Does the GOP nominee really need to pick a woman or minority for a running mate?

[ShadowRocket]

Lately I've been thinking about this. Since the end of the 2012 cycle, it has been pretty much been conventional wisdom that whoever the GOP nominee is will probably need to pick a woman or minority for their running mate in order to be competitive, much less win.

But is this really true? I mean would say Rubio or Ayotte at the bottom of ticket really peel away votes cast by women or Hispanics from Hillary or whoever the Democratic nominee is?

Its started to seem to me that a woman or minority pick could reek of tokenism, and that the GOP nominee would be better off ensuring some moderation in rhetoric in regards to immigration, abortion, etc.

[Suburbia]

No, they don't need to if they don't want to. I prefer them pick Thune or Portman. They're safe (Thune is safer), vetted, won't do no harm, and won't detract attention. They could help in the Midwest. McMorris Rodgers and Blackburn are probably the safest female choices, they won't overshadow the top.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Either Rubio or Martinez is pretty much a lock for the VP slot.

[Suburbia]

Either Rubio or Martinez is pretty much a lock for the VP slot.

Maybe, the big question is how can they do in debates? Martinez may be good in debates, she was a former prosecutor. Thune would probably do better, IMO.

[Mister Mets]

Of course not. Susanna Martinez can pick a white guy for her Veep.

The serious answer is that it's not essential, but it is advantageous, especially when there's likely to be a decent bench to choose from.

But it could turn out that a ticket with two white guys works best due to the unique circumstances of the election two years from now.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Its started to seem to me that a woman or minority pick could reek of tokenism, and that the GOP nominee would be better off ensuring some moderation in rhetoric in regards to immigration, abortion, etc.

You pretty much answered your own question.

It doesn't matter if Rubio/Martinez get picked for Veep, because Hispanics/women are still turned off by the GOP's platform/rhetoric. It's for the same reason that despite Reagan's amnesty for 3 million illegals, Hispanics turned right around and gave Dukakis a higher % in 1988 than they did for Reagan in 1984.

Similarly, it doesn't matter if Mia Love/Herman Cain/Bobby Jindal/Nikki Haley are nominated for anything, because blacks and Asians are still hurt by the GOP's policies and turned off by nativist tone.

The truth is that (on economics) until Hispanics and blacks close the income gap with whites and feel economically secure, they will continue voting for the party that doesn't want to destroy safety nets. On social issues, the nativist tone and "tough on crime = throw black people into jail" will continue to continue to alienate them, and to an extent Asians as well on immigration.

[Beet]

Similarly, it doesn't matter if Mia Love/Herman Cain/Bobby Jindal/Nikki Haley are nominated for anything, because blacks and Asians are still hurt by the GOP's policies and turned off by nativist tone.

Those four are not good barometers. Jindal and Haley are Asians in states with very few Asians. Mia Love is a black running in a district with very few blacks. Herman Cain never really ran a serious campaign at all. A better barometer might be 2006, when the GOP ran a high quality black candidate (Michael Steele). He lost by just 10 points in one of the most heavily Democratic states in the nation, in a Democratic wave year, for a federal seat previously held by Democrats. Exit polls showed he carried 25% of the African-American vote. If Romney had had those numbers among African-Americans, he would have won Ohio and likely the election.

It's true that minorities are turned off by the GOP's "tone" and rhetoric, but the candidates they run are a part of their tone too. It's harder to cast a party as racist if their standard bearer is of the race in question.

Electoral politics comes down to numbers, and in terms of sheer numbers, a party causes itself grave problems if it preemptively cedes a significant chunk of the electorate. Take Romney and blacks, for example. Let's say blacks are 15% of the electorate (as they were in Ohio in 2012). Romney effectively ceded them before the campaign even started, and Obama for all intents and purposes completely swept them. So now you're effectively starting the campaign 15 points behind, competing for the remaining 85% of voters. Of that 85%, you have to win 50 parts out of 85, or 59%. In other words, you have to win a landslide in the actual campaign, among voters in contention, just to get by in a squeaker. This was Hillary's problem during the 2008 primaries. She was landsliding among the primary voters her campaign was actually competing for, in terms of policies, debates, appearances, etc., but it wasn't enough because of the massive numbers of voters who weren't even in contention. During the 2012 campaign, when I went down to Norfolk we were basically just canvassing these black neighborhoods, and normally when canvassing you have to skip from house to house, and be careful and ask people who they're supporting before reminding them to vote (in case you get a relative, etc.), but we were just doing pure GOTV on every house on the block. No candidate or party should ever make it that easy for their opposition on purpose.

Now add to that 12-15% black voters, Hispanics, Asians, and other minorities who will soon be 33% of the electorate or more, and it's clear that if Republicans give up on these voters, mathematically, they're putting themselves in a virtually impossible position. In that position, their only strategy is to hope for complete race-based polarization in the electorate that allows them to massively consolidate the white vote. But that will be extremely difficult as long as Democrats are still reaching out to those same white voters through their campaigns, with messages and policies that many of those whites are going to support. In other words, it's a structural disadvantage.

The Democrats have a similar issue with working class, blue collar white voters. They can either give up on "those hicks in Appalachia" and become a solely urban-based, social-issues party that marries latte-liberal whites with minorities (a mistake, for the same reasons as outlined above, only replace minorities with poor whites), or they can take up their historically-central economic message of distribution to the poor and middle class.

Both parties are at a crossroads, and I think it's in the interest of each party to pursue the path that keeps the largest share of the electorate open to persuasion and outreach by itself.

