Who will be the GOP VP candidate if Mitt wins the nomination?
Hi!
4 contenders left in the race, and it sure looks to me as if Mitt will take the GOP nomination. Of course, there could be any number of thinkable upsets (planes crashing, stuff like that), but apart from force majeure I can not see how any of the other 3 can win the nomination unless Mitt does some kind of gross unforced error.
If he wins, then Mitt has to pick a VP. Commonly, the major-party nomination winners have chosen someone who lost the nomination race, or a sitting governor/congressman. So who might he pick?
Romney/Huntsman: Nah, this would be one of the most unbalanced tickets in memory. What kind of voters could Huntsman swing that Mitt could not reach?
Romney/Bachmann: The combination of a centrist male and a shore-up-the-base woman from a northern state was tried last time around, and Obama won that.
Romney/Gingrich: Too much baggage, will sully the Rommney reputation.
Romney/Cain: Baggage, and the AA demographic is probably not in play when Obama heads the other ticket.
Romney/Paul: The Paulites will consider it close to treason if Ron lets himself play 2nd fiddle, and the GOP corporate donors would not be happy.
Romney/Perry: Would give the DEM strategists a golden chance to run against a Texan GOP governor - essentially running against GWBush IV.
Romney/Jeb Bush: Pro: covers a big swing state. Con: Would give the DEM strategists a golden chance to run against a GWBush IV again.
Romney/others in the nomination race: Paired up with a PR nonentity, would require that the GOP campaign would have to produce a narrative about this person.
Other ideas: Romney/Christie: Pro: covers a big swing state. Con: Geographically unbalanced, Christies looks.
Romney/either of the female Maine GOP senators: Pro: can shore up the GOP numbers in the white female demographic. Probably very good tickets if the GOP wants to make inroads among independents. Probably no risk of scandals erupting. Con: Geographically unbalanced. Risk of losing the tea-party/evangenical vote. Could be either pro or con: Both of them voted in favor of repealing the DODT. Could get another demographic in play, but at the risk of losing the conservative wing of the party.
Romney/Schwarzenegger: Pro: puts a huge state into possible contention, forcing the DEMs to spread their resources thinner. Geographically balanced. Con: Personal baggage, succession issues. Question: Can a VP be a naturalized citizen, and the succession bypass him to the speaker of the house? The GOP would probably like to have John Boehner as quasi-VP.
Romney/Martinez: Pro: covers a swing state, geographically balanced, covers both the Hispanic and female demographics. Con: Governor Susana Martinez of NM is not yet a household name.
Romney/Haley: Pro: Rommney has already endorsed her in her gubernatorial campaign, so hopefully they go together well. Right ethnic group - will give pluses among media types, without antagonizing GOP voters. Looks!
Romney/Corbett: Pro: covers a swing state. Con: no obvious ticket balancing.
Romney/Kasich: Pro: covers a swing state. Con: no obvious ticket balancing. Baggage in the form a speeding ticket.
From these, I would guess that Christie and Haley would be the most likely choices, but then again Mitt could completely blindside us and come up with someone unexpected.
What would be your guesses?
EDIT: Just looked up the most recent GOP running mate who at the time of nomination had neither been a governor or congressman. Turned out to be Charles Dawes, elected with Hoover in 1924.
Have a nice time!
Peter Gustafsson
Last edited by PeterGustafsson; 01-21-2012 at 04:48 PM.
Reason: consistent spelling error
My guess: Santorum might get the nod if the number crunchers/campaign strategists come to the conclusion that shoring up the base is the only thing that matters in VP selection. Otherwise, I can not see him getting the nod.
Romney/Schwarzenegger: Pro: puts a huge state into possible contention, forcing the DEMs to spread their resources thinner. Geographically balanced. Con: Personal baggage, succession issues. Question: Can a VP be a naturalized citizen, and the succession bypass him to the speaker of the house? The GOP would probably like to have John Boehner as quasi-VP.
The VP must be a native-born American, per the 12th Amendment...so Ahnold could not be nominated for that slot in the first place.
The actual text (last line in the amendment, in fact): "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
The status of natural born citizen applies to anyone in the line of succession, and would therefore have to skip over anyone who was naturalized. So, for example, if during the Clinton years, if the Pres, VP, Speaker, and Pres Pro Tem of the Senate all died, the presidency would fall to the Sec of State. However, since the SoS at the time, Madeline Albright, was a naturalized citizen, the line of succession would've skipped her and gone to the Secretary of the Treasury...at the time, either Lloyd Bentsen or Robert Rubin, depending on when the succession would've taken place (both served as Treas Sec when Albright was SoS).
I don't know who's the first ineligible person in the current line of succession....but it's so far down the list as to be irrelevant unless a major disaster happened in DC and killed off the higher standing ones...like the John Goodman film "King Ralph."
If Romney would choose either Powell or Rice as running mates, does anyone think that the AA demographic would come in play?
Have a nice time!
Peter Gustafsson
I could possibly see him picking Rice, but unless Powell's wife has changed her mind, I don't see him accepting. She was a big reason he didn't run himself....she didn't want to live in the cross-hairs if he'd won. This was before his rep took a hit as a result of W Bush's rationale for going into Iraq, since Powell was Sec of State at the time....Bush's actions tainted a man a LOT of people would've easily voted for had he run...people on both sides of the aisle.
