Talk Elections

Led by Beth Myers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hunt-commences-for-a-vice-president-pick/2012/04/16/gIQAue9XLT_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/vice-presidential-candidates/

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-taps-longtime-adviser-head-vp-search-141359749.html

Paul Ryan or bust. Brilliant, articulate, charismatic, and he'll destroy Biden in a debate. Rubio is just a smooth talking tea party idealogue, who isn't going to win Mitt any new fans.

Paul Ryan seems more like the teacher's pet in grade school then the Vice President of the United States- skinny, high voice, never served

Paul Ryan has a Bavarian ancestry. Interesting.

Not really. He's an American living in the Midwest. That's not uncommon. :P

Still sticking with Susana Martinez as the best pick.

Agreed. The Palin comparisons will be made, but she's no Sarah Palin. This woman is smart, articulate, and charismatic. It's not phony charisma either.

Romney's not going to have a Latino pick. Rubio, Martinez and Sandoval have all said they would say no if asked. Nobody wants to be a part of this failure.

She's not the best pick this year.  She'd be a good prez/VP in 2016/2020, though.

Both Biden and Cheney denied having interest, too. Funny how that worked out.

Thune has everything he needs: Midwestern appeal, Washington experience, won't overshadow Romney.

I'd go with Paul Ryan, he's a critical thinker, knows the ins and outs of financial business and is charismatic.  Rubio is my 2nd choice.

She said no.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that the big institutions of government (tax code and education system to some extent), (Medicare and Social Security especially) need reform because
1)they were designed for an earlier era, 2)they are becoming unfordable, 3) They are CROWDING out other good Liberal purposes: (education, transportation, safety net for poor). 
He thought the Democrat party should reform them because they had created them and they had an obligation to fix them.  He said that if the Democrats were unwilling to do it than the Republicans MUST lead.
Then Paul Ryan steps up to the challenge...
Paul Ryan has become "Mr.Big" in the GOP because he had the courage to touch the third rail.  Typically Mr.BIG's are on their party's ticket because the campaigns often end up being about them anyway.  Being brilliant helps as well.  A debate with Biden is not a fair fight.  Old Joe might have to forfeit.  Obama wouldn't be able to keep up with him during the campaign.  Ryan could re-tabulate half the federal budget in the time it takes Obama to string four words together.

I think Christie is his best bet. He's not afraid to take on people and he is much more charismatic then Mitt.

Of the choices that have been discussed here, Paul Ryan is too controversial, Chris Christie would overshadow Romney, Marco Rubio is inexperienced, Brian Sandoval is unknown. Martinez would be the best pick, but I think she really doesn't want to do it. Jindal, I think, will be the pick.

I doubt Romney will tap Jindal as his running mate. Jindal may be an exciting and fresh face in the Republican Party, but as his disastrous response to the 2009 State of the Union shows, he is not ready for the national stage. Biden is no slouch, and if Jindal isn't prepared he'll get torn apart at the debates.
I think Romney is going to play it safe and choose Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. The Republicans desperately need a southerner to balance out the ticket (Romney is the first northerner in years to win the republican nomination), and McDonnell has a reliably conservative record and is a competent speaker. He may not be the charismatic figure the GOP is hoping for, but he is unlikely to tank the ticket a la Sarah Palin. Plus, he is the only one I've seen who actually wants the job.

Thune or Martinez are possibilities, but each one carries their own risks and neither are tested as national figures. Christie, Rubio, and Ryan would overshadow the ticket, and I don't think any of them want to risk their future ambitions on a failed run with Romney. Portman might be willing, but his ties to the Bush administration are too deep, and it will let Obama run against George Bush's policies instead of his own record. 

Ryan would be a disaster. Does the Republican party really want to lose the Senior vote?

Christie's from a similar region to Romney and would overshadow him. McDonnell's too easy to portray as a right-winger. Sandoval is too moderate. Jindal probably isn't ready. Thune, Portman and most of the Senators are too white bread, and make Romney look exciting in comparison.

Martinez or Rubio would the best choices.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYCb-UyHc90&feature=relmfu
Paul Ryan Challenges Critics

At some point you actually have to do something about problems.  If we aren't going to talk about solving critical problems, than how can we solve them?  We don't treat Americans like children, that's what we have democrats are for.   


Also, seniors being completely unaffected by ALL of Ryan's plans would flock to Obama why?

