Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 03, 2015, 08:46:38 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2012 Elections
| | |-+  Romney VP search begins
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Print
Author Topic: Romney VP search begins  (Read 7990 times)
ShadowOfTheWave
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2096
United States


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: April 16, 2012, 09:34:45 pm »
Ignore

Christie is abrasive and arrogant, we don't need that for our ticket.
Logged
SJoyce
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9558
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.81, S: -9.30

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: April 16, 2012, 09:39:30 pm »
Ignore

Mitch Daniels? Tim Pawlenty? As for lesser-knowns... John Thune? Bob Corker? Most likely Portman. It's not gonna be Jindal, not Rubio, not Christie, not Jeb, not Huckabee, not McDonnell. You need to restore people's faith in the GOP VP nominee vetting process after 2008, and Thune, Corker, Daniels, Pawlenty, and Portman all seem like safe, known qualities, which is most likely what Romney's looking for.
Logged

Fargobison
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 91
View Profile
« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2012, 09:43:43 pm »
Ignore

Christie is abrasive and arrogant, we don't need that for our ticket.

He is brash, no doubt about that but he brings some energy to the ticket and people seem to like his style. He isn't my first choice but I'd take him before the boring middle aged white guys like Portman or Thune.
Logged
Nagas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2245
United States


P

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2012, 09:46:27 pm »
Ignore

Christie is abrasive and arrogant, we don't need that for our ticket.

He is brash, no doubt about that but he brings some energy to the ticket and people seem to like his style. He isn't my first choice but I'd take him before the boring middle aged white guys like Portman or Thune.

"Boring" is an asset to Romney, who doesn't really posses an energetic personality to begin with. He doesn't want to be overshadowed by his VP like Bentsen did to Dukakis.
Logged

rbt48
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 862


View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2012, 09:55:11 pm »
Ignore

Kelly Ayotte.  She'd bring home New Hampshire, perhaps NJ, and make Connecticut close.  And she'd help with the youth vote and women nationwide.
Logged

Make America Great Again
morgieb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6393
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: April 16, 2012, 10:15:58 pm »
Ignore

Kelly Ayotte.  She'd bring home New Hampshire, perhaps NJ, and make Connecticut close.  And she'd help with the youth vote and women nationwide.

I doubt that Romney would pick a New England running mate. It might annoy Southerners to some degree.
Logged

Lincoln Republican
Winfield
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11477


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: April 16, 2012, 10:20:38 pm »
Ignore

Jeb Bush is a solid pick, even though his name is Bush.

Intelligent, capable, from the south, speaks Spanish, brings in Florida.

He would dearly love to become an integral part of the Romney Era about to commence in January, 2013.
Logged



Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2495


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: April 16, 2012, 11:45:43 pm »
Ignore

I still think Jindal is the one. People who aren't political junkies don't remember/care about a STOU response in 2009. It won't be an issue. Also he is a socially-conservative Southerner and Indian-American to boot. I know it shouldn't matter, but I can't escape the feeling that Romney will need a woman or minority to contrast with Obama. The only "conventional" choice I can see is Rob Portman. I don't think his ties to Bush will be an issue. In 2008, yes, but not now.
Logged
Make America Great Again
morgieb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6393
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: April 16, 2012, 11:57:26 pm »
Ignore

I still think Jindal is the one. People who aren't political junkies don't remember/care about a STOU response in 2009. It won't be an issue. Also he is a socially-conservative Southerner and Indian-American to boot. I know it shouldn't matter, but I can't escape the feeling that Romney will need a woman or minority to contrast with Obama. The only "conventional" choice I can see is Rob Portman. I don't think his ties to Bush will be an issue. In 2008, yes, but not now.

As a budget director it probably still could. Fair enough if it was some trivial link to Bush, but people like him and Rice would be hammered for the Bush administration.
Logged

Mr. Morden
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23864
United States


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: April 17, 2012, 12:15:50 am »
Ignore

I doubt that Romney would pick a New England running mate. It might annoy Southerners to some degree.

I doubt it.  Outside of one's home state, people don't seem to care much about what region running mates come from anymore.  I'd bet a substantial number of voters don't even know what states the candidates are from.

There are definitely reasons for not picking Ayotte, but "She's from New England" seems like the least important.
Logged

My magnum opus is now complete.  Read the complete "The Adventures of Hobo Orgy Guy & Blondie" (now in paperback).

Watch Dave being briefed by the mods.

Being a moderator is basically like one giant party.  Except you're the one ruining the party and everyone hates you.
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34436


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: April 17, 2012, 01:41:01 am »
Ignore

I doubt that Romney would pick a New England running mate. It might annoy Southerners to some degree.

