2012 Intrade rankings

[milhouse24]

These stock rankings are pretty unreliable.  Its 99% based on gossipy media reports and media sentiment.  I just think its mostly unrealistic especially when Rubio was ranked so high. 

Romney's a pragmatic person, so he won't pick a VP way out of the box that has never been nationally polled before.  He's not going to pick someone not known like Palin, Cheney, or Lieberman. 

Romney's going to pick someone with some experience, more than 2 years at least, and someone with some national media exposure who would be capable of handling difficult media questions.  Also being from a swing state/region would be a bonus. 

Portman, Thune, DeMint would all be decent choices. 

Daniels should be a zero if everyone were aware of his wife's marital problems.

[milhouse24]

I think the best model for VP selection is someone like Biden/Gore/Bush Sr
Basically someone with political experience and has perhaps even run for president, and has been vetted by the national press.  Because, the vetting committee is human and lazy, and if the VP has already been investigated by the national press during their own presidential run, and no scandal has surfaced, then he could be easily picked as VP over an unknown person who has not been vetted and could have a lot of skeletons. 

Portman 18.5 - nationally unknown and never vetted
Rubio 15.0 - never vetted
Christie 11.0 - never nationally vetted
Daniels 10.0 - almost ran for president, a solid experience choice, but his wife will likely make him decline the VP.
Ryan 6.0 - never nationally vetted
McDonnell 4.5 - never nationally vetted
J. Bush 3.2 - somewhat nationally vetted based on family media presence
Ayotte 3.1 - nationally unknown
Thune 3.1 - somewhat nationally known and somewhat vetted
Rice 3.0
Martinez 2.8 - unknown
Jindal 2.6 - somewhat unknown on national issues
Pawlenty 2.0 - has been nationally vetted, could help in midwest, not a great campaigner
McMorris-Rodgers 1.6
Santorum 1.5

These rankings also seem to discount the effect that "Gravitas" plays in percetion, which means a candidate appears wise and experienced, and is presidentially capable and well-respected, and somewhat popular. 

[milhouse24]

The press couldn't "vet" if their lives depended on it. They barely even report, they just yell a lot about the same things over and over.

It is also about controlling the media with scandals.  When Biden ran for president for one year, the media covered him and his history, so by the time he became VP, any scandals were "old news" and not worth reporting. 

But when Palin became VP, anything controversial from her past was released on a daily basis in the news, creating this mountain of scandal, that may have been contained if she were in front of the national press for 12 months.  Even the smallest scandal would be blown up in that 2 month time frame. 

So the vetting is part of the media game - do you pick someone completely new like Rubio or Portman and throw to the wolves for 3 months and have his life dissected?  Or do you pick someone who has been in the national spotlight for a decade and has built relationships with the media?

I just think Romney will pick a well-known name and not a fresh face. 

[milhouse24]

I'm surprised that Portman is still way up.  I just think Thune is a more likely VP in many ways.  It might be GOP PR pushing for Portman so the Ohio voters get excited for Romney.  Portman just doesn't have much credibility with voters outside Ohio, and it could be a problem with Southern evangelicals.