Talk Elections

I mean the pick made absolutely no sense what so ever , as Paul Ryan didnt add a single thing to the ticket


- His Medicare Voucher plan was going to obviously alienate Seniors in Florida, and alienate many Blue Collar Workers in Ohio.

- He didnt add an policy background to the ticket(economic policy already was Romney's strong point, it was Foreign Policy and Healthcare which was where he was weak at)

- He never got elected to a state wide office

- He isnt charismatic




It made even less sense than the Palin pick , cause the Palin pick was only made cause McCain needed a hail mary(which either would work spectacularly or fail spectacularly)

Swing state Wisconsin, that and most people pick based on whom they can work with.

It's not like the needle really gets moved that much anyway.

But Ryan never won a state wide race in Wisconsin , and anyway Romney needed Florida and Ohio a lot more .

Not memeing, but Chris Christie would've been Romney's best bet. He was hugely popular in 2012.

Young up-and-coming Republican whom the campaign liked and who I suppose they thought would energize the conservative base. Doh!

Then why not Pick Rubio


The tea party in 2012 liked Rubio a lot


With him on the ticket Romney definitely wins Florida , and likely Virginia and Colorado too meaning 2012 basically comes down to Ohio(Obama still wins 281-257) but Romney  has a much easier path to getting to 270.

Ryan was picked for the same reason Palin was picked and that was to fire up the base (Ryan was well like by the far right at that time). If the GOP went with Rubio instead of Ryan, they would've looked like hypocrites because one of their lines of attack against Obama in 2008 was that he wasn't experienced enough because he was only in the Senate for four years, but Rubio was in the Senate for less than two years in 2012. Paul Ryan was not by any means the best VP choice of the last half a century, but he was also far from the worst (Palin, Eagleton/Shriver, Ferraro, Quayle, and even Lieberman and Edwards were worse).

To shore up his conservative bonafides.

How would picking Rubio win him Virginia and Colorado?

At the time of Ryan's selection (late summer), Romney was still very much on the track of trying to win the Midwest to win the election.  It wasn't until September/October that he saw the writing on the wall in Ohio and Michigan and Wisconsin and started shifting more resources back to "traditional" Republican states like FL, VA and CO.

Paul Ryan was a young, conservative legislator from the Midwest who came from a humble background (unlike Romney). 

Trying to balance the ticket. Romney is fairly moderate (for a modern Republican) so he thought picking a more conservative VP would energize the base.

Rob Portman would have been a much better choice. Putting Portman on the ticket would have at the very least helped Romney carry Ohio.

It wasn't just that he was young and from the Midwest.  I think Romney also wanted an anti-Palin.  Someone who knew policy backwards and forwards, and so wouldn't be engaged in constant displays of ignorance.  Ryan had policy chops, so he could be trusted not to create such distractions.

FL, VA and CO were not enough to win the election without Ohio.

The Romney vetting people uncovered dirt on Christie that made him a bad choice.

Ryan was I believe known for the guy who wanted to privatize Social Security and voucherize Medicare. Romney should have known that would have hurt him in FL , OH , and PA.

In my opinion without the Ryan pick, FL is a lean Romney state , OH would be a virtual dead  heat throughout  the campaign , and PA gets put into play as well. That would make Romney path to 270 much easier than it was in OTL.
 

Because Rob Portman's son was gay, most likely.

The final three where Ryan, Christie and Rubio,

Christie was hated by the Romney team for his overbearing manner, and that was before the absolute ton of dirt they found on him in the vetting process (I think a lot in the GOP were still scarred from Palins complete lack of vetting)

Rubio was unknown by Romney; and had only been in the Senate for what 2 years? It would have been similar to Gore picking Edwards in 2000; a pick that was purely for aesthetic terms and to wave off someone shiny, and new.

My view has been the same since I heard he was on the short list 5 years ago. 
And this was attested to by multiple media reporters following the Romney camp....

Romney just felt like he connected intellectually, personally, and ideologically with Ryan. Something the kindred spirits. Ryan is very cerebral, accounting focused (much like Romney) and both are very serious about their faiths, even if they may be difference.

Romney made comments that he was looking for a VP who he could work with intimately for 8 years, and Ryan fit the bill.

Apparently, Gov. Christie was chronically late, and other 'Jersey' cultural tics that turned Romney off considerably.

Regardless, no other VP would have swung the election IMO.

I totally agree. He would have helped Romney to win states with massive Hispanic population like his home state of Florida, Colorado, Nevada and probably also New Mexico.