HAD he run, he likely would've been the first black President.
And there are definitely times I WISH he'd run in 2000...having the guy who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs as the US Pres running things after 9/11??? I SERIOUSLY doubt Iraq would've even been on his radar...he would've kept his eyes on the Bin Laden prize..we would've gotten him a lot earlier, been out of Afghanistan earlier, and wouldn't have an economy coping with 2 simultaneous wars, etc.
*sigh* If only....just the THOUGHT of a world where we didn't have a Pres who couldn't complete a sentence, Dick Cheney NOT in the VP slot, and quote possibly the inability of neocons to get a foot in the door....a Powell presidency could've resulted in such a different political landscape....
Last edited by Purple Fencer; 01-22-2012 at 08:24 AM.
I think that one of the wild cards is that the GOP convention precedes the Democratic convention this year, so the GOP nominee won't likely know Obama's running mate. Biden served his purpose in the 2008 election by giving the ticket someone with "experience." Frankly, now I see him as a liability. I am inclined to believe that he will be booted in favor of Clinton. Clinton is 64 now so 2016 will probably be towards the end of her chances at the presidency, which I have no doubt that she wants. A gig as Secretary of State hasn't hurt her credentials, at least among her supporters. And, except for maybe Condi Rice, she is on paper the most qualified woman that either party could put on the ballot. Certainly, she would negate any advantage that the GOP could get from putting a woman in the VP spot.
I think that McCain really blew the impact of putting Palin on the ballot in 2008. The choice itself was reasonable, perhaps even good, but he picked her to appease the right wing, then proceeded to move to the right himself allowing Obama to claim the center. Stupid. You pick a conservative VP candidate so that you can solidify your own credentials in the center.
Romney is a smarter politician than McCain. I don't see any of the group of presidential candidates helping him if he is nominated. His ego might not permit him to understand this, but if he is nominated if will be because he is seen as the least defective in a bad lot. Kind of like picking the least soft tomato out of a supermarket bin of really rotten ones. Picking another one from the same bin doesn't improve the salad. Further, this campaign has really brought out how there is not *a* conservative wing, but rather *two* competing and somewhat hostile conservative wings within the GOP. Picking someone closely identified with either of those wings could alienate the other and perhaps even split the party. I think wisdom suggests someone identified with moderate conservatism generally, but not strongly either fiscally or socially conservative. I continue to think that either Powell or Rice would be excellent choices, but I don't know whether either of them could be lured in.
Ultimately, I don't believe that the election will hinge on VP choice by the GOP. Obama is not running against the GOP. He is running against the economy. If the U.S. economy expands at the 1.2% consensus rate predicted by economists for 2012, I don't see any GOP ticket that could be assembled at this point beating Obama. If the U.S. economy contracts 10+% in 2012 as suggested in the worst case scenarios by both the OECD and World Bank, Obama is probably toast no matter who he is running against.
I hope that it is obvious, but I hope for +1.2% with an Obama reelection over a -10% to get a GOP president.
I think that one of the wild cards is that the GOP convention precedes the Democratic convention this year, so the GOP nominee won't likely know Obama's running mate. Biden served his purpose in the 2008 election by giving the ticket someone with "experience." Frankly, now I see him as a liability. I am inclined to believe that he will be booted in favor of Clinton. Clinton is 64 now so 2016 will probably be towards the end of her chances at the presidency, which I have no doubt that she wants. A gig as Secretary of State hasn't hurt her credentials, at least among her supporters. And, except for maybe Condi Rice, she is on paper the most qualified woman that either party could put on the ballot. Certainly, she would negate any advantage that the GOP could get from putting a woman in the VP spot.
Having Clinton as VP on the ticket would be a smart move by the Dems, not just for this election, but also to set up a win for next time. Clinton would draw lots of votes just for being a woman, just like Obama did for being black.
"Oh, how convenient! A theory about God that doesn't require looking through a telescope. Get back to work!"
Having Clinton as VP on the ticket would be a smart move by the Dems, not just for this election, but also to set up a win for next time. Clinton would draw lots of votes just for being a woman, just like Obama did for being black.
The presence of Bill back in the White House -- even as the husband of the sitting VP and potentially the First Husband -- wouldn't be a drag? His past WILL be brought up....especially Lewinsky.
The presence of Bill back in the White House -- even as the husband of the sitting VP and potentially the First Husband -- wouldn't be a drag? His past WILL be brought up....especially Lewinsky.
Not a factor. The only people that will care about that will be those that wont vote for a Dem anyway. For others, Bill Clinton's record on the economy will be a selling point, as will the experience he brings even if just as first-husband.
"Oh, how convenient! A theory about God that doesn't require looking through a telescope. Get back to work!"
Not a factor. The only people that will care about that will be those that wont vote for a Dem anyway. For others, Bill Clinton's record on the economy will be a selling point, as will the experience he brings even if just as first-husband.
Very true....however, that doesn't mean it won't be brought up....Ken Starr, anyone??
Very true....however, that doesn't mean it won't be brought up....Ken Starr, anyone??
Meh, it'll just come across as beating a dead horse. And who cares anyway, it'd be Hillary running, not Bill. Lastly, who are the Republicans to be lecturing anyone on "family values" anyway?
"Oh, how convenient! A theory about God that doesn't require looking through a telescope. Get back to work!"
3Likes
Originally Posted by Purple Fencer 
