Can we please

[daveosupremo]

Put to rest the idea that John Thune, Cathy McMorris Rodgers or Rob Portman will be the VP choice in 2016? They all have a ton of weaknesses and none of them bring much to the table. Yet their names keep popping up on this forum for some reason.

[daveosupremo]

Please elaborate on these "tons of weaknesses" you speak of, and how they outweigh the strengths they bring to the table.

First of all, all the are very boring. It shouldn't matter but it does. As for specifics:
Rob Portman- Hes pro gay marriage. Not gonna happen in 2016. He was also Bush's OMB director. The Republican candidate will want to run from big budgets and high spending. You can't do this with the guy who oversaw the budget of the second biggest spender in US history. He's from Ohio, which makes him the only one of these three with any potential electoral benefit.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers- May I refer you to her state of the union response? Also, she's from a non swing state that she couldn't deliver, she's in the House of Representatives, and she brings nothing to the table. As someone pointed out on another thread, she doesn't pass the most important test which is will she be ready to be president on day one.
John Thune- Hes got a couple of Senate votes that conservatives won't forgive such as raising the debt ceiling and voting for TARP, but the biggest reason it won't be him is why would it be? Nobody will vote for the Republican because Thune is on the ticket, and there are a lot of other potentials who are equally qualified who people will show up for. If it's any establishment friendly senator, Rubio is much more likely.
The fact is that the VP nominee will most likely be a woman or minority, but it won't be a congresswoman from Washington who looks like she belongs on the cover of Better Homes and Gardens. The VP will also have to be someone who will get the base out, and none of these will do it.

[daveosupremo]

Rodgers wouldn't be picked to help win her state she would be picked because she's a women something the GOP ticket desperately needs against someone like Clinton. She's a conventional safe choice she's not Bachmann type crazy she's a Establishment mainstream pub who's acceptable nationwide.

Kelly Ayotte is too and she's at least a senator who could help in New Hampshire. As for women, they've also got Susana Martinez, Condi Rice, Nikki Haley, Kristi Noem (not qualified but no less so than CMR), Deb Fischer, and others, all of whom are at least as good of choices as McMorris Rodgers.

[daveosupremo]

I disagree with the OP's contention that any of those picks are unlikely. But while we're on the topic, I don't think any of the following are plausible VP's:

Condi Rice: never was in a campaign in her life
Ted Cruz: would overshadow the nominee, be too unpredictable, and probably piss off the establishment
Nikki Haley: scandals would be too distracting despite the demographic boxes she checks

I actually agree that all three of these are unlikely, I'm just of the opinion that McMorris Rodgers is also very unlikely.

Cruz will only get picked by a candidate who is totally unacceptable to the base (basically Christie or Bush), in an attempt to get them to the voting booth. I think that one of these two getting the nomination is unlikely, and them using this tactic is also unlikely. It's simply the only way Cruz would be picked as the VP, for all the reasons you stated.

Condi is a good bet for SecDef, and it's the only position she's likely to take. Her autobiography pretty definitively states that she very much wanted the job in 2004, but Bush thought she was a better fit for State. She'd probably still take it if offered.

Haley won't be the pick because she's an intellectual lightweight with scandals (which have never been proven). She's also pretty unpopular for a conservative governor in SC. I included her in the list because she's a possibility, not because she's a likely choice.