Talk Elections

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/228237-team-romney-begins-vetting-his-veep-picks


So who has been contacted by the Romney campaign on this?  Thune says that he has *not* been contacted by the Romney people.  Portman, Rubio, and Ryan refuse to say whether they've been asked for information by the Romney campaign vetters.  Pawlenty, who'd previously said he doesn't want the job, also won't say if he's been contacted:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/tim-pawlenty-now-mum-on-vp-prospects/

Finally, the blog "The Race 4 2012" claims to have a source with knowledge of the vetting process, and said the following:

http://race42012.com/2012/05/19/the-race-4-2012-rumor-mill-special-weekend-veep-edition/


Of course, this is just a blog, and presumably doesn't have the same kind of reporting standards as the NYT or WaPo, so it's worth being skeptical.  But it is a somewhat established blog that's been reporting on the race for years.

And even if it's true, it doesn't mean that there aren't additional names to the ones listed above.  In 2008, I think each campaign vetted about a dozen people or so, if not more.

I don't understand why Cathy McMorris Rodgers in considered a potential pick. It might be too risky after 2008, but then again, maybe she's a lot sharper than Sarah Palin.

Maybe, but a generic reaction will be: "Who? Some woman I've never heard of before. Lol, another Sarah Palin for sure".

And thus, instead of helping Romney, she'd be forced to prove all over again she's not Sarah Palin.

Sadly, Palin's selection back in 2008 did a lot of harm for women in national politics.

FTFY.

I think it only seems like it was just for Republican women because whenever anyone thinks of Democrat women, they automatically think of Hillary. And there would be no question that Hillary is qualified. She is more experienced to be the president than Obama is, and Obama's already been the president for three years.

It's in Romney's political interest to be seen to be considering one or more women on his short list, so even if he really has no intention of picking either Ayotte or McMorris Rodgers, it makes sense to vet them, and leak the fact that he's vetting them.

[quote author=big bad fab doesn't hate Félix Gouin
Maybe, but a generic reaction will be: "Who? Some woman I've never heard of before. Lol, another Sarah Palin for sure".

[/quote]

I had heard Palin mentioned as a possible VP pick a while before McCain picked her, but then after she gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby, people assumed she wouldn't make the list.

I came to the Palin conclusion fairly early, IIRC in May or June. Only saw her mentioned rather far down Halperin's list in late July.


On the OP: I'm sure there are others whose names aren't on that list.

Yeah, she was definitely on the veep radar before announcing she was pregnant.  But only among political junkies who were actually following politics.  The general public had no idea who she was until the day she joined the ticket.

Here's the Palin pregnancy thread from 2008 btw:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=72000.0

I make that point all the time.  That needs its own thread: People more qualified than Obama to be president.  The list would be huge.  Maybe try to estimate the numbers in categories instead of listing to tidy it up a bit.  For instance maybe only 100 mayors are actually more qualified to be president than the sitting president, instead of listing them.    

I'd say it would be more limited than that, and it also depends on how you define 'qualified'. Hillary definitely counts. Romney probably does not. Someone like Jon Cornyn, as much as I dislike him politically, probably does.

Yea, I know it depends on a lot.  Romney obviously would be more qualified because he has been a successful executive of a state, corporation, and Olympics.  Obama has been a successful executive of... nothing.  I'm not being hyper partisan about it, if I was an Obama democrat I would have to honestly admit that.  I would probably say experience or qualification isn't important or something. 

Jindall is still being considered? Last time I really thought alot about a Romney/Jindall ticket was October, 2010 :P

So, it's pretty much down to the top two names.  If this has any validity, than Ryan may have refused ??

Ok, I admit: I never saw Bobby Jindal's response to the state of the union address. Was it really bad enough to knock him off the VP charts? What did he even do?

Doubtful considering that he's said that he would seriously consider it if asked.

spoke awkwardly and looked unable to appear on TV...  Nothing that couldn't be fixed the question is:  Is it fixed?!?!

Whomever wins 270 or more electoral votes is qualified to be President. That is all.

I reckon it'll be a hack in a bad (but expensive) suit.

Even if the source here is accurate, it's likely that those seven names don't constitute the full list.  Like I said, back in 2008, both McCain and Obama reportedly vetted at least a dozen or so people each.

I'd probably prefer a Romney-Ryan ticket, but I am beginning to see Portman as a better choice to win.  The more important thing is to think how 'fun' the next presidential term will be.  Think how much more fun it will be to have an IQ increase of at least 20-50 points on the winning ticket.  I know that will draw some comments, but honestly Biden is a serious concern and Obama undoubtedly has 'narrow' intelligence.  It will be fun to have some workhorses for a change!       

Couple months ago, McMorris was trying to fan the flames of being in the veepstakes by feeding the press someone from that blog including her on a speculation list.  (Kind of like citing a performance on a poll on this site.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/how-to-run-for-vice-president/2012/04/02/gIQAiRp9qS_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/how-to-run-for-vice-president/2012/04/02/gIQAiRp9qS_blog.html)


Anyway, wouldn't put it past her office to leak a list that includes her name to McDonnelly get buzz going.  Speaking of McDonnell moves, Christie is running pro-Christie ads.  He can run for re-election unlike McDonnell but it wouldn't be for a year and half so, maybe more evidence he's campaigning for VP?

"War on women"

What do you mean to suggest?

That Republicans somehow hate women and want them all to be chained to their ovens and sinks, when in fact the GOP has many prominent women, and has nominated as many female VPs as the Democrats have. It's my belief that the first female Vice President will be a Republican.

