Romney VP search begins (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 02:13:52 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Romney VP search begins (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Romney VP search begins  (Read 17734 times)
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
« on: April 16, 2012, 09:39:30 PM »

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
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2012, 04:05:10 PM »

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
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
« Reply #2 on: April 17, 2012, 05:36:02 PM »

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
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2012, 08:40:54 PM »

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.

Pawlenty was the son of a milk truck driver and was the only one of his siblings to attend college. Is that working-class enough?
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
« Reply #4 on: April 18, 2012, 03:51:43 PM »


Mine's on Daniels or Pawlenty.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2012, 07:27:16 AM »

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 don't really see an issue with Jeb Bush on the ticket.  A lot of people love Jeb Bush in Florida. 

But at least with Jeb Bush on the ticket, you know how the election will play out.

Liberals and Democrats hate Dubya Bush, Cheney, Condi Rice, GHW Bush, the entire Bush Family, and even Sophia Bush.

The media hates Dubya Bush, the entire Bush family, and Jeb Bush for no reason other than his last name is Bush, and that he love middle east oil and wars just like his brother. 

Unaffiliated Indepedent voters:  Some indepdents are dumb and don't care about politics so they probably think Jeb Bush is the same person as Dubya Bush.  But if they don't care about politics, then they probably don't "hate" the Bush family. 

Other independents are smarter and cynical of both Dems and Repubs.  But these "smart independents" know that Jeb is a governor from Florida and fairly competent and socially moderate.  These indepdents may also hate the Bush family, but they might not hate Jeb Bush as much. 

These independents may also be white Catholics, and Jeb Bush is a socially moderate white Catholic as well.  While, Dubya Bush was a born again Christian who pandered to christian conservatives, Jeb is a Catholic who will pander to moderate white Catholics. 

Then you have Republicans of all ages, shapes, and sizes who love the Bush family and Jeb Bush. 

So, basically the media and Obama campaign will purposed confuse voters into believing Jeb is the same person as Dubya and that the Bush family is pure evil. 

But Republicans and moderate Catholics will determine that Jeb Bush is a different human being than Dubya. 

The polling will show Obama/Biden losing to Romney/Bush and that the "Bush" name recognition will actually "IMPROVE" voter turnout for Romney in Ohio and Florida. 

While the "Bush" name will have little to no effect on "Bush haters" turning out for Obama. 

In conclusion, the Bush name will actually help increase voter turnout for Romney, rather than hurt him or drive voters away to Obama.  The Bush name recognition is far stronger than any of the other weaker VP options like Portman, Thune, or Rubio. 

This is politics, and in politics "Name Recognition" will win every time.

IF Jeb Bush is fairly competent and a social moderate, does that anger the Republican base? Isn't the conventional wisdom that he needs to pick a social conservative to appease the masses? And as to their being the same: Jeb Bush was a member of a significant neocon think tank (Project for a New American Century), which promoted the continuation, maintenance, and expansion of an empire throughout the world. Don't think too many voters will go for that.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
« Reply #6 on: April 19, 2012, 05:54:43 PM »

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 don't really see an issue with Jeb Bush on the ticket.  A lot of people love Jeb Bush in Florida. 

But at least with Jeb Bush on the ticket, you know how the election will play out.

Liberals and Democrats hate Dubya Bush, Cheney, Condi Rice, GHW Bush, the entire Bush Family, and even Sophia Bush.

The media hates Dubya Bush, the entire Bush family, and Jeb Bush for no reason other than his last name is Bush, and that he love middle east oil and wars just like his brother. 

Unaffiliated Indepedent voters:  Some indepdents are dumb and don't care about politics so they probably think Jeb Bush is the same person as Dubya Bush.  But if they don't care about politics, then they probably don't "hate" the Bush family. 

Other independents are smarter and cynical of both Dems and Repubs.  But these "smart independents" know that Jeb is a governor from Florida and fairly competent and socially moderate.  These indepdents may also hate the Bush family, but they might not hate Jeb Bush as much. 

These independents may also be white Catholics, and Jeb Bush is a socially moderate white Catholic as well.  While, Dubya Bush was a born again Christian who pandered to christian conservatives, Jeb is a Catholic who will pander to moderate white Catholics. 

Then you have Republicans of all ages, shapes, and sizes who love the Bush family and Jeb Bush. 

So, basically the media and Obama campaign will purposed confuse voters into believing Jeb is the same person as Dubya and that the Bush family is pure evil. 

But Republicans and moderate Catholics will determine that Jeb Bush is a different human being than Dubya. 

The polling will show Obama/Biden losing to Romney/Bush and that the "Bush" name recognition will actually "IMPROVE" voter turnout for Romney in Ohio and Florida. 

While the "Bush" name will have little to no effect on "Bush haters" turning out for Obama. 

In conclusion, the Bush name will actually help increase voter turnout for Romney, rather than hurt him or drive voters away to Obama.  The Bush name recognition is far stronger than any of the other weaker VP options like Portman, Thune, or Rubio. 

This is politics, and in politics "Name Recognition" will win every time.

