Who will be Romney's VP?

[The PHA]

I hope he does not take a safe pick, like Marco Rubio. Rubio strikes me as an opportunist.

Personally I would love to see Alan West or Liz Cheney. Even Mike Huckabee.

Disaster would be Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich.

It would be tremendous if he selected Rick Perry.

Liz Cheney would shock the system though. Romney needs to shake things up in my opinion. A polarizing conservative would be so great.

[Steve-O]

I hope he does not takes a safe pick, like Marco Rubio. Rubio strikes me as an opportunist.

Personally I would love to see Alan West or Lynn Cheney. Even Mike Huckabee.

Disaster would be Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich.

It would be tremendous if he selected Rick Perry.

Lynn Cheney would shock the system though. Romney needs to shake things up in my opinion. A polarizing conservative would be so great.

Rubio is far from a safe pick, a safe pick is Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, or Bob McDonnell. None of your choices above are even in contention. More likely women are Kelly Ayotte, Nicky Haley, or Condeleeza Rice. Rice would be the best choice because she shores up Romney's foreign policy experience, but I doubt she wants the job.

If I were to guess I'd throw out names like Senators Rob Portman from Ohio, John Thune from SD, or even Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania

[FPS_Russia]

Lynn Cheney's definitely qualified, when her father was committing war crimes and treason she was on FOX repeating all the usual right wing lies.

[The PHA]

I hope he does not takes a safe pick, like Marco Rubio. Rubio strikes me as an opportunist.

Personally I would love to see Alan West or Lynn Cheney. Even Mike Huckabee.

Disaster would be Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich.

It would be tremendous if he selected Rick Perry.

Lynn Cheney would shock the system though. Romney needs to shake things up in my opinion. A polarizing conservative would be so great.

Rubio is far from a safe pick, a safe pick is Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, or Bob McDonnell. None of your choices above are even in contention. More likely women are Kelly Ayotte, Nicky Haley, or Condeleeza Rice. Rice would be the best choice because she shores up Romney's foreign policy experience, but I doubt she wants the job.

If I were to guess I'd throw out names like Senators Rob Portman from Ohio, John Thune from SD, or even Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania

I meant Liz Cheney, not Lyne (Dick's wife). Liz (daughter) is a great choice. I edited my OP.

[Dan Druff]

He will need Rubio to have any chance at winning.

Not sure if Rubio wants the job, though.

[Pooh]

He will need Rubio to have any chance at winning.

Not sure if Rubio wants the job, though.

I think Rubio wants to save himself for 2016. We get another 4 yrs of Obuma. FUCK!!

[shortbuspoker]

I like Rubio first but if he doesn't want to run I think Boby Jindal from Louisiana would be a strong choice.

[Steve-O]

He will need Rubio to have any chance at winning.

Not sure if Rubio wants the job, though.

Not a chance in hell, his story relates to Cubans, not Latinos as a whole.

I would add that a VP choice is not going to shift the election anyway; if anything a VP can only HURT you, as we saw last cycle or Ross Perot's choice in 92. Can anyone name a VP pick that changed an election? The only thing a VP choice shows is that YOU have one of the qualities to be president by choosing someone that could also lead the nation --it's a way of seeing a presidential contender's first real choice.

[4Dragons]

Chris Christie has expressed interest. Not saying one way or the other, but if Christie gets the nod, Biden will be out and replaced. He'd never survive 5 minutes with Christie in a debate.

[Steve-O]

Chris Christie has expressed interest. Not saying one way or the other, but if Christie gets the nod, Biden will be out and replaced. He'd never survive 5 minutes with Christie in a debate.

I disagree with this. Biden is smart and experienced, and in a formatted debate will do just fine against anyone --most people only saw him with Palin where he wore kid gloves, that is not Joe Biden, he can be extremely fiery. Again, in a formatted debate most of Christie's strengths are off the table.

I think Chris Christie, and any other serious 2016 contender is going to stay away from this race. It's hard to unseat any incumbent, and considering the shitshow the Repubs put on during the primary season I think most candidates are thinking 2016 looks a hell of a lot more promising than 2012 --there isn't much of a political future in being a losing VP candidate. This is why I really wish John Huntsman stayed out of the race altogether, instead he damaged his brand by trying to act rational and sane.