I doubt it.  Outside of one's home state, people don't seem to care much about what region running mates come from anymore.  I'd bet a substantial number of voters don't even know what states the candidates are from.

There are definitely reasons for not picking Ayotte, but "She's from New England" seems like the least important.


It's a strike against her, but it doesn't completely rule her out.
Logged

Delicious Steak Pentagram
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30490
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 on: April 17, 2012, 02:52:27 am »
Ignore

It won't be a governor or ex-governor.  Romney is not going to want someone who would cause voters to be reminded that he was the governor of Romneycare.  It'll probably be a Senator, as House members generally don't have much credibility anyway, and the way the House has been acting these past two years, I'm doubtful you could find a House Republican who would help much with getting the Independents in the middle to vote GOP.    Given the narrative, I think he'll pick someone who has reasonable credibility on the budget issues without being too controversial, so even if he picked a Representative it won't be Ryan.  None of the few Republican big-city mayors  seem to offer anything a Senator would not.  I don't see Romney as having any reason to think outside the box by picking a businessman.  However, and especially if the Iran situation goes hot before the convention, I could see him picking someone with a military background as his running mate.
Logged

Quote from: Ignatius of Antioch
He that possesses the word of Jesus, is truly able to bear his very silence. Epistle to the Ephesians 3:21a
The one thing everyone can agree on is that the media is biased against them.
m4567
Full Member
***
Posts: 135
View Profile
« Reply #37 on: April 17, 2012, 06:51:13 am »
Ignore

I think it will probably be McDonnell.
Logged
argentarius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 843
Ireland, Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: April 17, 2012, 10:57:31 am »
Ignore

I would love if he picked Chris Christie. I'd really root for him then. Christie's an asshole but is ridiculously refreshing to me. He just seems to say it as it is. Not sure if that would work on a national scale to attract swing voters though. If not Christie then Mitch Daniels. He's disliked by the jmfcsts but he doesn't discuss social issues, which the swing voters will like, and he'd turn education into an issue republicans can take advantage of.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8715
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: April 17, 2012, 11:55:45 am »
Ignore

Why are all the pundits so convinced it'll be Rob Portman?  Isn't he unpopular in Ohio?
Logged
SJoyce
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9558
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.81, S: -9.30

View Profile
« Reply #40 on: April 17, 2012, 04:05:10 pm »
Ignore

Why are all the pundits so convinced it'll be Rob Portman?  Isn't he unpopular in Ohio?

He's from Ohio (swing state), so Romney wants that. He was director of the Office of Management and Budget, which reinforces their economic as opposed to social message with the voters. And he's not a loose cannon and is unlikely to cause any issues.
Logged

HagridOfTheDeep
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5899
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 2.32, S: 0.52


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: April 17, 2012, 04:35:22 pm »
Ignore

And he's the most boring white man you'll ever meet.
Logged
milhouse24
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2331
View Profile
« Reply #42 on: April 17, 2012, 05:03:32 pm »
Ignore

Why are all the pundits so convinced it'll be Rob Portman?  Isn't he unpopular in Ohio?

He's from Ohio (swing state), so Romney wants that. He was director of the Office of Management and Budget, which reinforces their economic as opposed to social message with the voters. And he's not a loose cannon and is unlikely to cause any issues.

Portman is the "SAFEST" choice in "do no harm" with a decent upside if he can bring in enough voters to win Ohio.  However, He's not a strong choice to guarantee Ohio because he's a new Senator and not as popular in Ohio as you need to win the state. 

The other VP possibilities all carry High Risk, with very little electoral upside.  The only risk for Portman is how much dirt the liberal media can tie him to with the Bush White House.  If they can tie him to some budget fiascos, then Portman is sunk as VP.

It is interesting thought that a lot of media pundits and liberals are talking up Portman, probably because he is such an obvious choice.  But another reason to talk him up in the media, is to see how he does with the Spotlight on him, and see what dirt bloggers can dig up.  He's still nationally unknown, and reporters are now seeing him as a valuable candidate for VP. 

If Portman survives the media spotlight for the next couple of months, without any past scandals, he will probably be the VP choice.  If the Portman possibility improves the Romney Poll Numbers in Ohio, then it will almost guarantee him the VP. 

