Fiorina VP

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I suppose the hope is that it helps in the California primary next month.  Does it?

The question that I have about this is timing. In order for Cruz to be announcing this in Indianapolis, in the run-up to Indiana, he should probably have some sort of reason for why he thinks this will help him in Indiana. If/when he loses Indiana, his candidacy will be effectively over and not much of anything will help him in California. If he wins Indiana, he has plenty of time to camp out in California afterwards and announce Fiorina then. What is the point of him doing this now unless he expects it to help in Indiana somehow? Is is logic that this way even if/when he loses Indiana he'll still have a chance in California after all? That makes some degree of sense but strikes me as really shaky.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I honestly don't think Cruz is thinking that far ahesad to the CA primary. Fiorina's value is that she will:

1. Change the conversation from Trump as the PM and
2. Attack Trump much more media effectively

In other words, Cruz needs Fiorina's help in IN, never mind CA.

But she's completely unlikable.

Cruz/Pence could have been a good ticket, both to win Indiana and as a hard-right ticket in general for people who want that. I don't see what constituency Cruz/Fiorina appeals to, other than possibly 'the airwaves'. But even that doesn't work because she's completely unlikable.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I know experience is deeply overrated, but has any major party ticket ever, combined, had less of it?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I know experience is deeply overrated, but has any major party ticket ever, combined, had less of it?

Eisenhower/Nixon comes close. Nixon had 3 years in the House  and 3 years as a Senator before he was nominated for VP.

I'd consider being a leading World War II general and NATO Supreme Commander in the first years of the Cold War to be 'experience', although I wouldn't necessarily say so for military leadership in every war or at every point in history.