). Kasich more than Portman, because of the past and because of the way you look on TV.

I'd add Pawlenty, because he isa pretty "new" face for many voters, he's good for arch-conservatives and he can avoid criticisms on the rich and posh and golden Mitt...

What about Gov. Tom Corbett? He's leading his likely opponent, Dan Onorato, by double-digits (and he's leading less likely options by more). He'll swing Pennsylvania, which has more EVs and is from Pennsylvania, a state Republicans may need some help winning.

There's also Toomey, but that's less-likely. Kasich is very good at running for Vice President...not Portman, it's too easy to connect him with the recession...Rubio? Brown? Pawlenty? Thune? McDonnell?

SO MANY POSSIBILITIES!!!!!!!!1

A very Conservative southern senator. Can't think of a good enough name though.

Jim DeMint

Mitt Romney will never win the Republican nomination.

Evidence?

Thune or Rubio.  Thune would get the evangelicals, Rubio (assuming he wins the Senate Race, which is far from assured I know) could bring in at least a few Hispanics.

DeMint actually endorsed Mitt last time around, so maybe... but he'd be too polarizing. They'd need a fresh face who can speak intelligently.

Honestly, DeMint's comments about excluding single mothers from being teachers are, by themselves, just about enough to sink any ambitions he might have of being on a national ticket.  Romney just wouldn't want to take that kind of political risk on him.  Romney would want someone who checks all the boxes of GOP litmus tests, yet simultaneously doesn't frighten swing voters.

I also don't think he would necessarily go with someone like Rubio, who'll be so new to the national political scene, and doesn't have as much experience dealing with national issues or the national media.  Not after the fiasco of the Sarah Palin pick.  Too much of a risk there.  That's why I think Kasich or Portman might be good.  They'll be "new" faces in the 2010 election, if they win, in that they'll be new to statewide office.  But they also have past experience, and have been around long enough to know the game.  But of course, they first have to win this November.

Here are some tickets that come to mind

Romney/McDonnell

Romney/Blackburn

Romney/Daniels

Romney/Petraeus

After reading more about him, McDonnell wouldn't be such a bad candidate. He has the image of a moderate, and he won by a huge margin in Virginia. He is giving the SOTU response, amazing that in such short time for any politician. Military service, long history of legislating, it's all there. The only catch is his thesis... that could be a detriment.

I don't think it would be much of an issue. He handled himself well during the campaign for Governor when it came our, and he doesn't come across as an extremist.

Hopefully, you are correct.

Portman. Pawlenty maybe. Gingrich to round off the ticket

Gingrich is way too old to be a VP choice.

Romney needs a Southerner to shore up an area that he could lose. He has no obvious cause for appeal in the South -- he has a religion as Yankee as it gets. Obama has some chance to pick off a couple of states in the South that he lost in 2008, as he has fairly high approval ratings in South Carolina, Georgia, and even Texas.  44% approval makes a state competitive -- which is where Obama is in Texas and Georgia.   

Forget DeMint, Chambliss, Wicker, Cochrane, Coburn, and Imhofe; they are all too far to the right to appeal in states like Indiana and Ohio. Hutchinson wants out of Washington. Alexander is now as old as Biden. House Majority Whip -- the job that McDonnell wants -- has more power than VP.

Corker? Graham?

Why does Bob McDonnell want to be majority whip? I think you are mistaken and are referring to Eric Cantor. :P

Romney isn't winning.  His favorables with Republicans aren't good enough.

You don't say.  May I ask when Alexander was younger than Biden?

McCain and Giuliani led the field last time. Romney is the only one running who appeals to the big ticket states, and the only one who can reasonably appeal to independents.

While I won't say that he won't win, barring scandal, he has his work cut out for him.

1. Pawlenty also appeals to swing voters and independents.

2. This Health Care thing may have destroyed Romney's chances. All the talk radio people have been saying that Browns victory was partly do to the unpopularity of that state's Health care plan. The best challenger to Patrick, Cahil, wants to dismantle it. And Cahil is so serious about winning he is running as a Fiscal Conservative and he picked a Republican member of the State House(who according to what I read is Pro-Life) as his running mate and Cahil was till just a few months ago a Democrat. The Republican candidate, Baker is to left of Cahil, and is trailing way back at third.

3. He can't appeal to the people who are enthusiastic right now. In 2000 the Christian Right was enthusiastic and Bush was the perfect candidate for them. Now its the limited Gov't, Tea Party crowd.

Things aren't looking to good for Romney.

1. True, but he also has to compete with votes with Palin and Huckabee, essentially the same mantra that Romney did last time around. This time, there are no prospective candidates from the left, so the voters in CA and NY may be his.

2. I don't think so. Remember the hot immigration debate back in 2006? Most people thought that it killed McCain's chances. I wouldn't count him out yet.