I agree that the 2nd strongest choice on paper would be Jeb.  He's far more popular among republicans and indepedent catholics than portman, and he has no obvious scandals, besides his drug addict children. 
Logged
redcommander
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3823
View Profile
« Reply #43 on: April 17, 2012, 05:11:55 pm »
Ignore

Kelly Ayotte.  She'd bring home New Hampshire, perhaps NJ, and make Connecticut close.  And she'd help with the youth vote and women nationwide.

I doubt that Romney would pick a New England running mate. It might annoy Southerners to some degree.

What helps with Ayotte is that she relieves pro-lifers of Romney's conversion to their cause. She did after all bring planned parenthood to court as Attorney General.
Logged
SJoyce
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9558
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.81, S: -9.30

View Profile
« Reply #44 on: April 17, 2012, 05:36:02 pm »
Ignore

Why are all the pundits so convinced it'll be Rob Portman?  Isn't he unpopular in Ohio?

He's from Ohio (swing state), so Romney wants that. He was director of the Office of Management and Budget, which reinforces their economic as opposed to social message with the voters. And he's not a loose cannon and is unlikely to cause any issues.

Portman is the "SAFEST" choice in "do no harm" with a decent upside if he can bring in enough voters to win Ohio.  However, He's not a strong choice to guarantee Ohio because he's a new Senator and not as popular in Ohio as you need to win the state. 

The other VP possibilities all carry High Risk, with very little electoral upside.  The only risk for Portman is how much dirt the liberal media can tie him to with the Bush White House.  If they can tie him to some budget fiascos, then Portman is sunk as VP.

It is interesting thought that a lot of media pundits and liberals are talking up Portman, probably because he is such an obvious choice.  But another reason to talk him up in the media, is to see how he does with the Spotlight on him, and see what dirt bloggers can dig up.  He's still nationally unknown, and reporters are now seeing him as a valuable candidate for VP. 

If Portman survives the media spotlight for the next couple of months, without any past scandals, he will probably be the VP choice.  If the Portman possibility improves the Romney Poll Numbers in Ohio, then it will almost guarantee him the VP. 

I agree that the 2nd strongest choice on paper would be Jeb.  He's far more popular among republicans and indepedent catholics than portman, and he has no obvious scandals, besides his drug addict children. 

Portman isn't popular, but he's bland, and after Sarah, what they want is bland. As for Jeb Bush, the issue with him has been highlighted.
Logged

ajb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 869
United States


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: April 17, 2012, 07:58:16 pm »
Ignore

Why are all the pundits so convinced it'll be Rob Portman?  Isn't he unpopular in Ohio?

He's from Ohio (swing state), so Romney wants that. He was director of the Office of Management and Budget, which reinforces their economic as opposed to social message with the voters. And he's not a loose cannon and is unlikely to cause any issues.

Portman is the "SAFEST" choice in "do no harm" with a decent upside if he can bring in enough voters to win Ohio.  However, He's not a strong choice to guarantee Ohio because he's a new Senator and not as popular in Ohio as you need to win the state. 

The other VP possibilities all carry High Risk, with very little electoral upside.  The only risk for Portman is how much dirt the liberal media can tie him to with the Bush White House.  If they can tie him to some budget fiascos, then Portman is sunk as VP.

It is interesting thought that a lot of media pundits and liberals are talking up Portman, probably because he is such an obvious choice.  But another reason to talk him up in the media, is to see how he does with the Spotlight on him, and see what dirt bloggers can dig up.  He's still nationally unknown, and reporters are now seeing him as a valuable candidate for VP. 

If Portman survives the media spotlight for the next couple of months, without any past scandals, he will probably be the VP choice.  If the Portman possibility improves the Romney Poll Numbers in Ohio, then it will almost guarantee him the VP. 

I agree that the 2nd strongest choice on paper would be Jeb.  He's far more popular among republicans and indepedent catholics than portman, and he has no obvious scandals, besides his drug addict children. 

Portman isn't popular, but he's bland, and after Sarah, what they want is bland. As for Jeb Bush, the issue with him has been highlighted.

I think Bland White Guy is probably what Romney will go for -- it is after all the key demographic for the Republican Party, and no presidential candidate wants someone who will upstage him, seem more exciting than him, or highlight his weaknesses.

My free advice for Romney? Pick someone who grew up in a working-class family.
Logged
RogueBeaver
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16673
Canada


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: April 17, 2012, 08:02:04 pm »
Ignore

Why are all the pundits so convinced it'll be Rob Portman?  Isn't he unpopular in Ohio?

He's from Ohio (swing state), so Romney wants that. He was director of the Office of Management and Budget, which reinforces their economic as opposed to social message with the voters. And he's not a loose cannon and is unlikely to cause any issues.

