Thread: VP Candidate for the Republican Party 2012

Originally Posted by Anderssen

Hi,

I just wondered what your thoughts would be on the potential VP Candidates for the upcoming presidential election?

In my opinion, if the Republicans want to beat Obama, they need a VP Candidate who can at least win the TV Debate against Biden, i. e. not someone like Palin who (imho) performed significantly weaker than Biden in 2008.
Furthermore, you'll probably have to win Florida.
And you'll also have to win most of the other states with a significant hispanic minority – except Californa, they'll probably vote Democrat either way, just as Texas is going to vote Republican – I'm thinking specifically about Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico.

For this, I believe that Marco Rubio would be an appropriate candidate. I'm aware that he publicly said he doesn't think he will be asked to run as VP in the first place, and he'd want to continue to serve as a Senator. However, if my impression is not entirely incorrect, he'd be nonetheless a “desired“ candidate (for the lack of a better word), and he'd probably have himself convinced and run on the ticket if he'd be asked explicitly.

Personally, I'd also consider Jon Huntsman to be a good candidate. He has much experience in and outside the US and is a – as he likes to emphasize – a center-right candidate, which would make him compatible with lots of voters.
However, I think the public would be a little “skeptical“ against two practising Mormons at the top.

Other opinions, other VP candidates?

The VP selection will be an interesting one this year. The candidate who would best help the ticvket is one that can't be selected - Suzanna Martinez of NM. If she were picked there would be inevitable comparisons with Sarah Palin, and that would define her candidacy and election, so she won't be selected. I believe Rubio won't be picked as he's too "raw". but he will def appear on the short-list. It's hard to determine who the VP nominee will be, but I believe the short-list will feature the following: Rubio, John Thune, Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell, and Mitch Daniels. Given how much the GOP base loves Mitt Romney, he's going to need someone who can help him win the base over. That aside though, the GOP urgently needs to start redressing the demographic issues that they're losing at elections: ie women and minorities. Based on the last couple of elections, the Dems tend to win around 57% of women, 67-70% of hispanics, and 90%+ of Afrian Americans. That means that only voting bloc that the GOP wins is white men, which is a shrinking group. It's form this reason that states like NM, Colorado, and Nevada has become purple-trending blue. Virginia too is a victim of that. The growing pop'n of D.C. is moving into VA's northern suburbs, which is why Virginia is now purple. Arizona and Texas will be the next to suffer the same fate, but not yet; although there is speculation that by 2020 Texas will be looking more purple. If/when that happens, the GOP is done. They urgently need to address this now. Having said all of that, I would pick Mary Falin. She would appeal to the GOP and conservative base; comparisons with Palin can't be drawn, because in addition to having served as governor for the same length of time as Palin, she's also been a Lt Gov, and a member of Congress.

Huntsman def won't get the nomination. The base is already very wary of Romney's mormonism (it's a largely uinspoken issue this election), and they certainly won't nominate two. They'll need someone who placates the conservative (ie christian) base.

Rubio has said he doesn't want it and frankly it would be bad for his career. I think Tim Pawlenty is probably a frontrunner because he's safe, the conservative base accepts him, and he was the #1 choice in 2008. Romney is by nature cautious and Pawlenty is the perfect, cautious choice. Another possiblity is Mitch Daniels, especially since Daniels would insure that Indiana goes back to red this year. Bob McDonnell is another possiblity, he's got a 60% approval rating and probably delivers Virginia. Or, Romney could go to the Senate and tap a safe choice like Lamar Alexander. there's also some promising folks who haven't been in politics awhile, like John Engler.

If Romney decides to be a little bolder, he could double down on the moderate thing for the general election and select Huntsman. Or he could renew conservative base enthusiasm with Tom Coburn. Or he could make a play for the Hispanic vote with Mel Martinez. Rubio is unavailable, but Martinez is popular enough and experienced enough to make a credible President should something happen to Romney, and he probably can deliver Florida. Rubio has yet to establish statewide appeal. He did win a three-man race, after all.