3. I don't really know how to answer the last one, but I'll concede that. But he does have a well developed supporter base across the country, from what I can gather.


Either way, if Romney isn't nominated, and Palin or Huck is, I'm just gonna vote third party or for Obama. If Sarah Palin ever becomes president, good lord, I don't know what I'll do.

Um, what big ticket states does Romney appeal to? Utah? ???

I never expected NiK was more of a Romney hack than NCYankee. :P


Bingo. And as an addition to #3, the Christian Right is still important, and I am sure that they will vote against Romney. Romney is unpopular both with them and with the tea party crowd.

California, New York, Florida, Illinois.

I'll admit that I have been a Romney hack over the last few days. I need to go lie down. :P

He lost all of those states in 08. What makes you so sure 12 is going to be any different?

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

He is conservative enough to appeal to the GOP base yet mainstream enough to not frighten independents and moderates.

I have been naming Graham as a running mate for Romney on this forum for the past three or four years.

I have also been thinking of a twenty year younger version of Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana.  However, I don't know if one exists.

At the moment, realistically, like him or not, Romney is the only potential GOP Presidential nominee with the credentials, the gravitas, and the stature for national office.  

Hell no. Graham represents the worst of the worst that the GOP has to offer. He won't attract conservatives nor will he attract moderates and suburbanites.

Hey, its alright if you want to defend your candidate, as long as you keep an open mind about it. :)

McCain and Giuliani were in the race, in 2012, they won't be. What makes you think they'll vote for Palin or Huck? You know I like Johnson, but I don't see how he could win them. :P


I really, really, need to take a chill pill. Maybe even rethink all of this.... :P

Well I think if Johnson runs a solid campaign, he could be competitive in the Northeast, Pacific Coast, etc.

But there are still plenty of other candidates who aren't Huck/Palin-types who could also jump in and steal those states from Romney.

Fair enough, but a lot of them don't seem to be interested, in my opinion. Tom Ridge running would provide an interesting twist. There is also talk of Rudy running.

If it was Romney vs. Johnson and the nomination was coming down to one vote, who would you cast it for?

Interesting point. I am the one who decides the fate of the primary?

What are the poll numbers for the general election?

Lol, come on, the whole point of my question was to see who you would support if we were only looking at the candidates themselves, not at all concerned with poll numbers and electability. :P

I was never a Romney hack. I supported John McCain from 2004ish to 2006(when the immigration issue became so big) Romney came out against Amnesty, and he had MA join that program to deputize the police force. Tancredo and Hunter were unelectable, Giuliani made NYC a Sanctuary City, McCain I had abandoned over this issue, Paul struck me as nuts, Huckabee was too much of a Compassionate Conservative to crack down on illegals(especially after giving them Instate Tuition and giving out all those pardons, I actually liked Huckabee till late 2007 and thought he would be a great V.P. for Romney in 2008). That left Romney.

Winfield and then Tmthforu94 were more Romney hacks then I am.

I am not entirely sure. Johnson strikes me as a good person, but I could never picture him as President. Really, when I play it through my mind, him sitting behind a desk in the oval office just doesn't seem likely. But, then again, I do agree with a lot of his positions. I can't really make that kind of decision. Romney is my candidate because he seems the most electable, as opposed to Johnson. We'll see, though.

My top choice because of those reasons would probably be Romney, but that could change. Next would be Johnson, and then Gingrich, and so forth. At the bottom of the list is Palin.

So you're a single issue voter. :P

I have to agree with NiK that newly elected Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia would be a good pick for VP for Romney.

McDonnell does come with very impressive credentials and Romney and McDonnell as a ticket would be serious contenders.

I'll basically give a summary of while I think he'll win the nomination, without trying to appear hackish. Most of my reasoning comes from Ramesh Ponnuru, who wrote this for the National Review a few months back.

First, Mitt wasn't allowed breathing room in 2008. Huckabee dominated evangelicals, while McCain was the prime choice for independents and centrists. Romney, on the other hand, needed EVERYONE's vote. He couldn't displace McCain or Giuliani, and there was no way he could beat Huckabee with the evangelicals. In order to win, he had to run holding up all planks of the stool. And, not surprising, he lost, because he had no fundamental base, but a collection of different people scattered across the ideological scale.

Now, in 2012, there is no one (Other then Johnson, but he'd have to run a phenomenal campaign) likely to run from that perspective of the party. That leaves a huge gap open for Mitt, who easily fits into that kind of campaign and is more in tune with them then Palin or Huckabee. Last time around, he ran as a conservative insurgent, but this time around he will (probably) be running as an establishmentarean. Now, the fact that he flip-flopped would still matter, but he would be more credible under theses circumstances. Furthermore, there would be little air left between Palin and Huckabee, as they would be directly competing against each other.