Remember the Clinton-Gingrich wars? That's what happens when you fumble the defense. Or farther from home, Australia '93.

I agree with those who think Martinez and Rubio are the best picks.

Condi Rice, Christie, Sandoval and Jindal are on the next tier.

I'd stay away from Ryan or McDonnell just because of the potential negatives they bring which could hurt Romney with seniors or women. That said I'd take either before a boring white bread pick, Romney doesn't really have the luxury of going super safe. He needs some kind of dynamic pick.

Rubio and Martinez have said NO quite clearly. Christie is a social moderate, Sandoval is pro-choice and a tax-raiser, etc.

Ryan doesn't have any negatives because the democrats haven't passed (or seriously proposed) a budget in three years... They can't criticize a serious budget without drawing attention to the fact that they aren't serious.  That is a major bonus not a negative.  The democrats will not be able to resist creating their own death spiral.  If he isn't the VP Romney risks not being able to defend the slander on Ryan.        

You want to stop the lying?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

I don't think Christie being a social moderate matters since most conservatives love the guy anyway. He one of the few moderate picks that Romney could get away with.

Christie is abrasive and arrogant, we don't need that for our ticket.

Mitch Daniels? Tim Pawlenty? As for lesser-knowns... John Thune? Bob Corker? Most likely Portman. It's not gonna be Jindal, not Rubio, not Christie, not Jeb, not Huckabee, not McDonnell. You need to restore people's faith in the GOP VP nominee vetting process after 2008, and Thune, Corker, Daniels, Pawlenty, and Portman all seem like safe, known qualities, which is most likely what Romney's looking for.

He is brash, no doubt about that but he brings some energy to the ticket and people seem to like his style. He isn't my first choice but I'd take him before the boring middle aged white guys like Portman or Thune.

"Boring" is an asset to Romney, who doesn't really posses an energetic personality to begin with. He doesn't want to be overshadowed by his VP like Bentsen did to Dukakis.

Kelly Ayotte.  She'd bring home New Hampshire, perhaps NJ, and make Connecticut close.  And she'd help with the youth vote and women nationwide.

I doubt that Romney would pick a New England running mate. It might annoy Southerners to some degree.

Jeb Bush is a solid pick, even though his name is Bush.

Intelligent, capable, from the south, speaks Spanish, brings in Florida.

He would dearly love to become an integral part of the Romney Era about to commence in January, 2013.

I still think Jindal is the one. People who aren't political junkies don't remember/care about a STOU response in 2009. It won't be an issue. Also he is a socially-conservative Southerner and Indian-American to boot. I know it shouldn't matter, but I can't escape the feeling that Romney will need a woman or minority to contrast with Obama. The only "conventional" choice I can see is Rob Portman. I don't think his ties to Bush will be an issue. In 2008, yes, but not now.

As a budget director it probably still could. Fair enough if it was some trivial link to Bush, but people like him and Rice would be hammered for the Bush administration.

I doubt it.  Outside of one's home state, people don't seem to care much about what region running mates come from anymore.  I'd bet a substantial number of voters don't even know what states the candidates are from.

There are definitely reasons for not picking Ayotte, but "She's from New England" seems like the least important.

It's a strike against her, but it doesn't completely rule her out.

It won't be a governor or ex-governor.  Romney is not going to want someone who would cause voters to be reminded that he was the governor of Romneycare.  It'll probably be a Senator, as House members generally don't have much credibility anyway, and the way the House has been acting these past two years, I'm doubtful you could find a House Republican who would help much with getting the Independents in the middle to vote GOP.    Given the narrative, I think he'll pick someone who has reasonable credibility on the budget issues without being too controversial, so even if he picked a Representative it won't be Ryan.  None of the few Republican big-city mayors  seem to offer anything a Senator would not.  I don't see Romney as having any reason to think outside the box by picking a businessman.  However, and especially if the Iran situation goes hot before the convention, I could see him picking someone with a military background as his running mate.

I think it will probably be McDonnell.

I would love if he picked Chris Christie. I'd really root for him then. Christie's an asshole but is ridiculously refreshing to me. He just seems to say it as it is. Not sure if that would work on a national scale to attract swing voters though. If not Christie then Mitch Daniels. He's disliked by the jmfcsts but he doesn't discuss social issues, which the swing voters will like, and he'd turn education into an issue republicans can take advantage of.

Why are all the pundits so convinced it'll be Rob Portman?  Isn't he unpopular in Ohio?