Originally Posted by adaher

Rubio has said he doesn't want it and frankly it would be bad for his career. I think Tim Pawlenty is probably a frontrunner because he's safe, the conservative base accepts him, and he was the #1 choice in 2008. Romney is by nature cautious and Pawlenty is the perfect, cautious choice. Another possiblity is Mitch Daniels, especially since Daniels would insure that Indiana goes back to red this year. Bob McDonnell is another possiblity, he's got a 60% approval rating and probably delivers Virginia. Or, Romney could go to the Senate and tap a safe choice like Lamar Alexander. there's also some promising folks who haven't been in politics awhile, like John Engler.

If Romney decides to be a little bolder, he could double down on the moderate thing for the general election and select Huntsman. Or he could renew conservative base enthusiasm with Tom Coburn. Or he could make a play for the Hispanic vote with Mel Martinez. Rubio is unavailable, but Martinez is popular enough and experienced enough to make a credible President should something happen to Romney, and he probably can deliver Florida. Rubio has yet to establish statewide appeal. He did win a three-man race, after all.

I agree with amost everything you said, except for Martinez. I still don't think any GOP candidate wants to tie themselves that closely with the Bush administration by selecting a former Bush cabinet member, and someone who didn't finsih his first term in the senate.

Martinez is an unlikely choice, but Republicans often like to go to retired politicians with Cabinet experience(Bush, Kemp, Cheney) and Martinez has many advantages if Romney wants to go there. Tommy Thompson also would have been a great choice in that vein, but he'll be running for Senate.

Originally Posted by adaher

Martinez is an unlikely choice, but Republicans often like to go to retired politicians with Cabinet experience(Bush, Kemp, Cheney) and Martinez has many advantages if Romney wants to go there. Tommy Thompson also would have been a great choice in that vein, but he'll be running for Senate.

Given the misgivings that much of the GOP base has with Romney, I think it's a safe bet to say that Romney will go with a non-mormon, christian conservative, who appeals to the TEA Party, has executive/managerial (not legislative) experience, but someone who is familiar with how Washington works. The more McDonell pseudo campaigns for the role the less likely he is to get it. I think using the above criteria, Mitch Daniels looks good.

Well, I imagine Romney will choose someone who the base approves of, but lately I'm not sure who they approve of other than Santorum and a few other lousy folks.

I think Pawlenty's not a bad choice, but then you'd have two northerners on the same ticket.

So that makes me think John Thune is a little more appealing to Romney.

Romney-Daniels would be a strange combo. Another situation with two northern guys on the same ticket, plus Daniels has no appeal whatsoever especially after being Bush's chief economic guy.

Rubio's an exciting pick, I don't think that would hurt Romney, but I think Rubio would end up being open to the same questions as Palin being that he's as young as he is (he's 41 or is turning 41 later this year).

Mary Fallin would be an interesting pick and her alleged affair with one of her bodyguards is already out there, so that probably wouldn't be a huge surprise or anything. She'd be good with the base, too, since last summer I believe she was one of the Governor's who told people to pray for rain amid the heatwave. And like most frontier-cons, she continues the tradition of weird child names with her kid Price......Fallin......

Price Fallin......get it?.............get it?........

Thune is definitely a possibility, as is Rob Portman. Fallin, I don't know if she's very likely. Daniels has plenty of appeal, actually, he's very well respected and popular in Indiana. Before the Tea Party governors were pissing everyone off, he was doing it and enduring 25% approval ratings. Then his reforms ended up working out well and he spent most of his governorship in the 60s. Indiana also rode out the recession better than most states. And given that the states to Indiana's east, west, and north didn't do so well, you can't just say Daniels had a good hand dealt to him. And despite all the Tea Partyish reforms he enacted in Indiana, no one associates him with the far right. He has a moderate demeanor.

Originally Posted by noahath

The VP selection will be an interesting one this year. The candidate who would best help the ticvket is one that can't be selected - Suzanna Martinez of NM. If she were picked there would be inevitable comparisons with Sarah Palin, and that would define her candidacy and election, so she won't be selected. I believe Rubio won't be picked as he's too "raw". but he will def appear on the short-list. . . .