Portman is the "SAFEST" choice in "do no harm" with a decent upside if he can bring in enough voters to win Ohio.  However, He's not a strong choice to guarantee Ohio because he's a new Senator and not as popular in Ohio as you need to win the state. 

The other VP possibilities all carry High Risk, with very little electoral upside.  The only risk for Portman is how much dirt the liberal media can tie him to with the Bush White House.  If they can tie him to some budget fiascos, then Portman is sunk as VP.

It is interesting thought that a lot of media pundits and liberals are talking up Portman, probably because he is such an obvious choice.  But another reason to talk him up in the media, is to see how he does with the Spotlight on him, and see what dirt bloggers can dig up.  He's still nationally unknown, and reporters are now seeing him as a valuable candidate for VP. 

If Portman survives the media spotlight for the next couple of months, without any past scandals, he will probably be the VP choice.  If the Portman possibility improves the Romney Poll Numbers in Ohio, then it will almost guarantee him the VP. 

I agree that the 2nd strongest choice on paper would be Jeb.  He's far more popular among republicans and indepedent catholics than portman, and he has no obvious scandals, besides his drug addict children. 

Portman isn't popular, but he's bland, and after Sarah, what they want is bland. As for Jeb Bush, the issue with him has been highlighted.

I think Bland White Guy is probably what Romney will go for -- it is after all the key demographic for the Republican Party, and no presidential candidate wants someone who will upstage him, seem more exciting than him, or highlight his weaknesses.

My free advice for Romney? Pick someone who grew up in a working-class family.

Which means Portman or Ryan.
Logged

7.35, 3.65

Les plus nobles principes du monde ne valent que par laction.  - Charles de Gaulle



Is it excessive to hold a politician's feet to the fire for giving his base the run around at every turn?
ajb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 869
United States


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: April 17, 2012, 08:21:45 pm »
Ignore

Why are all the pundits so convinced it'll be Rob Portman?  Isn't he unpopular in Ohio?

He's from Ohio (swing state), so Romney wants that. He was director of the Office of Management and Budget, which reinforces their economic as opposed to social message with the voters. And he's not a loose cannon and is unlikely to cause any issues.

Portman is the "SAFEST" choice in "do no harm" with a decent upside if he can bring in enough voters to win Ohio.  However, He's not a strong choice to guarantee Ohio because he's a new Senator and not as popular in Ohio as you need to win the state. 

The other VP possibilities all carry High Risk, with very little electoral upside.  The only risk for Portman is how much dirt the liberal media can tie him to with the Bush White House.  If they can tie him to some budget fiascos, then Portman is sunk as VP.

It is interesting thought that a lot of media pundits and liberals are talking up Portman, probably because he is such an obvious choice.  But another reason to talk him up in the media, is to see how he does with the Spotlight on him, and see what dirt bloggers can dig up.  He's still nationally unknown, and reporters are now seeing him as a valuable candidate for VP. 

If Portman survives the media spotlight for the next couple of months, without any past scandals, he will probably be the VP choice.  If the Portman possibility improves the Romney Poll Numbers in Ohio, then it will almost guarantee him the VP. 

I agree that the 2nd strongest choice on paper would be Jeb.  He's far more popular among republicans and indepedent catholics than portman, and he has no obvious scandals, besides his drug addict children. 

Portman isn't popular, but he's bland, and after Sarah, what they want is bland. As for Jeb Bush, the issue with him has been highlighted.

I think Bland White Guy is probably what Romney will go for -- it is after all the key demographic for the Republican Party, and no presidential candidate wants someone who will upstage him, seem more exciting than him, or highlight his weaknesses.

My free advice for Romney? Pick someone who grew up in a working-class family.

Which means Portman or Ryan.

Looked them up on Wikipedia (I know...). Ryan's family's construction business has been around for four generations. Portman's father was a successful entrepreneur, successful enough to send his son to a private day school, and then to Dartmouth. Neither is really that working-class.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8715
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: April 17, 2012, 08:27:42 pm »
Ignore

Rubio and Martinez apparently both came from working-class backgrounds.
Logged
RogueBeaver
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16673
Canada


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: April 17, 2012, 08:30:48 pm »
Ignore

Grey-collar should be sufficient, and at any rate the narrative is more important. (Obama doesn't qualify under the purist blue-collar label either. Nor was/is it relevant.) Both of them have the narrative.
Logged

7.35, 3.65

Les plus nobles principes du monde ne valent que par laction.  - Charles de Gaulle



Is it excessive to hold a politician's feet to the fire for giving his base the run around at every turn?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines