Deb Fischer: Potential Republican VP Nominee?

[Never]

When looking at potential running mates on the Republican side, Deb Fischer is starting to come to my mind. For one, she's one of only four Republican women in the Senate, causing her to stand out more than a typical senator would. Some of her actions, like responding to the war on women criticism directed at Republicans, could very well be beneficial to a GOP ticket. Looking at Fischer's policy positions, she appears to be uniformly conservative, an aspect of her persona that could prove useful to an establishment/moderate presidential nominee as an ideological balance. The one strike against her is lack of lengthy experience, having only been in statewide office through her current position as senator since 2013, but if she proves herself to be surefooted during a potential vetting for becoming a vice-presidential candidate, this might not be much of an issue.

So, could Fischer be a potential GOP running mate? Why or why not? Personally, I think that she would be a long-shot, but if the Republican presidential nominee wanted a dark-horse candidate who still seems to be capable of handling herself on the national stage, Fischer might be a good bet.

[tmthforu94]

I don't think she adds much to the ticket - might provide a minimal boost in the Midwest, Iowa in particular, and also would satisfy the small bloc of voters who lean Republican but are committed to getting a woman elected in 2016.

Assuming Hillary is the nominee and that she is still ahead of her Republican opponent when the time comes to choose someone, they'll be looking more to pick a VP that could change the dynamics of the race. She's more of a Joe Biden than a Sarah Palin when it comes to that. She will definitely be under consideration if the Republican nominee is up in the polls and needs a safe pick.

[Suburbia]

One of the safest female picks next to Blackburn. She would do no harm, she may add a point or two in Iowa, but she wouldn't supercharge the race.

[NHLiberal]

Why would one pick Deb Fischer when Kelly Ayotte comes with all the same "advantages," plus being higher-profile, more intelligent, more telegenic, and from a swing state? Not that Ayotte would be a good pick, but Fischer would be a nightmare.

[henster]

Why would one pick Deb Fischer when Kelly Ayotte comes with all the same "advantages," plus being higher-profile, more intelligent, more telegenic, and from a swing state? Not that Ayotte would be a good pick, but Fischer would be a nightmare.

Because Ayotte is up for re-election in 2016 and will likely be in a competitive election for her seat against a strong Dem like Hassan or Lynch. If she were to be selected as VP her seat would surely be lost.

[Never]

Why would one pick Deb Fischer when Kelly Ayotte comes with all the same "advantages," plus being higher-profile, more intelligent, more telegenic, and from a swing state? Not that Ayotte would be a good pick, but Fischer would be a nightmare.

Because Ayotte is up for re-election in 2016 and will likely be in a competitive election for her seat against a strong Dem like Hassan or Lynch. If she were to be selected as VP her seat would surely be lost.

What henster said. Also, VP candidates don't always do a great job flipping swing states (as seen with Paul Ryan), so picking Ayotte wouldn't automatically improve a ticket's chances in NH. Ayotte is more telegenic, but Fischer doesn't exactly look like a hag, and after seeing Caribou Barbie bomb in 2008 due to lack of substance, comeliness isn't a major thing that I look for in a candidate.

[NHLiberal]

Why would one pick Deb Fischer when Kelly Ayotte comes with all the same "advantages," plus being higher-profile, more intelligent, more telegenic, and from a swing state? Not that Ayotte would be a good pick, but Fischer would be a nightmare.

Because Ayotte is up for re-election in 2016 and will likely be in a competitive election for her seat against a strong Dem like Hassan or Lynch. If she were to be selected as VP her seat would surely be lost.

Lynch isn't running. Ayotte can run for reelection either way, but I agree that she'd have a harder time if she was also running for VP (though I think she is screwed regardless)

[moderatevoter]

NHLiberal, you don't think Hassan will run against Ayotte either, right?

[NHLiberal]

NHLiberal, you don't think Hassan will run against Ayotte either, right?

I think she probably will. All I was saying is that Lynch has declared publicly that he isn't running, and it makes sense

[Del Tachi]

The Sarah Palin comparisons would be endless. 

[NHLiberal]

The Sarah Palin comparisons would be endless. 

Exactly. Though it's tough to think of a Republican female VP who wouldn't invoke those comparisons, even if they would be unfair in some cases

[Never]

The Sarah Palin comparisons would be endless. 

Exactly. Though it's tough to think of a Republican female VP who wouldn't invoke those comparisons, even if they would be unfair in some cases

I guess that Palin really put a bad taste in some people's mouths for female running mates, at least at this point in time. I think that Fischer could carry herself much better than Palin ever did. Fischer would probably be of average quality as a running mate, but sometimes average is all a ticket needs for the number-two slot. I can't imagine her faring too poorly in interviews and debates, and she seems to have a Middle America appeal without being unprofessional. On the other hand, women in politics tend to be held to a higher standard than men, so perhaps Fischer would be a slightly risky pick from the get-go, though to no great fault of her own.

[bedstuy]

She's terrible, even for a Republican Senator.  It would be absolutely ridiculous to make her VP.

[henster]

If Republicans are desperate for a female running mate and Martinez, McMorris-Rodgers etc. are not available then I could see them going for her. But it would come with a big risk she has not been tested on the national stage at all and has a very conservative voting record. 

[Mister Mets]

She might make the long list just because a base-pleasing female Senator from a western state could be a good balance for a few potential Republican presidential nominees.

But there are enough knocks against her to make her an unlikely pick. Nebraska is a small state. Her record isn't impressive. She hasn't made much of an impact. And there would be an experience argument, somewhat mitigated by her age.

One more factor is that she might not be ambitious enough to want national office. She became a state senator in her fifties, and ran for the US Senate when she was term-limited, catching a lucky break as an acceptable alternative in a race where two statewide officeholders ran a very negative campaign.

On the other hand she is part of a demographic trend, women who achieve professional success later in life after their children have grown. Ad men could probably sell that story.

[Fuzzy Bear]

She's a "potential" VP pick but so is John Barasso and Susan Collins and Jeff Sessions, and any GOP Senator you can name.

I don't see how having a female VP nominee will help the GOP if HRC is the Democratic nominee.  As a strategy move, I would tend to advocate that the GOP nominate 2 macho types (Military Vet tough guys) to maximize the Republican's advantage with MEN.  Much is made about the Democrats' advantage with women, but the GOP's advantage with men is nothing to sniff at.

The GOP has a rare opening in 2016 to project a combination of conservatism and competence.  They haven't always done that.  Romney, who IS competent, ran a campaign that caused him to have to stifle his accomplishments. McCain was poised to do that, but when the economic crisis hit in 2008 he bombed.  (Surprisingly, too; many thought he would personally ride to the rescue and undercut Obama.)  Picking a grandmotherly Freshman Senator isn't the way to do this.  Nor, IMO, is picking an ethnic flavor of the month when the candidate isn't particularly overwhelming.  (Really, why would Susana Martinez be a particularly good President?) 

Deb Fischer has nothing to offer the GOP in making their ticket more electable.  She's the kind of pick a candidate would gravitate toward if the delegate count were close and she, or someone close to her, was vested enough to Deb Fischer to deliver uncommitted delegates toward a candidate in exchange for her selection as VP candidate.  The only marginal electoral vote she would have influence over is the one (1) electoral vote the winner of the vote in Nebraska's 2nd CD get.  Marco Rubio, on the other hand . . .

 

[NHLiberal]

I would tend to advocate that the GOP nominate 2 macho types (Military Vet tough guys) to maximize the Republican's advantage with MEN. 

I see what you're getting at, but I think this would backfire

[Fuzzy Bear]

I would tend to advocate that the GOP nominate 2 macho types (Military Vet tough guys) to maximize the Republican's advantage with MEN. 

I see what you're getting at, but I think this would backfire

Putting a woman on the GOP ticket for its own sake in 2016 would be like Dukakis picking Bentsen.  He needed someone to help him expand the map, and Bentsen could only help Dukakis lose Texas by less than Mondale did.

Two military vets on the GOP ticket with Foreign Policy chops could help the GOP regain some lost edge with women; that would be better than picking a "token female" to be a VP in the Thomas Marshall vein.  They could make a case that they would be defenders of boys in the "War On Boys" in education, and expose the fallacies in the "War on Women" argument.  In other words, they could go ahead and fight out this political gender war, and fight it out without appearing to be sheer bullies.  There are all sorts of false analogies and logical fallacies in those claiming that there's a "War on Women".  The problem with the GOP is that they haven't put forth a coherent response to the arguments raise.  Their 2016 task, in part, is to make some of those arguments and improve their performance with men.

[NHLiberal]

I would tend to advocate that the GOP nominate 2 macho types (Military Vet tough guys) to maximize the Republican's advantage with MEN. 

I see what you're getting at, but I think this would backfire

Putting a woman on the GOP ticket for its own sake in 2016 would be like Dukakis picking Bentsen.  He needed someone to help him expand the map, and Bentsen could only help Dukakis lose Texas by less than Mondale did.

Two military vets on the GOP ticket with Foreign Policy chops could help the GOP regain some lost edge with women; that would be better than picking a "token female" to be a VP in the Thomas Marshall vein.  They could make a case that they would be defenders of boys in the "War On Boys" in education, and expose the fallacies in the "War on Women" argument.  In other words, they could go ahead and fight out this political gender war, and fight it out without appearing to be sheer bullies.  There are all sorts of false analogies and logical fallacies in those claiming that there's a "War on Women".  The problem with the GOP is that they haven't put forth a coherent response to the arguments raise.  Their 2016 task, in part, is to make some of those arguments and improve their performance with men.

Like I said. I completely understand what you are saying. I just think it would backfire.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Sarah Palin comparisons would be endless. 

Exactly. Though it's tough to think of a Republican female VP who wouldn't invoke those comparisons, even if they would be unfair in some cases

Condi Rice would be bad in non Palin like ways.