He's from Ohio (swing state), so Romney wants that. He was director of the Office of Management and Budget, which reinforces their economic as opposed to social message with the voters. And he's not a loose cannon and is unlikely to cause any issues.

And he's the most boring white man you'll ever meet.

Portman is the "SAFEST" choice in "do no harm" with a decent upside if he can bring in enough voters to win Ohio.  However, He's not a strong choice to guarantee Ohio because he's a new Senator and not as popular in Ohio as you need to win the state. 

The other VP possibilities all carry High Risk, with very little electoral upside.  The only risk for Portman is how much dirt the liberal media can tie him to with the Bush White House.  If they can tie him to some budget fiascos, then Portman is sunk as VP.

It is interesting thought that a lot of media pundits and liberals are talking up Portman, probably because he is such an obvious choice.  But another reason to talk him up in the media, is to see how he does with the Spotlight on him, and see what dirt bloggers can dig up.  He's still nationally unknown, and reporters are now seeing him as a valuable candidate for VP. 

If Portman survives the media spotlight for the next couple of months, without any past scandals, he will probably be the VP choice.  If the Portman possibility improves the Romney Poll Numbers in Ohio, then it will almost guarantee him the VP. 

I agree that the 2nd strongest choice on paper would be Jeb.  He's far more popular among republicans and indepedent catholics than portman, and he has no obvious scandals, besides his drug addict children. 

What helps with Ayotte is that she relieves pro-lifers of Romney's conversion to their cause. She did after all bring planned parenthood to court as Attorney General.

Portman isn't popular, but he's bland, and after Sarah, what they want is bland. As for Jeb Bush, the issue with him has been highlighted.

I think Bland White Guy is probably what Romney will go for -- it is after all the key demographic for the Republican Party, and no presidential candidate wants someone who will upstage him, seem more exciting than him, or highlight his weaknesses.

My free advice for Romney? Pick someone who grew up in a working-class family.

Which means Portman or Ryan.

Looked them up on Wikipedia (I know...). Ryan's family's construction business has been around for four generations. Portman's father was a successful entrepreneur, successful enough to send his son to a private day school, and then to Dartmouth. Neither is really that working-class.

Rubio and Martinez apparently both came from working-class backgrounds.

Grey-collar should be sufficient, and at any rate the narrative is more important. (Obama doesn't qualify under the purist blue-collar label either. Nor was/is it relevant.) Both of them have the narrative.

Read a bit more about Kelly Ayotte, she seems like she'd be a pretty good pick (although somebody who has been in the Senate for just 2 years clearly requires vetting). Some of her background (suing Planned Parenthood) would work very well with conservatives -- she's a woman, pushing back on the "War on Women" line -- she's from a swing state. It'd be kinda funny to see the Republicans nominate a Massachusetts/New Hampshire ticket. Some poster earlier in the thread said the South could be offended, but the South will vote Republican anyway and in any case I don't think regionalization is so strong in the US as this being a disqualifier.

Ayotte is probably too strident a SoCon to be appealing.  It's not like conservatives won't vote for Mitt, so his running mate has to be someone with legitimate crossover appeal.

And both of them are Shermanesque. (Martinez is the legal guardian of her developmentally disabled sister)

It won't be a 20-monther. Especially not an unknown woman, given that the word "Palin" will (unjustly) appear somewhere in the first paragraph of every media story.

Pawlenty was the son of a milk truck driver and was the only one of his siblings to attend college. Is that working-class enough?

Not sure what narrative you had in mind, but I was thinking that someone who'd actually had to work his way up would be a more credible spokesperson for Romney's economic policies. Someone who can say "I've lived the American dream -- I started with nothing, and through hard work and skill I've made it." Romney can't really claim that, and neither, it seems can Portman or Ryan.

She did get 60% in her first run for Senate.

Barone makes some good points about suburbia.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/win-burbs-mitt-may-pick-double-vanilla-veep/485831

Larry Craig(R-ID)
A Monty Burns/Waylon Smithers Ticket.

Again, I endorse Kelly Ayotte.

Typically when you accuse someone of lying you state something contrary to what they said...  I can't even respond because you have failed to do so.  I'm guessing that you think A budget passed in 2009 (3 years ago) is relevant to something, but I'm not sure what as that confirms what I said.

Here is an outline of everything:
 http://budget.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=252305

()

It has been 1,085 days since the Senate passed a budget, which is 2.97 years.  Want to apologize?

