Romney VP search begins

[morgieb]

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.

[morgieb]

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.

[morgieb]

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.

[morgieb]

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.

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. 

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 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.

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

Barring scandal association, name recognition is very helpful. 

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

[morgieb]

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.

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.