Could Rob Portman still be a potential VP, now that he supports Gay Marriage?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:29:36 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Could Rob Portman still be a potential VP, now that he supports Gay Marriage?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Could Rob Portman still be a potential VP, now that he supports Gay Marriage?  (Read 3028 times)
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 15, 2013, 03:10:42 PM »
« edited: March 15, 2013, 03:13:28 PM by Starwatcher »

I don't think he was ever going to run for President, but being the Senator of Ohio and fairly uncontroversial it seemed like he could be picked for VP (like he almost was in 2012).

Does supporting gay marriage rule that out for him?

Did people know that Dick Cheney supported gay marriage in 2000, or did that come later?
Logged
Cobbler
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 914
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2013, 03:14:27 PM »

I don't think it will in 2016.
Logged
Liberalrocks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2013, 04:13:56 PM »

NO , The tea party faction of that party would never allow it.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,175
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2013, 04:17:31 PM »

Unfortunately, no.  Today he signed that off.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2013, 04:35:49 PM »

NO , The tea party faction of that party would never allow it.
Aren't the Tea Party technically not supposed to care about social issues?
Logged
badgate
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,466


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2013, 04:49:05 PM »

NO , The tea party faction of that party would never allow it.
Aren't the Tea Party technically not supposed to care about social issues?

You're thinking vintage Tea Party, dear.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2013, 06:02:57 PM »

No. He's no longer 'Murrica enough.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2013, 06:21:36 PM »

Dick Cheney somehow made it through. I don't think this will disqualify Portman from VP, especially if the Presidential candidate is seen as from the conservative wing of the GOP.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2013, 07:00:58 PM »

Cheney certainly did not support gay marriage in 2000.  (Or rather, if he "supported" it, he did so secretly, without having told anyone.)  Of course, virtually no politician did back then, from either party.  Things have changed pretty rapidly.
Logged
Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,500
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -5.22

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2013, 08:16:45 PM »

Not in 2016.  Possibly for 2020.
Logged
badgate
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,466


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2013, 08:33:46 PM »

Cheney didn't endorse marriage equality until May 2009. Just for some perspective.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/06/02/dick-cheney-speaks-out-in-favour-of-gay-marriage/
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2013, 10:05:36 PM »

I believe that non-conservative Portman will retire or be primaried out in 2016. He cannot simply betray his constituents wishes (2 to 1 in favor of traditional marriage).

He spent the entire day running to sympathetic liberal press to announce his "evolution." I am happy He is there to represent Ohio, not just his family members.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2013, 10:08:33 PM »

He spent the entire day running to sympathetic liberal press to announce his "evolution."

The Columbus Dispatch is what passes for the "liberal press" these days?
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2013, 10:12:06 PM »

I believe that non-conservative Portman will retire or be primaried out in 2016. He cannot simply betray his constituents wishes (2 to 1 in favor of traditional marriage).

He spent the entire day running to sympathetic liberal press to announce his "evolution." I am happy He is there to represent Ohio, not just his family members.

The tide is turning: 2 to 1 back then is now, in a recent poll, 47 to 49. That result isn't great: but it's showing of the momentum being on the side of the right. I believe conservatives need to look at marriage this way: Why should government have a role in one persons marriage to another? Get the government out of marriage by allowing gay people to marry. I think that's a fundamentally conservative idea, but maybe that's just me.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 16, 2013, 01:48:21 AM »

I think a more conservative candidate (Rubio, Paul, Perry) could pick Portman and get away with it, while making it look like he's more to the center.

Christie and Huntsman probably wouldn't, as the GOP base hates them enough already. Santorum probably wouldn't because he cares too much about traditional marriage to consider him.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,475
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2013, 02:52:33 PM »
« Edited: March 16, 2013, 03:04:48 PM by TDAS04 »

I doubt it, but who knows.  Things are changing fast.  In 2008, no serious Democratic candidate for POTUS would have risked supporting gay marriage.  Those were the Dark Ages.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2013, 02:58:08 PM »

NO , The tea party faction of that party would never allow it.
Aren't the Tea Party technically not supposed to care about social issues?

You're thinking vintage Tea Party, dear.


By and large, this is not the Tea Party's issue, though Tea Partiers tend to be more conservative, and thus, tend to be more socially conservative.

Still: Look at what's happening to the generic GOP position on gay rights. Ten years ago, George W. Bush was arguing that our country's sodomy laws, which put gays in prison for being gay, were a good thing. Now, you at least have Republicans prefacing their hate with "People are free to love who they want, but ..." Republicans finally understand they're on the losing side of this issue and they're playing it as such.

The goalposts got moved a lot if you pay attention to the nuances. And they'll keep getting moved over the next three years, too.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 16, 2013, 03:31:40 PM »

I think it depends on the circumstances. If the GOP has realized and corrected their current problems, then I think he'd be on more than a few candidates' shortlists. But if it's going to take a wave election or two to get the GOP back in shape, then don't count on it.
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 16, 2013, 04:10:26 PM »

I think it wont make a dif as long as the presidential candidate opposed SSM. In fact it could be seen as a bonus to show openness and diversity
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2013, 07:14:12 PM »

He'll be running for reelection in 2016, in a swing state. I don't see him accepting VP unless it looks like the GOP candidate's almost definitely going to win.

And yes, being pro-equal marriage means he'll be ruled out of consideration anyway. Think of it this way, if 2016 is anything like 2012 and the GOP are apprehensive about their frontrunner, said frontrunner won't want to do anything that rocks the boat with the base too much.
Logged
nolesfan2011
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,411
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.68, S: -7.48

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 18, 2013, 08:00:26 PM »

Yes he could, the times they are a-changin.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2013, 08:07:29 PM »

If Portman gets primaried, it's time to nuke the GOP once and for all.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 19, 2013, 01:09:33 AM »

Portman nuked his chances period. He threw his lot in with the establishment GOP and the Dems and thus will surely pay for it. The GOP needs to stand their ground on this issue because they are on the right side of eternity on the marriage debate. Why can't the progressives out there understand that nature, Nature's God (ie The God of the Bible, the God of the Jew and Christian) , and Dan Quayle are on this issue. The left has admitted such.

Logged
Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin
Runeghost
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,368


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 19, 2013, 06:02:32 AM »

Portman nuked his chances period. He threw his lot in with the establishment GOP and the Dems and thus will surely pay for it. The GOP needs to stand their ground on this issue because they are on the right side of eternity on the marriage debate. Why can't the progressives out there understand that nature, Nature's God (ie The God of the Bible, the God of the Jew and Christian) , and Dan Quayle are on this issue. The left has admitted such.


Thank you for this lovely demonstration of Poe's Law in action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
Logged
BluegrassBlueVote
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,000
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 19, 2013, 07:38:11 AM »

Portman nuked his chances period. He threw his lot in with the establishment GOP and the Dems and thus will surely pay for it. The GOP needs to stand their ground on this issue because they are on the right side of eternity on the marriage debate. Why can't the progressives out there understand that nature, Nature's God (ie The God of the Bible, the God of the Jew and Christian) , and Dan Quayle are on this issue. The left has admitted such.



Are we also on the wrong side of history for public stonings?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
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 0.058 seconds with 13 queries.