In addition, as we saw in most of the debates he participated, Rubio is clearly a better debater than Ryan who often looked intimitated during the vice-presidential debate with Joe Biden and even got his ass kicked with Biden's « Now you're Jack Kennedy » line. Meanwhile, Rubio is more charismatic and smarter and he often strongly countered attacks against him during debates like when he slammed Jeb Bush for targetting Rubio on his vote record because they were both running for the same office while Jeb could have done the same to John McCain in 2008 even if he wasn't running against McCain. Another example is when Ted Cruz attacked Rubio on immigration reform while referring to an interview in Spanish after which Rubio replied « I don't know how he knows what I said on Univision because he doesn't speak Spanish. »
 
So I think Rubio would have performed better during the 2012 vice-presidential debate against Biden than Ryan did.

NM still goes to Obama, as even Bush in 04 barely won it against Kerry who was a much worse fit for the state than Obama.


In my opinion FL,VA , CO , and maybe NV go to Romney but unless he wins OH he isnt going to win .

With full hindsight, Kelly Ayotte, Bob McDonnell, or a top foreign policy person(say, Condoleezza Rice or Zalmay Khalilzad) would work very well.

That would be a terrible pick , as Obama would immediately than tie Romney to Bush's Foreign policy. Those attacks also would have much more credibility since Rice was viewed as one of the 5 people in the Bush administration most responsible for the Iraq War(After Bush, Cheney , Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz) .



In my opinion the best picks would be Rubio, Cornyn , or Pawlenty

I agree with everything except Biden's Kennedy line. I thought it was so lame when I heard it. Benson nailed it against Quale and Biden trying to steal the line made me cringe, and unlike when Benson used it it Biden just used it to avoid responding to what Ryan actually said.

Because Ryan was both a rising star and quite well known and liked by the party and its voters, as well as moderates. Considering that Palin, Edwards, and Lieberman before were also rising star VP picks that failed, maybe he should have picked someone else.

That's a thing sometimes in politics, where politicians try to steal renowned zingers from history.

Joe Biden stole the "You're no Ted Kennedy" line, and Sarah Palin and Mike Pence stole the "There you go again" line.

Rubio's style was to use memorized speeches in response to an expected question, most prominently featured in the examples you mention, particularly with Jeb. Biden is more of an informal/off-the-cuff debater similar to Christie & Trump. Rubio himself didn't make a mistake against Christie at the time, he did what he thought was correct, he was closely following this strategy. In the few days following the debate, Rubio went out of his way to repeat the same line over and over again when he was asked about it.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/rubio-defends-his-repetition-of-talking-point.html

That particular Cruz example isn't a good one, Cruz did respond back in spanish.

Rubio would do better against someone who uses the exact same debate style that he does (but who is less polished on that front) like Tim Kaine, but not an off-the-cuff candidate like Biden.

Christie's argument was quite literally empirically proven correct: he said rubio only knew how to respond in memorized speeches, which he did, and then he predicted that he would get disorderly when he tried to abandon the tactic, which is exactly what happened.

The unscripted Rubio was the one seen in the last couple of debates wherein he had to descend into juvenile jokes (exactly like Christie predicted it: 'gets [very] unruly when he gets off his talking points'). If you want to compare acts, Biden had more mature jokes in comparison.

(By the way, I know that rubio still had some in his camp who contemporaneously suggested that he did a good job by repeating himself, and I suspect that you were one of them at the time, with you only changing your mind after-the-fact).

After Walker's victory in Wisconsin, I think Romney thought he could win WI with Ryan's help. Ryan was also known as a budget hawk and the national debt was still a big GOP talking point back then. Ryan also added a more youthful look to the campaign. Of course, just being younger didn't automatically make him a compelling figure who could connect with people and he fell flat on every occasion. I think it was down to him or Rubio. Rubio might have helped Romney win Florida, but he wouldn't have helped much elsewhere.

To answer the question, Romney wanted someone who could help him unite the Tea Party base (while having the necessary experience for the job, so he could use the experience argument against Obama), he didn't want someone seen as being 'too establishment' like himself.

Believe it or not, at the time, Ryan was quite popular with the base. Breitbart praised him day in and day out.

^There was also the WI element as the above poster points out

I don't know why Ryan wouldn't be popular with the base ... the fact that some now call him of all people a "RINO" is truly telling of the Breitbart crowd.

I think it started with him surrendering on the debt ceiling issue and passing omnibus (he was before that adored by hardcore fiscal conservatives). His attacks on Trump even during the general election cycle, support for mass immigration, and (real or perceived) support for establishment republican incumbents over tea party challengers all contributed as well. Trump also instilled in the base a deep suspicion of GOP megadonors like the Koch brothers and (not without reason) Ryan is seen as their puppet.

How would a think tank shill who has not had an original thought that wasn't fed to him by people still stuck in 1986 (more think tank shills from an older generation), be popular with the base of the Republican Party?