Portman, Ryan, and everyone else.   

The 2012 and 2013 Budget proposals were serious proposals. The 2013 budget proposal has a projected deficit $500 BILLION less than 2012. Just because they originated with the opposition party doesn't render them as a joke. I suggest you get a new prescription for your glasses, with 90% less hackery.

Democrats can't pass their pure budget because they are a minority in the house and the rules of filibuster in the Senate mean they can't pass it there either (despite holding a majority). The house has more lax rules, enabling Republicans to "pass" their pure budgets (which are swiftly defeated in the Senate/Oval Office). Of course, neither Democrats nor Republicans have passed a budget that is 100% pure to their party in the past 18 months, because surprise! We have a divided government.

Again, you are lying if you think Democrat proposals "aren't serious." As I would be if I said the Republican (Ryan) plan wasn't serious either.

This has what, exactly, do to with the Veepstakes? :puzzled:

It was a response to AmericaNation's fallacious statements earlier in the thread.

Whatev. My bracketology remains remains unchanged: the final 4, alphabetically, are Jindal/McDonnell/Portman/Ryan.

My money is on Portman or Thune.

Mine's on Daniels or Pawlenty.

I agree.

CNN GOP VP Poll(Republicans only)....

Rice 26%
Santorum 21%
Christie 14%
Rubio 14%
Ryan 8%
Jindal 5%
McDonnell 1%
Portman *
Someone else (vol.) 4%
None/no one (vol.) 2%
No opinion 4%


http ://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/04/18/rel4g. pdf

I don't really see an issue with Jeb Bush on the ticket.  A lot of people love Jeb Bush in Florida. 

But at least with Jeb Bush on the ticket, you know how the election will play out.

Liberals and Democrats hate Dubya Bush, Cheney, Condi Rice, GHW Bush, the entire Bush Family, and even Sophia Bush.

The media hates Dubya Bush, the entire Bush family, and Jeb Bush for no reason other than his last name is Bush, and that he love middle east oil and wars just like his brother. 

Unaffiliated Indepedent voters:  Some indepdents are dumb and don't care about politics so they probably think Jeb Bush is the same person as Dubya Bush.  But if they don't care about politics, then they probably don't "hate" the Bush family. 

Other independents are smarter and cynical of both Dems and Repubs.  But these "smart independents" know that Jeb is a governor from Florida and fairly competent and socially moderate.  These indepdents may also hate the Bush family, but they might not hate Jeb Bush as much. 

These independents may also be white Catholics, and Jeb Bush is a socially moderate white Catholic as well.  While, Dubya Bush was a born again Christian who pandered to christian conservatives, Jeb is a Catholic who will pander to moderate white Catholics. 

Then you have Republicans of all ages, shapes, and sizes who love the Bush family and Jeb Bush. 

So, basically the media and Obama campaign will purposed confuse voters into believing Jeb is the same person as Dubya and that the Bush family is pure evil. 

But Republicans and moderate Catholics will determine that Jeb Bush is a different human being than Dubya. 

The polling will show Obama/Biden losing to Romney/Bush and that the "Bush" name recognition will actually "IMPROVE" voter turnout for Romney in Ohio and Florida. 

While the "Bush" name will have little to no effect on "Bush haters" turning out for Obama. 

In conclusion, the Bush name will actually help increase voter turnout for Romney, rather than hurt him or drive voters away to Obama.  The Bush name recognition is far stronger than any of the other weaker VP options like Portman, Thune, or Rubio. 

This is politics, and in politics "Name Recognition" will win every time.

Daniels will never do it because his wife will literally be destroyed and ruined by the liberal media covering her first divorce. 

If you weren't sickened, shocked, amused, satisfied by the media's Sarah Palin family massacre, then you will be prepared for the politics of personal destruction that will befall on Mitch Daniel's family. 

I don't know how many sick Feminists love to see Sarah Palin personally ruined, but it shows how much worse women have it in politics and the political media.  Maybe its just all about abortion, but it proves how awful it is to be a woman in politics. 

Name Recognition wins every time? There are some good counterexamples to that. The 1972 Delaware Senate race is one.

IF Jeb Bush is fairly competent and a social moderate, does that anger the Republican base? Isn't the conventional wisdom that he needs to pick a social conservative to appease the masses? And as to their being the same: Jeb Bush was a member of a significant neocon think tank (Project for a New American Century), which promoted the continuation, maintenance, and expansion of an empire throughout the world. Don't think too many voters will go for that.