Next, the establishment. The establishment would, as I am inclined to think, on the most part support Romney. The establishment hates Mike Huckabee with a passion, and it seems to be that they think Palin is damaged and only use Palin as a bogeyman to frighten progressives. His main challenger here would be Tim Pawlenty, but quite frankly, the man makes Mitt Romney seen like the energizer bunny. But, this leaves us with one thought: Would the GOP Establishment still back Romney after Massachusetts Health Care? It's a big if, but I am inclined to think so. It would be a detriment, though, in my opinion. A recent poll showed that highest proportion of GOP insiders thought that Romney was the strongest candidate, coming in an overwhelming first place. Right behind him was Thune and Pawlenty.

Full details here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=109362.0

Right before I end, Romney can answer questions on the economy that most of the other candidates current match. Most could probably say something plausible about social issues and Afghanistan, but none (Save Johnson, potentially), could really outtalk Romney on the subject that will probably be the biggest issue in 2012.

Finally, we move on to the final point. The teabaggers. How would this play out with them? I'm really willing to say that they wouldn't really even go for him. But, I don't think they will go overwhelmingly for one candidate, either. I think that their vote will probably be split.

Anyway, just my two cents. Feel free to criticize or mock, but these points really stood out for me. I had fun explaining. :)

Three of those states haven't voted for a Republican nominee for President since the Soviet Union was in existence. In 2008, every one of those three voted for Obama by huge margins.

I may be wrong, but I think he was talking about the GOP primaries...

No offense, but this is the second time in two days that you seem to be totally clueless about the distinction between the primaries and the GE, even when it's completely obvious from context.

OK. Some Democrat will win the respective Utah primary in 2016 and some Republican will win the respective Vermont primary in 2016. 

Some of the conservatives voted for Romney last time because he presented himself as the most conservative candidate in the race.  Some of those conservatives won't vote for him again.

Unlike last time, the conservative vote won't be split as Palin should be able to consolidate the people who are both fiscally and socially conservative.

Instead, the moderate vote will be split this time between Pawlenty, Romney, Daniels, etc.

In effect, the opposite of what happened last time with McCain will occur this time with Palin.

Romney won't be able to win the "big ticket" states in a primary outside of the Northeast (Palin would win California, Illiniois, Texas as she would consolidate the conservative vote while winning enough of the moderate vote while the moderate vote gets split).

Not sure what your point is here.  You make it sound as if it's a triviality to win the primary of a state that your party is going to lose in the GE.  Which is of course preposterous.  California has a lot of delegates, so it certainly helps a GOP candidate to win the primary there.  It helps them to win the nomination, even though they're going to lose it in the GE.  Whereas VT has only a handful of delegates and its primary is fairly late in the calendar, so it's irrelevant.  Whether I primary is important is disconnected from whether it'll be a swing state in the general election.

Pbrower got caught with egg on his face and now wants to make it seem like he was making some profound point all along. ::)

No one liked my reasoning? :(

John Thune or John Hoeven.

I would say Thune or Portman (if he wins his Senate bid).

Honestly, if Romney is the nominee and really wants to win the election, he should select Jeb Bush.  Sure its a risk, but he could carry Florida and Ohio against Obama.  Its not as desperate as the Palin pick, but Jeb knows his stuff, is competent, and still has a Christian base (even though he is a converted Catholic).  I think Jeb realizes that he would never be president, but voters may be able to like him better as VP.  I think the GOP challenger really needs to swing for the fences and a guy like Thune would not help in Florida or Ohio.

I think Romney needs a Southern politician on the ticket. What about Richard Burr?

Kay Bailey Hutchison or Bob McDonnell

KBH is pro-choice, never gonna happen.

She seems pretty pro-life to me. http://www.ontheissues.org/social/Kay_Bailey_Hutchison_Abortion.htm

A Southerner is the last thing any GOP candidate needs. Bush is fresh in the minds of many and Huckabee strikes almost as much fear as Palin.

I think Romney could have a southerner, but it has to be one that has proven to be successful at governing or legislating, and doesn't come off as a demagogue or loon. That's why I said Hutchison or McDonnell.

See McCain/Romney would have been 51-48 or 51-49. That's still not good enough to win though. However, Palin still helped the ticket. McCain vs Obama without VP's would've been a 10 point race. In 2012 if Romney runs I think that Jeb Bush would suit him well and so would someone like John Thune or Eric Cantor even though they don't know each other.

Its so funny that Palin helped McCain in the polls, but then when the shat hit the fan with wall street, voters decided Obama/Biden was more competent to handle the issue. 

People realized that Palin was unexperienced and that McCain was too old.  The Republicans need some real Adults on the ticket and they will have a fighting chance.

Possible pick would be Perry.