I don't think Romney would pick anyone that would upstage him either like Palin did to McCain in the last cycle. And the flawed political logic that a VP candidate will carry their home state would suggest Bob McDonnell or Rob Portman to me. But in the end I think he has to pick a Senator solely to shore-up his foreign policy experience. Portman's only "flaw" is that he was the Budget director in 2006/2007 under W. But he's on the Armed Services and Homeland Securtiy committees (he was also a trade representative under W.) as well as Budget and deficit reduction... pretty much everything you would want a VP pick to be versed in. The guys been in politics since the 90's, and definitely won't UPSTAGE Mitt Romney.

Let me just say that I think "The Real" Mitt Romeny and Barack Obama are about the same politically: Obama a little more left on social issues, but in the grand scheme of things it won't matter which of these two wins. Stack up their political resumes side-by-side and you can't really tell the difference.

[4Dragons]

I don't think Romney would pick anyone that would upstage him either like Palin did to McCain in the last cycle. And the flawed political logic that a VP candidate will carry their home state would suggest Bob McDonnell or Rob Portman to me. But in the end I think he has to pick a Senator solely to shore-up his foreign policy experience. Portman's only "flaw" is that he was the Budget director in 2006/2007 under W. But he's on the Armed Services and Homeland Securtiy committees (he was also a trade representative under W.) as well as Budget and deficit reduction... pretty much everything you would want a VP pick to be versed in. The guys been in politics since the 90's, and definitely won't UPSTAGE Mitt Romney.

The way VP's have ALWAYS played out is to pick someone who has the qualities that the candidate does not. So I guess Romney could go with Palin since she has tits and he does not. Other than that, if everyone sees the candidate as boring, you pick a lively guy to fire shit up. GWB was weak on foreign policy (and a bunch of other stuff) so he went with uber experienced Cheney. Obama being the least experienced guy in any room he stood in, went with uber experienced Biden. GHWB went with Quayle and 1st round he won off the sweat equity of Reagan and lost the second one because Quayle was a joke and even a fun and lively hillbilly and his uber experienced VP seemed a better pick. So it's not upstage, it's compliment.

[Dan Druff]

I don't think Romney would pick anyone that would upstage him either like Palin did to McCain in the last cycle. And the flawed political logic that a VP candidate will carry their home state would suggest Bob McDonnell or Rob Portman to me. But in the end I think he has to pick a Senator solely to shore-up his foreign policy experience. Portman's only "flaw" is that he was the Budget director in 2006/2007 under W. But he's on the Armed Services and Homeland Securtiy committees (he was also a trade representative under W.) as well as Budget and deficit reduction... pretty much everything you would want a VP pick to be versed in. The guys been in politics since the 90's, and definitely won't UPSTAGE Mitt Romney.

The way VP's have ALWAYS played out is to pick someone who has the qualities that the candidate does not. So I guess Romney could go with Palin since she has tits and he does not. Other than that, if everyone sees the candidate as boring, you pick a lively guy to fire shit up. GWB was weak on foreign policy (and a bunch of other stuff) so he went with uber experienced Cheney. Obama being the least experienced guy in any room he stood in, went with uber experienced Biden. GHWB went with Quayle and 1st round he won off the sweat equity of Reagan and lost the second one because Quayle was a joke and even a fun and lively hillbilly and his uber experienced VP seemed a better pick. So it's not upstage, it's compliment.

Actually he didn't lose in 1992 because of Quayle. He lost because of a combination of a recession (which the country was breaking out of just before the election, but nobody paid attention), a strong opposition candidate (Bill Clinton), and his "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" mistake.

In general, it is a mistake to drop your VP candidate in the 2nd term election, because it's an admission that you made a poor choice. A candidate should only do this if the VP was involved in some sort of big scandal.