IF Jeb Bush is fairly competent and a social moderate, does that anger the Republican base? Isn't the conventional wisdom that he needs to pick a social conservative to appease the masses? And as to their being the same: Jeb Bush was a member of a significant neocon think tank (Project for a New American Century), which promoted the continuation, maintenance, and expansion of an empire throughout the world. Don't think too many voters will go for that.
Now your saying that republicans are.  I think there are far more economic, wealth-minded, low taxes republicans throughout the country than evangelicals.  These republicans go where the best investment strategy goes.  In 2008, a case can be made it was a better to cut foreign spending on wars rather than to increase surge involvement.  A lot of these people include independents, or so called Reagan Democrats.  These are people who care about government spending and eliminating the deficit.  Bill Clinton ran on a platform of eliminating the deficit.  But Jeb is valuable because he has strong name recognition among the Evangelicals who supported his brother.  He will be seen as an Evangelical supporter, even though he is not an evangelical in practice.  That is probably the best marketing for a candidate, because he is able to get the support of Christian conservatives while also getting the support of Moderate Social Catholic votersand Hispanics.  These are very valuable constituencies to have and to count on their support in November. 

I'm not saying that Republicans are "dumb christian conservatives who only care about religion and guns", I'm saying that a good chunk (maybe 40%) of the Republican Party is socially conservative. I do think there are many more (maybe 60%) fiscally conservative Republicans  who are in the party in an attempt to promote their economic, rather than their social, views; however, 40% is nothing to scoff at, and in an attempt to balance the two spheres, Romney (from the latter portion) probably wants to pick someone from the former portion, such as Rubio, McDonell, or Huckabee. In addition, there are possible negative repercussions for the party if Romney chooses someone who maintains moderate views on social issues, such as say Governor Sandoval of Nevada, or Gov. Bush, that may depress turnout among the base, which could allow someone like Obama to eke out victories in states like the Carolinas and Georgia.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
« Reply #7 on: April 19, 2012, 09:26:55 PM »

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 don't really see an issue with Jeb Bush on the ticket.  A lot of people love Jeb Bush in Florida. 

But at least with Jeb Bush on the ticket, you know how the election will play out.

Liberals and Democrats hate Dubya Bush, Cheney, Condi Rice, GHW Bush, the entire Bush Family, and even Sophia Bush.

The media hates Dubya Bush, the entire Bush family, and Jeb Bush for no reason other than his last name is Bush, and that he love middle east oil and wars just like his brother. 

Unaffiliated Indepedent voters:  Some indepdents are dumb and don't care about politics so they probably think Jeb Bush is the same person as Dubya Bush.  But if they don't care about politics, then they probably don't "hate" the Bush family. 

Other independents are smarter and cynical of both Dems and Repubs.  But these "smart independents" know that Jeb is a governor from Florida and fairly competent and socially moderate.  These indepdents may also hate the Bush family, but they might not hate Jeb Bush as much. 

These independents may also be white Catholics, and Jeb Bush is a socially moderate white Catholic as well.  While, Dubya Bush was a born again Christian who pandered to christian conservatives, Jeb is a Catholic who will pander to moderate white Catholics. 

Then you have Republicans of all ages, shapes, and sizes who love the Bush family and Jeb Bush. 

So, basically the media and Obama campaign will purposed confuse voters into believing Jeb is the same person as Dubya and that the Bush family is pure evil. 

But Republicans and moderate Catholics will determine that Jeb Bush is a different human being than Dubya. 

The polling will show Obama/Biden losing to Romney/Bush and that the "Bush" name recognition will actually "IMPROVE" voter turnout for Romney in Ohio and Florida. 

While the "Bush" name will have little to no effect on "Bush haters" turning out for Obama. 

In conclusion, the Bush name will actually help increase voter turnout for Romney, rather than hurt him or drive voters away to Obama.  The Bush name recognition is far stronger than any of the other weaker VP options like Portman, Thune, or Rubio. 

This is politics, and in politics "Name Recognition" will win every time.

Name Recognition wins every time? There are some good counterexamples to that. The 1972 Delaware Senate race is one.

Barring scandal association, name recognition is very helpful. 

Given the Bush administration, name recognition can also be a curse.

But how will the "Bush name" be spun by the media and by conservatives. 

The liberal media will demonize the Bush Family because they all want to start Christian Crusades around the world to help their oil buddies. 

Yet the conservatives will rally around the "Bush name" because they know that Jeb is a different person than George. 

Then the question will be how independents feel about the "Bush name"  Will people be sick of dynasties even though Jeb was a successful 2 term governor of diverse and hispanic Florida.  Or will voters be sick of ruinous families, like allowing Bill Clinton to repeat his shenanigans, affairs, whatever, in the white house as first spouse. 

But my point is that Jeb also appeals to a wider set of citizens than Dubya.  Jeb appeals to Hispanics who love him, and moderate catholics.  Will there be enough time to erase the hatred for Dubya for Jeb to run in 2012, at least amongst indepedents? 

Your choice scenario (dynasty vs Clinton) doesn't really make sense. The alternative to voting for Romney/Bush in 2012 is Hillary? The issue is, when people hear Bush, they don't think Jeb. They'll walk into the polling booths with memories of Iraq and Afghanistan in their heads, and that just might be enough to push them to the Dems.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2012, 06:56:21 PM »

Really? I think Florida will be easier for him.

Actually, to me, it almost seems like PA and OH have switched roles. Just looking at things now, I think Romney has a better chance in Pennsylvania than Ohio.

Romney can win Pennsylvania and Florida on his own merits in close races. Ohio might not be so easy. Of course, picking a Jeb or Rubio figure might lock in Florida rather than leaving it to chance, which would be nice. So I guess we ask ourselves: Does he want to secure Florida, or does he want to open up another state to a 50/50 chance instead of a 55-45 one?

Nope. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/04/obama-doing-well-in-florida.html
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 13 queries.