Barring scandal association, name recognition is very helpful. 

Now your saying that republicans are dumb christian conservatives who only care about religion and guns.  I think there are far more economic, wealth-minded, low taxes republicans throughout the country than evangelicals.  These republicans go where the best investment strategy goes.  In 2008, a case can be made it was a better to cut foreign spending on wars rather than to increase surge involvement.  A lot of these people include independents, or so called Reagan Democrats.  These are people who care about government spending and eliminating the deficit.  Bill Clinton ran on a platform of eliminating the deficit.  But Jeb is valuable because he has strong name recognition among the Evangelicals who supported his brother.  He will be seen as an Evangelical supporter, even though he is not an evangelical in practice.  That is probably the best marketing for a candidate, because he is able to get the support of Christian conservatives while also getting the support of Moderate Social Catholic voters and Hispanics.  These are very valuable constituencies to have and to count on their support in November. 

I'm not saying that Republicans are "dumb christian conservatives who only care about religion and guns", I'm saying that a good chunk (maybe 40%) of the Republican Party is socially conservative. I do think there are many more (maybe 60%) fiscally conservative Republicans  who are in the party in an attempt to promote their economic, rather than their social, views; however, 40% is nothing to scoff at, and in an attempt to balance the two spheres, Romney (from the latter portion) probably wants to pick someone from the former portion, such as Rubio, McDonell, or Huckabee. In addition, there are possible negative repercussions for the party if Romney chooses someone who maintains moderate views on social issues, such as say Governor Sandoval of Nevada, or Gov. Bush, that may depress turnout among the base, which could allow someone like Obama to eke out victories in states like the Carolinas and Georgia.

Given the Bush administration, name recognition can also be a curse.

but as I pointed out, I believe that Jeb can capture the Evangelical voters because of his brother's good will, without being an evangelcal himself.  He can have the best of both worlds by getting the evangelical vote and then capturing the moderate catholic voters as well.  There will be enough believers who trust Jeb over someone like rubio or portman.

But how will the "Bush name" be spun by the media and by conservatives. 

The liberal media will demonize the Bush Family because they all want to start Christian Crusades around the world to help their oil buddies. 

Yet the conservatives will rally around the "Bush name" because they know that Jeb is a different person than George. 

Then the question will be how independents feel about the "Bush name"  Will people be sick of dynasties even though Jeb was a successful 2 term governor of diverse and hispanic Florida.  Or will voters be sick of ruinous families, like allowing Bill Clinton to repeat his shenanigans, affairs, whatever, in the white house as first spouse. 

But my point is that Jeb also appeals to a wider set of citizens than Dubya.  Jeb appeals to Hispanics who love him, and moderate catholics.  Will there be enough time to erase the hatred for Dubya for Jeb to run in 2012, at least amongst indepedents? 

I can't believe there are Republicans here who want to put a Bush on the ticket. It would be an early Christmas gift for Obama.

Your choice scenario (dynasty vs Clinton) doesn't really make sense. The alternative to voting for Romney/Bush in 2012 is Hillary? The issue is, when people hear Bush, they don't think Jeb. They'll walk into the polling booths with memories of Iraq and Afghanistan in their heads, and that just might be enough to push them to the Dems.

Well, I meant with Hillary, it would be like Bill never left the white house, meaning he literally and physically gets a 3rd term in the white house to fool around in the lincoln bedroom hooking up with white house interns. 

Jeb has distanced himself professionally from Dubya for a long time and Jeb has his own life, ideas, and accomplishments.  Citizens aren't thinking about Iraq or Afghanistan anymore.  Now that bin laden is dead, no one is worrying about the mideast as much.  People are worrying about failed economic policies, so people will compare economic failures of Obama with the economic failures of Bush.  So i don't think Obama can claim his economic policies are far superior and successful, since they are basically equally not good. 

It would be risky for Jeb depending on how the media spins it.  But I think Romney needs a well-known established name on the ticket if he wants any chance at winning.  I just don't think a new politician will be able to give the ticket the gravitas it needs to beat an incumbent.

Mitt said yes.

()

I think a Romney/Bush ticket could clearly be the best bet, but sadly I doubt it will happen.

Jeb would be a fine VP in the same mold as his father, but I've highlighted the trouble with that ticket.