Rubio and Martinez would both be lousy picks IMO. They both really took a crap on themselves needlessly by pandering to hardline anti-illegal immigration platforms including opposing the DREAM Act, which is the death penalty for sufficient Hispanic vote inroads.

Hispanics tend more often than not to be socially conservative, tough on violent crime, religious, and entrepreneurial as well as understanding of the need for border control more than many conservatives knew or believed. Due to all these reasons not just their heritage, it's clear the bulk wanted a practical solution to this issue that satisfied all these interests. That means a new streamlined and tailored immigration procedure going forward such as tough rules for future illegal entry and crackdowns on gangs invading via the border and inside the nation, easier visas for talented workers for immediate relatives and opportunities for the educated, agricultural pickers, etc, and some 'grandfathering' relief for those already well rooted here with kin, especially DREAM Act people educated and raised here as Americans who have clean rap sheets and want to serve in the military and/or seek higher education with skill sets.

Rubio and Martinez really blew it here by even opposing the DREAM Act, which the GOP once sponsored and comes off looking like heartless, mean spirited dicks (and some likely racially motivated) in many of their perceptions by opposing that now along with refusing to take its own share of responsibility why such people are in the situation they are right now. Worse, Rubio supports and has benefited family-wise from the special exception free automatic green cards (which is more than what legal entrants must do to gain legal status, e.g., go through a process) for all Cubans who gatecrash the US and Martinez is progeny of illegal Mexicans herself. The stink of that hypocrisy is extremely strong and offensive to a large number of them (just watch or read their media for example and Rubio already got the gusano (worm) pejorative for Cuban clique self-servers and hypocrites stuck on him) and IMO understandably so given it's pretty self-evident as to why. If anything, they just serve to motivate votes for Obama instead.

Enforcement has to come first. Support for immigration reform in 1986 was bipartisan, and the idea was that we amnesty those who are here and prevent future illegal immigration. The public won't stand for another amnesty in the absence of enforcement. If that means alienating the Hispanic vote, so what? A stance like that gets you 60% of the white vote, which means you win.

Originally Posted by adaher

Enforcement has to come first. Support for immigration reform in 1986 was bipartisan, and the idea was that we amnesty those who are here and prevent future illegal immigration. The public won't stand for another amnesty in the absence of enforcement. If that means alienating the Hispanic vote, so what? A stance like that gets you 60% of the white vote, which means you win.

The fallacy of that popular comparison is that it didn't deal with enforcement. It merely grandfathered those here with no enforcement going forward. To sell it and get it resolved it needs to be comprehensive with a package deal for trust and full resolution...resolve those here and with a future plan for proper entry and proper handling of illegal entry or breaking terms of entry. Getting 60% of the whites on being a hardass on everyone here no matter their circumstances is a pipe dream IMO too. That position pleases nobody by the choir who already will vote GOP. It won't solve the issue because it won't reach a settlement, too many support some forms of relief, etc.

I saw an interview with Biden last week.
He says he isn't running this time.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

The fallacy of that popular comparison is that it didn't deal with enforcement. It merely grandfathered those here with no enforcement going forward. To sell it and get it resolved it needs to be comprehensive...resolve those here and with a future plan for proper entry and proper handling of illegal entry or breaking terms of entry. Getting 60% of the whites on being a hardass on everyone here no matter their circumstances is a pipe dream IMO too. That position pleases nobody by the choir who already will vote GOP. It won't solve the issue because it won't reach a settlement, too many support some forms of relief, etc.

What the public demands is enforcement, then amnesty. WHy would you, or anyone else, support a massive comprehensive reform that the public would be opposed to? How would that help Republicans? Let the Democrats do it and face the consequences if they are committed to that.

Problem is, they won't. There isn't even enough support within their own caucus. There's support for talking about it to try to appease Hispanic voters, but they wouldn't dare actually move on it.

BTW, the public opposes in state tuition rates for illegals, 25-68

Originally Posted by adaher

How would that help Republicans?

Go back to 2007 and ask the Pubs why they were salivating to pass a comprehensive Immigration Act?

It was an embarrasing impression for Tony Snow to leave behind after an illustrious career in the news media.