Is Huntsman a perfect VP for Rubio?

[Vosem]

Geographic balance; moderate to balance out Rubio's TP-ness; white dude counters minority; has been a Governor and has foreign policy experience to balance out Rubio's legislatorial largely domestic-focused Senate career.

I literally can't think of a better VP for Rubio than Huntsman.

[You kip if you want to...]

Makes Rubio look inexperienced.

[Blue3]

No.

The running mate needs to at least have the same general worldview as the nominee.

[Simfan34]

Huntsman is a perfect president.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

I think Rubio would be better balanced by a tenured (and white) conservative ala Bob McDonnell. I don't think it'll be a huge deal, but the older folks may be a little wary of a Cuban named Rubio as their GOP nominee. I know it took a while for Obama to warm up retired union guys like my grandfather who never thought they'd see a black feller win the nomination.

Huntsman is more of a pipe dream for us liberals who are amused to see a Republican presidential candidate espouse scientific logic on global warming and evolution. He'd probably ruffle more feathers in his party than add anything in the general election, because I think a guy like Rubio already has a lot of appeal to Independents.

[sentinel]

Huntsman is a perfect president.

[bballrox4717]

No.

The running mate needs to at least have the same general worldview as the nominee.

This. Huntsman probably views Rubio as a party hack and most likely wouldn't even accept a VP offer from Rubio.

[Enderman]

I would say that either Jindal or Martinez would be Rubio's top picks. But if he narrowly leads against Christie, and he didn't pick a VP yet, I would say in 2016 it would be a Rubio/Christie ticket. That, or Christie/Rubio.

[wan]

How about Huntsman on the top of the ticket and rubio for vice president.

[Maxwell]

I like Huntsman on a lot of issues, but I think it would definitely be hard to run him for Vice President, or just about anything right now.

[ShadowRocket]

I still think that he would need an elder statsman in the Cheney/Biden mold. So I'd agree that Huntsman would make a lot of sense. The other name I've heard suggested being Daniels.

[Mister Mets]

No.

The running mate needs to at least have the same general worldview as the nominee.

This. Huntsman probably views Rubio as a party hack and most likely wouldn't even accept a VP offer from Rubio.

If Huntsman wants to be President, he'd take Veep.

[Mr. Taft Republican]

I would say so if Huntsman were more personally exciting than, say, sand.

[Mister Mets]

I do think Huntsman would be a great running mate for Rubio.
He's older, but not too old.
He adds geographic diversity.
He has accomplishments in the private sector, whereas Rubio has been in politics since he was in his 20s.
He has executive experience.
He has significant foreign policy experience.
The media likes him. He has moderate credentials.
He's dull, but that's not necessarily a bad thing with Rubio's charisma. Look at Clinton and Gore, or Reagan and Bush.

And if he wants to be President, his main way of doing it is being Veep, or at least handling himself credibly as a candidate for national office.

[badgate]

Way too much voltage at the bottom of the ticket.

[morgieb]

Rubio's immigration views are already damaging him a little bit. Picking Huntsman WILL piss off a lot of the base.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Plus, Huntsman is just a terrible communicator. And that's really the only thing that matters when you're running for office. A man who's that qualified should not waste his time talking about cheesy things like the "trust deficit." My God.

[heatmaster]

Just because Rubio is making an awful lot of noises, this far out, means nothing as far as 2016 goes, too much hype in light of the immigration issue; besides Rubio is up in 2016 for re-election, when it comes down to it, I think he will wait it out; my guess is that Huntsman is the most likeliest of reasons. I will enumerate them.
1. Historically & traditionally the GOP goes for the next individual in line, which rules out Christie, Jindal, Martinez and Rubio in one fell swoop; Huntsman, no matter how bad he did in the primaries in 2012, competed and has been vetted, also it his turn.
2. Huntsman is rich, has been a pretty good Governor, has been Ambassador to China (Foreign Policy experience).
3. His Mormon background will and should be a non issue.
4. He is a Westerner.
5. He will have learned from the mistakes he made in the 2012 primaries, plus he will be better organized.
6. Jeb Bush is the only likely competitor who could be the gorilla in the room; forget Rick Perry, he is not going to be taken seriously.
7. As for V.P. choice for Huntsman, I can imagine Chris Christie would be a logical pick or there is Nikki Haley and then there is Rob Portman, John Thune and Ted Cruz.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

Just because Rubio is making an awful lot of noises, this far out, means nothing as far as 2016 goes, too much hype in light of the immigration issue; besides Rubio is up in 2016 for re-election, when it comes down to it, I think he will wait it out; my guess is that Huntsman is the most likeliest of reasons. I will enumerate them.
1. Historically & traditionally the GOP goes for the next individual in line, which rules out Christie, Jindal, Martinez and Rubio in one fell swoop; Huntsman, no matter how bad he did in the primaries in 2012, competed and has been vetted, also it his turn.
2. Huntsman is rich, has been a pretty good Governor, has been Ambassador to China (Foreign Policy experience).
3. His Mormon background will and should be a non issue.
4. He is a Westerner.
5. He will have learned from the mistakes he made in the 2012 primaries, plus he will be better organized.
6. Jeb Bush is the only likely competitor who could be the gorilla in the room; forget Rick Perry, he is not going to be taken seriously.
7. As for V.P. choice for Huntsman, I can imagine Chris Christie would be a logical pick or there is Nikki Haley and then there is Rob Portman, John Thune and Ted Cruz.