This may sound pessimistic, but I don't see any other VP candidate delivering swing states. 
DeMint is somewhat controversial, perhaps more controversial than the "Bush last name"
Portman is an unknown politician that would make Romney appear "too desperate to attract Ohio voters" to voters outside of Ohio. 
Thune is okay but his appeal to Southern evangelicals isn't guarantee to secure victories in North Carolina and Virginia. 
Rubio would also appear to be a "desperate untested Palin pick" for Hispanic and Florida voters. 

For all of Jeb's possible criticism, I believe that the Bush name can at least deliver Ohio and Florida by decent margins by appealing to Hispanics and evangelicals.  Do some polling on the other VP candidates and they just don't have the "pull" with voters. 

Romney wants to win, and Jeb will give him the strongest chance of winning. 
This isn't a desperate Palin pick out of left field.  This is about picking a known quantity that will deliver voters. 

Sure some voters will be scared away from another Bush, but they were probably never going to vote Republican anyways. 

Not to mention, all it will take is for Jeb Bush to open his mouth--that should reassure voters that he is NOT his brother.

Herman Cain because America needs Pizza!

Now, being serious, I think Condolezza Rice a great name but I bet she will accept the invitation...

I think Romney doesn't need a real conservative at all, I like Ryan but he will not help Romney and he will actually make some progressive voters support Obama.

 Ryan would create a little bit of fear from the poor voters, retired and middle class voters  that wouldn't vote for Obama if Ryan wasn't in the ticket. Ryan could mobilise progressive voters behind Obama and that isn't good.

Portman is a nice option but he looks very similar to Romney. In Brazil, we call candidates who don't have charisma as "Picolés de Chuchu" (Chayote Popsicle, as it doens't have any flavor) and I would say that Romney is one of these politicians so he need a more charismatic VP.

Chayote Popsicle Politician: "his ideas and his appeal to the electorate are as tasteless as the popular Brazilian vegetable, Chayote."

It won't be:

• anyone who had a leadership role over economic or foreign issues in the Bush White House
• anybody who's served less than a full term
• any person that's extremely easy to caricature (see: what SNL did to Bobby Jindal after he delivered the SOTU Response).
• someone who will needlessly alienate moderates at the expense of placating conservatives

Romney needs someone with significant foreign policy experience to cover his weakness there, plus maybe some business experience to highlight that part of his message too. Anybody know of a decent telegenic Dubya-appointed Ambassador? Jon Huntsman would honestly be a decent pick, except for the "two-Mormon" thing.

What about Dave Heineman?

He'd definitely be a "safe" pick. Seems kinda bland, though.

What about Tom Colbert or Tom Ridge?

Maybe picking up a woman could be nice, not a conservative one, a moderate, from the South... Does anyone know a Republican like that?

If he wants to appeal to the young, indebted college-student demographic he should definitely consider Virginia Foxx. [sarcasm/]

Anyone else catch Rubio's interview with Candy Crowley this morning?

He seemed to back-track from his previous promise to automatically reject a VP offer...

He now says that he won't give any more confirmations or denials because he wants to "respect the process":

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/22/sen-marco-rubio-r-fl-im-going-to-be-respectful-of-the-vp-process/


This comes after, as I posted in the Intrade thread, Rubio made what sounded like a firm denial of interest in the vice presidency, but then made a Freudian slip that got people wondering just how genuine his denial really was:

http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2012/04/rubios-vp-freudian-slip.html

Rubio will not be the VP as Romney's choice or by his own withdrawal. 

The reason Rubio is no longer "rejecting" VP is because he wants the Media Exposure and PR from being VP. 

Basically, Rubio will be seen as another Palin, who is simply too young and NOT READY to be president on day one.  Picking Rubio would be a huge desperation move on Romney for Hispanics/Florida voters, with great public uneasiness about Rubio becoming president possibly as early as 2013.  Rubio will be seen as a dangerous maverick move that senile McCain would make.  The question you have to ask yourself, Is President Rubio ready now, and the answer most Americans will say is "no." 

So the Romney staff also wants to keep Rubio in the VP headlines because it will give the perception that Romney is targeting Hispanic voters and Florida voters.  Its a PR game for the Romney camp to float Rubio's name as a leading contender.  The Romney camp will float all the Swing State VP possibilities just to pander to Swing states, even if those men/women will not be serious considerations.  Example, Obama wanted Tim Kaine as VP, but this was basically a ploy to gain Virginia voters and surrogates. 