(As for women/the gender gap, while birth control and abortion are substantively very important issues, seeing that Romney won 56% of white women - a higher share than George W. Bush in 2004 - and still lost, from a numbers standpoint it's frankly a sideshow. The gender gap among whites isn't that big. The Democrats' crushing margins among minorities are why Obama was elected and the racial dynamics will drive the trends, which should be the source of the GOP's worry.)

[CountryClassSF]

I am strongly opposed to affirmative action nominees.

[henster]

It will happen whether you like it or not every, GOP strategist will be talking about the necessity of a female running mate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I am strongly opposed to affirmative action nominees.

Does it bother you that black Republicans are appointed to positions at very high rates compared to how many black Republicans there are? I'm thinking of Thomas, Powell, Rice, and Tim Scott.

[CountryClassSF]

I am strongly opposed to affirmative action nominees.

Does it bother you that black Republicans are appointed to positions at very high rates compared to how many black Republicans there are? I'm thinking of Thomas, Powell, Rice, and Tim Scott.

No not at all. They are some of my favorites (minus Colin P.) -- with proven experience. But when I hear Republicans screaming "CHRISTIE/MARTINEZ!" I don't know what else would be the reason other than shes a Latina woman.

She hasn't even finished her first term yet.

I'm fine with any candidate who's qualified, but Martinez just doesn't stand out to me as someone who would be the best pick.

[IceSpear]

I am strongly opposed to affirmative action nominees.

Does it bother you that black Republicans are appointed to positions at very high rates compared to how many black Republicans there are? I'm thinking of Thomas, Powell, Rice, and Tim Scott.

No not at all. They are some of my favorites (minus Colin P.) -- with proven experience. But when I hear Republicans screaming "CHRISTIE/MARTINEZ!" I don't know what else would be the reason other than shes a Latina woman.

She hasn't even finished her first term yet.

I'm fine with any candidate who's qualified, but Martinez just doesn't stand out to me as someone who would be the best pick.

Don't you support Cruz?

[CountryClassSF]

I am strongly opposed to affirmative action nominees.

Does it bother you that black Republicans are appointed to positions at very high rates compared to how many black Republicans there are? I'm thinking of Thomas, Powell, Rice, and Tim Scott.

No not at all. They are some of my favorites (minus Colin P.) -- with proven experience. But when I hear Republicans screaming "CHRISTIE/MARTINEZ!" I don't know what else would be the reason other than shes a Latina woman.

She hasn't even finished her first term yet.

I'm fine with any candidate who's qualified, but Martinez just doesn't stand out to me as someone who would be the best pick.

Don't you support Cruz?

That'd be on the basis of he's pretty much the only conservative that's going to be running unless Perry and Santorum make it to top tier.

I'd probably peg Perry and Santorum above Cruz in my choices

[Lupo]

No, I don't think so.  A black or Hispanic runningmate won't move the needle enough to make any real difference.  I'd rather see the GOP address this demographic problem down-ballot, by recruiting more minorities for congressional races

[Mister Mets]

I am strongly opposed to affirmative action nominees.

The bench of potential minority running mates is pretty strong, so it's possible that a white guy will lose on the merits.

But there are other factors than merit that have counted in the past.

It helped Paul Ryan that he was young and from the Rust Belt. When he was under consideration, a factor in Portman's favor was that he was from Ohio.

Geraldine Ferraro is remembered as a botched attempt at pandering, but part of the rationale behind selecting Eagleton was that he was Catholic.

It's odd how there's opposition to particular types of affirmative action in politics (based on gender, ethnicity and race) but no one cares if it's based on region.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I am strongly opposed to affirmative action nominees.

Does it bother you that black Republicans are appointed to positions at very high rates compared to how many black Republicans there are? I'm thinking of Thomas, Powell, Rice, and Tim Scott.

No not at all. They are some of my favorites (minus Colin P.) -- with proven experience. But when I hear Republicans screaming "CHRISTIE/MARTINEZ!" I don't know what else would be the reason other than shes a Latina woman.

She hasn't even finished her first term yet.

I'm fine with any candidate who's qualified, but Martinez just doesn't stand out to me as someone who would be the best pick.

Don't you support Cruz?

That'd be on the basis of he's pretty much the only conservative that's going to be running unless Perry and Santorum make it to top tier.

I'd probably peg Perry and Santorum above Cruz in my choices

How is Santorum a true "conservative" in your mind but Christie isn't?  Santorum has a history of supporting unions and agrees with Democrats on the minimum wage issue...

[SWE]

Christie is definitely to the right of Santorum by any objective measure

[daveosupremo]

I am strongly opposed to affirmative action nominees.

Does it bother you that black Republicans are appointed to positions at very high rates compared to how many black Republicans there are? I'm thinking of Thomas, Powell, Rice, and Tim Scott.

No not at all. They are some of my favorites (minus Colin P.) -- with proven experience. But when I hear Republicans screaming "CHRISTIE/MARTINEZ!" I don't know what else would be the reason other than shes a Latina woman.

She hasn't even finished her first term yet.

I'm fine with any candidate who's qualified, but Martinez just doesn't stand out to me as someone who would be the best pick.

Don't you support Cruz?

That'd be on the basis of he's pretty much the only conservative that's going to be running unless Perry and Santorum make it to top tier.

I'd probably peg Perry and Santorum above Cruz in my choices

Santorum is objectively not conservative. TARP? Medicaid Part D? He's a big government loving social engineer. He's got some decent tax reform ideas, but being pro life and anti gay marriage does not make someone a conservative.

How is he in any way shape or form better than Ted Cruz?