No, this whole idea falls apart at reason 1. The whole "GOP nominates the runner-up" theory has only played out in the past because that guy was legitimately the strongest candidate in the field (or at least very close to it). Rick Santorum or Jon Huntsman are not winning the nomination in 2016.

[heatmaster]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you on that score, Santorum definitely won't get the nod and the Republican party has to a certain degree gone with the next guy on the rung of the ladder.
Here are examples.
1. 1960, Nixon by virtue of being Vice President.
2. 1964, Goldwater because of the half-hearted effort to score a few delegates in 1960 & also because he was on the cusp of a movement.
3. 1968, Nixon by virtue of his close loss in 1960 & because he was a known quantity.
4. 1980, Reagan, because he came a close second to Ford in '76 & because he was regarded as Goldwater's ideological heir.
5. 1988, Bush because he was Reagan's Vice President.
6. 1996, Dole because he was an also ran to Bush in 1988.
7. 2000, Bush, well only god only knows as well as the opinion makers and money men, he came from a big state, had a brand name, was the son of a former President and was not anathema to the party establishment as McCain was.
8. 2008, McCain because he was the runner-up to Bush in 2000.
12. 2012, Romney because he was one of many runners-up to McCain in 2008.
Likewise in 2016, Huntsman seems a more plausible contender than Santorum. Ryan doesn't have a prayer, because his home state as well as congressional district supported Obama.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

Okay, even if you believe there's some mystical, genetic force in GOP primary voters that automatically leads them to vote for the previous cycle's runner-up, Hunstman wasn't the runner-up. Or the third-place finisher, or fourth-place. He was less of a factor than party hacks like Bachmann and Perry and even did worse than symbolic runs from Cain and Paul. The runner-up theory is an example of correlation but not causation; people weren't voting for Bob Dole in '96 because he they thought they owed him a turn, they did it because they didn't want Pat Buchanan to be president and the field was thin. Conservatives looked EVERYWHERE to find an alternative to Mitt Romney. 2016's nominee won't be a guy who ran in 2012... book it.

"Gretchen, stop trying to make Huntsman happen. It's not going to happen."

[heatmaster]

I will acknowledge that you are correct about the supposition that Huntsman won't be the guy, what then convinces you that Chris Christie is the guy, or Marco Rubio will be? Granted Rubio has star power, but his senate seat is up in '16 and because he's the flavor of the moment, with immigration reform on the radar, but 2016 is an eternity away and I wonder if Rubio might be the straw man for Democrats, there is something called over exposure and then there is the parable about the tortoise and the hair; so Huntsman has as much right as Rubio to be on the bench and I doubt Huntsman or your guy Rubio are going be dovetailed; my bet is on Huntsman, Rubio won't risk his Senate seat in 2016.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

Rubio isn't "my guy", I just don't see the point in ignoring he and Christie are very strong contenders for the nomination right now while Huntsman is a non-starter.

[heatmaster]

Did you not think, that Huntsman understands the fatigue factor? Besides he can bide his time until sometime next year; a week is forever in politics, a year is an eternity and well anything longer than that, doesn't bear thinking about; notice Nikki Haley, Bob McDonnell, Susana Martinez to name but a few; Rubio and Christie are the talk of the town now, that is granted, because there is nobody else around, that is bound to change, once Huntsman and few others throw there hats into the ring.

[Mr. Morden]

4. 1980, Reagan, because he came a close second to Ford in '76 & because he was regarded as Goldwater's ideological heir.
5. 1988, Bush because he was Reagan's Vice President.
6. 1996, Dole because he was an also ran to Bush in 1988.
7. 2000, Bush, well only god only knows as well as the opinion makers and money men, he came from a big state, had a brand name, was the son of a former President and was not anathema to the party establishment as McCain was.
8. 2008, McCain because he was the runner-up to Bush in 2000.
12. 2012, Romney because he was one of many runners-up to McCain in 2008.
Likewise in 2016, Huntsman seems a more plausible contender than Santorum. Ryan doesn't have a prayer, because his home state as well as congressional district supported Obama.

All of the above were either leading or tied for the lead in the super early primary polling done ~3 years out.  By that logic, it should be Rubio this time, since he leads the early polls.