That Republicans somehow hate women and want them all to be chained to their ovens and sinks, when in fact the GOP has many prominent women, and has nominated as many female VPs as the Democrats have. It's my belief that the first female Vice President will be a Republican.
[/quote]

Many- most?- Republican female high officeholders couldn't be picked because they're pro-choice.  In any case, Romney publicly pretending to consider women for VP for show- the hypothetical Morden speculated about- isn't really compelling evidence of Republicans' genuine views towards women.  For what it's worth, I think the leak that Sebelius was being considered by Obama was just for show too.  Ironically, the loyalty of a large faction to Hillary made it more difficult if not impossible for Obama to choose a female running mate. For a while, I've thought Pawlenty is undoubtedly most likely to get the call from Romney, but Portman wouldn't shock me.

If Romney picks Ryan, the Democrats would tear into him like Paul Ryan and Medicare. They're already talking about the 'Romney-Ryan Budget'.

Democrats will do that regardless because of Romney's reaction to all things Ryan but I agree picking Ryan as VP won't happen.  Maybe leaking him as being vetted, if they do, is a pander to a different faction, and a move they can get away with without the level of backlash they'd get if they actually picked him.

As someone who endured Gov. Clinton's 1988 keynote speech instead of turning the television off, I can confidently say that no single speech can ever be bad enough to knock someone out of consideration for the presidential ticket.

Senator Rob Portman gets the nod.

Portman provides a very nice briar patch for Obama to throw Romney in, thanks to his connection to Bush. If Obama tries to run against Bush again in 2012, he'll lose.

Portman's budget deficit with Bush would be too contradictory to Romney's message. 

I suspect Romney will go for ultra-safe non-controversial and that would be Pawlenty. 

A Romney/Pawlenty ticket would have all the personal warmth and affection of a refrigerator. I know Romney wants to play it safe, but he has to draw the line somewhere. I'm cringing at the mental image of the two of them trying to interact with everyday people.

I think once a president has been in office for a while, his previous experience or lack of experience is kind of a moot point. I'll admit that Obama had a small(er) amount of political experience, but I don't think it made him unqualified. I just don't think there's that strong of a correlation between being able to handle the presidency and how much previous political experience one has.

I do. Actually, that makes up a large part of who I support for president. When it really gets down to things, the president's most partisan role is appointing Supreme Court Judges. And sure... that's significant. But it's still a rather limited role. Policy-wise, the party of the president really doesn't matter all that much.

So I judge who I think would be the best leader. The person who will best be able to roll up his/her sleeves and get something done. Someone who can negotiate when necessary but stick to his guns when it matters. Experience is a good indicator of that. Obama had none.

Vetting lists always include women whether or not they're seriously considered. Not to say that they aren't under serious consideration, necessarily.

I base this on nothing but gut reaction but I'd say Rubio is getting the most thorough look over right now.

I'm not talking about political experience.  I'm talking about doing something.  More specifically running, designing, leading, building, etc.  Going to college, writing two autobiography's, and being a back bencher show horse in various legislatures doesn't qualify.  His first term could have overcome the qualification problem, but it hasn't.  I don't even like the way his political campaigns have been run.  Personal destruction/disqualifying of the opponent isn't exactly 'inspiring'.  Maybe it's a cultural thing, but I would never claim that BSing all day is a major accomplishment.  A tangible result that can be measured and regarded as positive is what I'm looking for.  Stimulus was a failure and Obama-care is at best a wash and very likely a failure...  The Auto bailout was heavily flawed, and the Bin Laden order was a no brainer to everyone in the country BUT democrat elites.  What positive track record does the guy have?  If you have nothing to suggest you're qualified, than you typically aren't qualified.             

I see your point, just because someone has youth and inexperience doesn't make them a political expert capable of commenting on political forums, lol. 

In reality,  Obama used his youth and inexperience as a campaign talking point, in order to create a "Blank Slate" for liberals and moderates to project their idealism and goals.  He had no record of being for or against such goals.  He never voted for or against the Iraq War, so he proudly and pointlessly claimed he was against the Iraq War. 

This contrasted him from the "wrong decisions" and experience that Hillary Clinton made in voting for Bush's Iraq War and aligning herself with Bush's activist foreign policy.  Hillary also had the stench of a failed Universal Health Care, and other Clinton scandals, and past enemies. 

So Obama was a pure angel, who had no enemies yet, and everyone was his friend. 

That is why I think that if Romney plays it too safe, he'll probably lose the election. 

But if he takes a calculated risk and convinces Jeb Bush to be VP, he can win a lot of Hispanic voters in Ohio and Florida, and elsewhere.  In addition, Liberals heads will explode.  It will almost be as bad as if Hillary won the nomination, and continued presidential legacies. 

Jeb needs to stay away from Romney to have a chance to be president. Picking Nikki Haley would be the "Liberals Heads Explode" pick. As would DeMint. He needs to go aggressive if he hopes to ge my vote

Any objections to stickying this thread?  This is a good thread that will have constant updates over the next 3 months.  It would be a good idea to sticky this until the RNC.

except there are a million threads about this.

I'm always amused by this little world we politicos live in. A world where a speech watch by so few people (and remembered by even fewer) means someone is instantly disqualified as a running mate and possibly as a Presidential candidate further down the line.

I remember Jindal's response. It was poor. It was awkward. It wasn't, however, a gaffe-filled disaster. Again, no one outside of our little world remembers or cares about it. It is something that would be rehashed on Hardball and on sites like this one. That's it. If he did something controversial, it would be a hindrance. It would be replayed countless times. He didn't do that though.

For the record, I was at this year's CPAC when Jindal gave an amazing speech so the SOTU response wasn't proof of a big problem.

Even better reason to consolidate and unclog the board by making one mega thread about Veep vetting and selection.