Rubio wants to keep his name in the VP headlines because it will help his gravitas when he runs for president in 2016/2020, improves his fundraising, helps his re-election, improves his Senate clout, and media clout.  Rubio is playing the PR game plain and simple.  He has no substance as a VP candidate in 2012. 

Romney won't make a desperate high risk pick to pander to voters. 

But Romney will make a pick for someone who he cannot win without and offers substance as a serious presidential possibility.  The Romney VP will offer just the right ingredients to win the necessary independent and swing state voters.  The question is finding the right person if he/she exists. 

Good luck with that.

Agree. With the exception of Franklin Roosevelt who was a losing running mate in 1920, I don't recall any losing running mates in recent history going on to be President.

President Lodge? President Muskie? President Shriver? President Dole? President Lieberman? President Edwards? President Palin?

Ridge would be a safe pick. He is a moderate and was Governor of Pennsylvania where Romney could sure use him to win Pa!

Southern Moderate and a Woman- Romney can make a call to Elizabeth Dole to see if she is interested for the VP slot. Romney needs to pick up North Carolina too on Election Day. She has been out of politics for a little over 3 years though. What about Illenia Ros-Lethien? She is hispanic and been in the US House for a long time I think.

Once I was playing with Mitt Romney on the Political Machine Game and I choosed Ridge as my VP.... He was pretty usefull!

Romney/Bush vs. weak incumbent Obama would be akin to Reagan/Bush vs. weak incumbent Carter. Of course, who knows.

Obama is better than Carter.

Romney is like a Rockfeller, a Gerald Ford, he isn't like Ronald Reagan. Bush Senior is better than little Jeb...

The only criteria: "Do no harm."

Who does no harm? Even a remote affiliation with the Bush Administration does harm (e.g., Portman). If the choice potentially hurts the ticket among women in any way, shape or form, it does harm (e.g., McDonnell). If the choice potentially hurts the ticket among seniors in any way, shape or form, it does harm (e.g., Ryan). Any doubts about their ability to become POTUS does the ticket harm (e.g., Rubio).

This is a tough choice. Good thing there is plenty of time to mull it over.

Maybe a wildcard nobody has heard of like Matt Mead, the Governor of Wyoming? But then you fall into the same trap set for Rubio.

Why not Mike Huckabee? Everybody likes the Huckster.

There's no perfect pick.

Again, I'm strong for Kelly Ayotte of NH.  She'll bring home that state, which if the race is close, would put Romney over the top.  Also, she is not a Sarah Palin and will help lots with young voters and females.

Wouldn't be a bad choice, but I don't think him and Romney get along and I think he might be moving on from politics. Besides, he isn't in sync with the Republicans economic policies.

Plus, Huckabee could upstage Romney. Had Huckabee decided to run this time around, he probably would've beaten Mitt pretty handily. The Romney-Huckabee ticket would just create a strange dynamic. Too many people would be thinking their order on the ticket should be reversed.

I still stand by Martinez as the best pick. If she accepts.

Palin was inexperienced, sure. But that's not what made her a liability--her interviews and lack of knowledge did that. Martinez is so different.

And actually... the more I look at videos of her, the more and more I think Martinez could be America's first female president.

If I were Jeb, I wouldn't wait 4 years to run for president in 2016.  A lot can happen in life, and there are certainly no guarantees if you wait, look what happened to Hillary.  He would be 64 and his health may decline.  So Jeb should accept VP if offered.  The media can make all the judgements, but I don't think any other VP can deliver on experience, hispanic voters, swing states, and media savvy. 

I also think Ohio and Florida will be very difficult to take from Obama.  He has a lot of influence in the midwest.  He also has a lot of popularity with hispanics in Florida.  On his own, Romney can probably do better in Ohio, so he will definitely need help from a VP to win Florida. 

Really? I think Florida will be easier for him.

Actually, to me, it almost seems like PA and OH have switched roles. Just looking at things now, I think Romney has a better chance in Pennsylvania than Ohio.

Romney can win Pennsylvania and Florida on his own merits in close races. Ohio might not be so easy. Of course, picking a Jeb or Rubio figure might lock in Florida rather than leaving it to chance, which would be nice. So I guess we ask ourselves: Does he want to secure Florida, or does he want to open up another state to a 50/50 chance instead of a 55-45 one?