[Steve-O]

I don't think Romney would pick anyone that would upstage him either like Palin did to McCain in the last cycle. And the flawed political logic that a VP candidate will carry their home state would suggest Bob McDonnell or Rob Portman to me. But in the end I think he has to pick a Senator solely to shore-up his foreign policy experience. Portman's only "flaw" is that he was the Budget director in 2006/2007 under W. But he's on the Armed Services and Homeland Securtiy committees (he was also a trade representative under W.) as well as Budget and deficit reduction... pretty much everything you would want a VP pick to be versed in. The guys been in politics since the 90's, and definitely won't UPSTAGE Mitt Romney.

The way VP's have ALWAYS played out is to pick someone who has the qualities that the candidate does not. So I guess Romney could go with Palin since she has tits and he does not. Other than that, if everyone sees the candidate as boring, you pick a lively guy to fire shit up. GWB was weak on foreign policy (and a bunch of other stuff) so he went with uber experienced Cheney. Obama being the least experienced guy in any room he stood in, went with uber experienced Biden. GHWB went with Quayle and 1st round he won off the sweat equity of Reagan and lost the second one because Quayle was a joke and even a fun and lively hillbilly and his uber experienced VP seemed a better pick. So it's not upstage, it's compliment.

This is 1/2 true. A lot of times VP's are chosen because of party politics (having a presidential candidate pick a rival or someone they absolutely loathe to set that person for the presidency later on) or even in a few cases as a reward. MOST of the time the person does fill some percieved "void" in the top of the ticket, but the convential wisdom has always been geographical and ideological. And NO presidential candidate wants to be upstaged, the Palin thing was an absolute fiasco last time around that nobody really predicted when she was picked. Not a chance in hell Romney picks a firebrand, it would simply make his short-comings even more glaring.

Look at the recent string of VP candidates and find me the firebrands other than palin:

Biden (2008), Cheney (2000/2004), Lieberman (2000), John Edwards (2004), Al Gore (1992/1996), Dan Quayle (1988/1992), Jack Kemp (1996), George HW Bush (1980/1984), Lloyd Bentson (1988) ... Now go take a look at where these people are from regionally or ideologically and you'll see what political strategists try to do. Quayle was chosen because Bush was perceived as a "Northern" republican... Bentsen, from Texas, balanced out Massachusett with Dukakis... Edwards was from a "southern" state... Lieberman was picked because of Iraq war patriotism... GHWB was a regional and political pick as the Republican party basically had two factions back in the 80's... Kemp was picked because some in the Republican party feared Dole's "budget-balancing" meant tax hikes --Dole had a record of balancing budgets, and Kemp was a 100% Supply-Side guy which eased the minds of some in the party who were non-plussed by Dole.

[lewfather]

He will need Rubio to have any chance at winning.

Not sure if Rubio wants the job, though.

paging plol before his head splodes

[4Dragons]

He will need Rubio to have any chance at winning.

Not sure if Rubio wants the job, though.

paging plol before his head splodes

Paging Sixtoedpete to testify.

[Dan Druff]

The way VP's have ALWAYS played out is to pick someone who has the qualities that the candidate does not. So I guess Romney could go with Palin since she has tits and he does not. Other than that, if everyone sees the candidate as boring, you pick a lively guy to fire shit up. GWB was weak on foreign policy (and a bunch of other stuff) so he went with uber experienced Cheney. Obama being the least experienced guy in any room he stood in, went with uber experienced Biden. GHWB went with Quayle and 1st round he won off the sweat equity of Reagan and lost the second one because Quayle was a joke and even a fun and lively hillbilly and his uber experienced VP seemed a better pick. So it's not upstage, it's compliment.

This is 1/2 true. A lot of times VP's are chosen because of party politics (having a presidential candidate pick a rival or someone they absolutely loathe to set that person for the presidency later on) or even in a few cases as a reward. MOST of the time the person does fill some percieved "void" in the top of the ticket, but the convential wisdom has always been geographical and ideological. And NO presidential candidate wants to be upstaged, the Palin thing was an absolute fiasco last time around that nobody really predicted when she was picked. Not a chance in hell Romney picks a firebrand, it would simply make his short-comings even more glaring.

