Why I Think It's Going to be Thune...

[Politico]

In a word, nobody has less of a drawback than Thune. His only drawback is a lack of executive experience, which he can overcome by pointing out that he served in Congress much longer than Obama.

Portman is too close to the Bush Administration.

Rubio is, fairly or unfairly, tied to a couple of scandals.

McDonnell would scare too many women.

Paul would scare too many seniors.

Pawlenty is Pawlenty, and is probably the runner-up. If Pawlenty does not get the nomination, it will probably be because he coined"Obamneycare."

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

You disappear for 3 months and return with this?

No.

He isn't on the shortlist by all accounts.

For this reason.

[RogueBeaver]

He isn't on the shortlist by all accounts.

[Politico]

He isn't on the shortlist by all accounts.

And was Palin on the supposed shortlist of McCain's this time four years ago? How about Cheney twelve years ago?

[RogueBeaver]

Romney's process isn't McCain's, in case you haven't noticed. Cheney was put there for reasons which don't apply here. However we do agree that it won't be T-Paw.

[Comrade Funk]

I can't see it being Thune. I think it's going to end up being Ryan.

[Politico]

Romney's process isn't McCain's, in case you haven't noticed. Cheney was put there for reasons which don't apply here. However we do agree that it won't be T-Paw.

No two campaigns are completely alike in every way, but they all engage in providing smokescreens from time to time, or keeping vital information "close to the vest." There is no reason to believe Thune is definitely out of contention simply because some reports are saying he is not on the shortlist.

We all know the first rule when picking a running mate: The choice should do no harm to the ticket. Can anybody really make the argument that any other candidate has fewer drawbacks than Thune? That is the argument I am looking for with this thread...

[pepper11]

I can't see it being Thune. I think it's going to end up being Ryan.

This. It's gunna be Ryan.

[Politico]

I can't see it being Thune. I think it's going to end up being Ryan.

This. It's gunna be Ryan.

I would love for it to be Ryan since he is the one candidate with a firm grasp of the fiscal issues facing America. I would love the choice...if it could be done without scaring seniors. Unfortunately, I feel like that cannot be done. The last thing Romney needs is to provide some ammo for Team Obama to scare seniors. It should be Ryan, and I wish it were, but political considerations trump all in this game.

[Senator Snowstalker]

Thune seems like the "so boring he couldn't possibly harm the ticket" choice. Even if he loses, he may want to be on a losing ticket if he's aiming for a leadership spot (which he probably covets more than the VP slot).

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

Although I believe Thune would be credible, and I like him, and he was my top choice a few months ago, I believe the pick will be one of the names being thrown around more frequently.

[milhouse24]

I think it should be Thune, but for unknown reasons Romney is not seriously considering him.

I think Thune would excite the conservative christians more than Pawlenty and that will help GOTV in the swing states. 

Either way, Thune will be on the GOP ticket in 2016.

[Joe Republic]

Nah, he has that 'made-for-TV-movie-president' look about him, like Romney himself.

Fun fact though: he'd be the third GOP VP nominee in a row to come from a safe R state with only three electoral votes.

[Politico]

It might not be Thune, but only because he's noticeably taller than Romney. Then again, Bush was noticeably taller than Reagan, as was the case with Mondale and Carter as well. You don't see it a lot nowadays, though. The last time I can think of was Dukakis/Bentsen.

[RogueBeaver]

Huh? GHWB is 6'2" and Reagan was 6'1". Also LBJ was 6'4" and JFK 6'. Beyond 3 inches or so it really isn't a good idea. I mean if you see pictures of Romney (6'2") with Rubio or Jindal, both of whom are literally half a foot shorter, it looks godawful.

Oh and it isn't Thune. Check the main Veep thread.

[Governor Scott]

For some reason, I don't think presidential candidates take size into account when they're selecting a veep.

[Assistant to the Regional Manager Cathcon]

Having met Pawlenty earlier today, it looks like he's putting in his time, acting as a surrogate for Romney.

[Politico]

Huh? GHWB is 6'2" and Reagan was 6'1".

Looks like more of a difference to me:

Also LBJ was 6'4" and JFK 6'.

And I guess Agnew was taller than Nixon.

Beyond 3 inches or so it really isn't a good idea. I mean if you see pictures of Romney (6'2") with Rubio or Jindal, both of whom are literally half a foot shorter, it looks godawful.

Reportedly, Thune is 6'4" and Romney is 6'2" but the difference looks more noticeable than that. Perhaps Romney is rounded up and Thune is rounded down.

Oh and it isn't Thune. Check the main Veep thread.

Well, we'll see. My money is on Thune or Pawlenty. The ticket needs a safe choice with humble Midwestern roots. Portman is too closely associated with the Bush Administration and Ryan is too young, too youthful-looking and too likely to scare seniors.

[Politico]

For some reason, I don't think presidential candidates take size into account when they're selecting a veep.

They take everything into account these days. Obviously image is a significant part of the equation. All else equal, I am sure they pick the veep who is slightly shorter rather than slightly taller.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

They take everything into account these days. Obviously image is a significant part of the equation.

In that case, Rubio and Jindal (both about 5'9'') may be stronger contenders than we realize.

On a related note, I have to admit that I don't understand what the apparent trifecta of top-tier contenders have that these two and Thune do not. Rubio, Jindal, and Thune all seem like stronger VP choices than Ryan, Pawlenty, and Portman.

I mean, I get that the Path to Prosperity excites some conservatives, so I guess that I understand the advantage of talking him up. And Pawlenty has been Romney's catspaw since he ended his own campaign, and Portman is probably a safe choice. But if you want someone exciting, why pick Ryan rather than Rubio? If you want someone reliable, why pick Portman or Pawlenty rather than Jindal or Thune?