Nope. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/04/obama-doing-well-in-florida.html (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/04/obama-doing-well-in-florida.html)

This is why playing the swing state game in VP selection doesn't work.

Work to create the strongest possible ticket overall and that is how the VP will "help" in swing states.

I'm beginning to think that Bobby Jindal would indeed be the best pick.

Glad to see I'm not alone. :)

That is why I still think Jeb Bush gives him the best ticket overall, at least according to polls indicating that Romney-Bush can beat Obama.  I don't really see any other VP candidate having as much success against Obama.  If Romney wants to win then he will most likely pick Jeb.  There are some other 'safe' choices that will help Romney keep it close but still lose.  I don't see Portman being that strong and it might even make Romney look too desperate in only going after Ohio while ignoring the South and Florida voters.  As least by picking Jeb, it will give a vote of confidence that he is picking the most competent person available, and he doesn't care how much the liberal media hates Jeb.  It will also be the liberal media that will focus the talk about the Bush past, and ignore Obama's past 4 years, and neglect the more important talk about the future.  Of course voters don't want the media to focus on the past, they want to focus on the future.  Romney-Bush probably talks about a better future than Obama-Biden.  At least Romney can talk about bringing prosperity back to Americans, while Obama talks about Americans living averagely in a shiny peaceful world. 

Exactly, Jeb on the ticket would automatically guarantee Florida, and losing Florida will make it very difficult for Obama to win.  If they attack Jeb's family, then his wife will speak espanol to all the hispanics about Obama being anti-spanish and hating mexicans.  I can really see Jeb being a victim if they go after his family in such a personal way, and it would offend his wife.  Of course, it would be weird to have a Mexican-born wife in the executive office, but I can see a lot of hispanics rallying around Bush to protect his family from personal attacks. 

Most of the other VP options are small time politicians who won't carry the confidence of the nation.  If you want to be a dragon slayer, you have the compete against the best.  Obama beat senior citizen McCain but I don't think he can beat a Bush.  It would be an epically legendary campaign that would be very close.  It won't be as epic as Gore-Bush, but close. 

Has anyone polled Romney/Jeb in Florida? Is is large enough that a Romey/Jeb ticket without the usual election shenanigans would to better than a Romney/not a Floridan ticket with the shenanigans?

The thing about Jeb is, he'd be far-and-away the best pick, if it wasn't for his last name.

I thought Romney/Bush was polled in Florida and it made virtually no difference. Obama had a narrow lead either way.

Jeb would never have become governor of Florida in the first place if it weren't for his last name.

Americans will never vote for another Bush.

Maybe not, we will never know. But its hard to deny that unlike his elder brother he actually has real leadership qualities and significant political skills. 

Hard to say that a man elected President of the United States twice doesn't have real leadership qualities...

Do you mean the time he lost in Florida as well?  Or just the times that he won?  He's not popular in Florida?

I'm saying that it's pointless to rue Jeb Bush being held back by his last name when he rode that wave up to his current position. He's got some skills but he never would have risen to the GOP nomination in '94 and '98 if it weren't for his father's 30 years in politics. Live by the family name, die by it.

That's all fine and dandy, but it's the year 2012. That's how I'm gonna operate. The Bush name is now a drawback, not a positive.

The whole point of my original post was basically "his last name shouldn't matter--he is a damn fine politician." And I believe that. He would be a great Vice President.

I think if the qualities are who is best ready to president and has a lot of relevent exeperience, here is my list:

1-jeb bush, managed a large state and is popular with hispanics
2-mitch daniels, managed a large midwest state for 2 terms, and has cabinet experience
3-jon thune, 2 term senator from the midwest
4-jim demint, 2 term southern senator
5-richard burr, 2 term southern senator
6-lamar alexander, 2 term southern senator
7-tim pawlenty, 2 term midwest governor
8-sam brownback, governor and 2 term midwest senator

I think there is a strong chance that someone from this group will be the GOP vice president.

Wolf Blitzer says, last week, Portman or Bush are currently the favorites.

Blitzer's one of my favorites, but I strongly disagree with him.

Not really.  Romney does not need a current or ex-governor as his running mate, since either Romney will look like a fool for picking a doofus, or have his own record as governor be outdone by his running mate.  Romney needs to pick someone without gubernatorial experience.

If you were looking to name the dullest politicians in the republican party...you win!

If you want excitement, just choose Sarah Palin again!
Ron Paul or Rand Paul would be an exciting VP!