Look at the recent string of VP candidates and find me the firebrands other than palin:

Biden (2008), Cheney (2000/2004), Lieberman (2000), John Edwards (2004), Al Gore (1992/1996), Dan Quayle (1988/1992), Jack Kemp (1996), George HW Bush (1980/1984), Lloyd Bentson (1988) ... Now go take a look at where these people are from regionally or ideologically and you'll see what political strategists try to do. Quayle was chosen because Bush was perceived as a "Northern" republican... Bentsen, from Texas, balanced out Massachusett with Dukakis... Edwards was from a "southern" state... Lieberman was picked because of Iraq war patriotism... GHWB was a regional and political pick as the Republican party basically had two factions back in the 80's... Kemp was picked because some in the Republican party feared Dole's "budget-balancing" meant tax hikes --Dole had a record of balancing budgets, and Kemp was a 100% Supply-Side guy which eased the minds of some in the party who were non-plussed by Dole.

I agree with almost all of this.

VP candidates are chosen these days by assessing the Presidential candidate and finding why certain people (who aren't already committed to the other side) might not vote for him. Then they go out and get a VP candidate that has the qualities that might change those people's minds.

Palin was a desperation choice. McCain knew that he was fucked, and that a "boring" VP would not get him anywhere. Sure, it was a huge risk to select someone like Palin, but it was his only choice at the time. It's kind of like picking up J7o in middle position when very short-stacked during a tournament, and open-shoving all-in with it. It's not that you like J7o, and you know there's a good chance this shove is going to bust you, but you realize that you have to make a move before you get blinded off.

[Steve-O]

This is 1/2 true. A lot of times VP's are chosen because of party politics (having a presidential candidate pick a rival or someone they absolutely loathe to set that person for the presidency later on) or even in a few cases as a reward. MOST of the time the person does fill some percieved "void" in the top of the ticket, but the convential wisdom has always been geographical and ideological. And NO presidential candidate wants to be upstaged, the Palin thing was an absolute fiasco last time around that nobody really predicted when she was picked. Not a chance in hell Romney picks a firebrand, it would simply make his short-comings even more glaring.

Look at the recent string of VP candidates and find me the firebrands other than palin:

Biden (2008), Cheney (2000/2004), Lieberman (2000), John Edwards (2004), Al Gore (1992/1996), Dan Quayle (1988/1992), Jack Kemp (1996), George HW Bush (1980/1984), Lloyd Bentson (1988) ... Now go take a look at where these people are from regionally or ideologically and you'll see what political strategists try to do. Quayle was chosen because Bush was perceived as a "Northern" republican... Bentsen, from Texas, balanced out Massachusett with Dukakis... Edwards was from a "southern" state... Lieberman was picked because of Iraq war patriotism... GHWB was a regional and political pick as the Republican party basically had two factions back in the 80's... Kemp was picked because some in the Republican party feared Dole's "budget-balancing" meant tax hikes --Dole had a record of balancing budgets, and Kemp was a 100% Supply-Side guy which eased the minds of some in the party who were non-plussed by Dole.

I agree with almost all of this.

VP candidates are chosen these days by assessing the Presidential candidate and finding why certain people (who aren't already committed to the other side) might not vote for him. Then they go out and get a VP candidate that has the qualities that might change those people's minds.

Palin was a desperation choice. McCain knew that he was fucked, and that a "boring" VP would not get him anywhere. Sure, it was a huge risk to select someone like Palin, but it was his only choice at the time. It's kind of like picking up J7o in middle position when very short-stacked during a tournament, and open-shoving all-in with it. It's not that you like J7o, and you know there's a good chance this shove is going to bust you, but you realize that you have to make a move before you get blinded off.

Exactly, they are chosen for ideological reasons (as well as geopraphical) that's what I said. Palin wasn't a desperation choice, it was a political strategists' version of trying to hit a home-run, instead of just getting on base, when they are down by 5 runs in the 7th inning. Steve Schmidt and the other McCain advisors "knew" what they were doing when they picked her, she wasn't their only chance... If they vetted her properly (that woman has more skeletons than a graveyard) the ywould have known she wasn't J/7 offsuit (which could win) she was more like shoving all-in with a joker and napkin with the letter D written on it.