Vice Presidents...A serious question; please consider:

Discussion in 'Politics' started by candycorn, Dec 6, 2011.

  1. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    37,515
    Thanks Received:
    4,543
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,047
    Hello and good morning.

    It is spoken often here that Gingrich may be Mitt's VP or vice versa....Or perhaps Paul would be the VP or Santorum or whomever.

    My question is this:

    Why all the suspense? It would seem to me that the benefits of naming your running mate early on in the race would give your campaign a bump (it doesn't need to be a fellow candidate for POTUS). It also would seem to me that while the top or bottom of the ticket is in Iowa, the other end of the ticket could be in SC or NH or doing fundraising in New York.

    I think that the main reason is because there isn't enough money from fundraising to support basically two campaigns at one time.

    Is there a better reason?
     
  2. Caroljo
    Offline

    Caroljo Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2009
    Messages:
    6,596
    Thanks Received:
    1,175
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +1,337
    I don't think anyone has ever announced their VP before being nominated....it's just not done that way. But it would be a good idea maybe. I'm all for Newt getting nominated, but i really wouldn't want him taking Ron Paul along with him (i doubt that would happen anyway). Guess it really wouldn't matter, i wouldn't vote for Obama anyway!
     
  3. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    37,515
    Thanks Received:
    4,543
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,047
    Yes, but why is it "not done that way"?

    It seems to me that if you're thinking you're going to win the Presidency or at least your party's nomination (else why run?) you would have at least had a blush with who you pictured as your VP.

    In the "old days" of campaigns where money wasn't the driving force it is now, I could understand it. Like before television, nobody had to buy television ads so it was cheaper to run for office. However now it costs a lot of money to not only buy the airtime but to score the ad to be the most effective (there was a reason why Newt threw in the word "unionized" when he came up with the silly idea of having kids clean the schools instead of learning in them).

    Why not get more boots on the ground working for your campaign since you, as the candidate, can only be in one place at a time. It would double your candidacy's retail politicking if nothing else.
     
  4. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    Romney really really wants to be president. He's not going with Newt if he wins the nomination. And while he's said some incredibly stupid things, he hasn't done the whole hog batshit crazy conservative thing. And he won't. His eye is really on the General. Look for a safe pick like Pawlenty. Rubio said he wouldn't do it..but who knows. He might even find someone more moderate then either of those guys.
     
  5. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    37,515
    Thanks Received:
    4,543
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,047
    Okay, lets say Pawlenty or Rubio. Or lets really get crazy (for now--watch out in 4-8 years) and say Nikki Haley. Or Richard Lugar, Jeb Bush, JC Watts, etc... The question I'm wanting answered is what is the harm in having your guy/gal in mind, naming him/her today and putting his/her credability, fund raising abilities, charisma, lieutennants, political apparatus, etc... to work for you as well as a named VP.

    I understand that this isn't done but why isn't it done? I'm not seeing a huge downside to telling the public that "This is my Vice President" in December of 2011 versus August 2012. Having another big gun on the campaign trail who is working for you seems to be a plus.

    I guess the big drawback is that some reporter will ask Mr. Pawlenty, Mr. Rubio, Ms. Haley, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Bush or Mr. Watts..."If you are prepared to take over as President, why aren't you running?" To me, it's a non issue since there are so many hurdles in the way to start with--namely money, electoral math, and of course money (it counts twice!).

    But beyond that, I can't see a downside to naming your running mate in December verus 7 months later when they really can't add all that much to your campaign.
     
  6. occupied
    Offline

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,407
    Thanks Received:
    2,247
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,732
    Presidents usually pick unambitious toadies to be VP, Bush allowing Cheney to pick himself still boggles my mind, not sure any nominee has ever chosen one of their primary opponents as VP.
     
  7. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,527
    Thanks Received:
    4,848
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,358
    Paul has mentioned various names as possibilities during his campaigns. Andrew Napolitano being the most notable.
     
  8. Jackson
    Offline

    Jackson Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    19,636
    Thanks Received:
    4,872
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +12,676
    I certainly understand what you are saying. But in reality, I feel the light supporters of a candidate just my lose that support when they name an unappealing VP.

    It used to be that geography played too much of a role in VP choices. I'd rather see the candidate select someone who could confidently hold the office of president if the need be.

    I personally believe that Gingrich - Romney ticket would be best, but Romney wouldn't agree to that at this time. Even though it makes a good combination and funding would be so much easier for Newt, it just isn't in the cards that Romney would give up the presidential prize so easily.

    I would also like to know who some of the cabinet picks would be before the nomination...showing that the president isn't just selecting friends and donors but those best suited for the positions.

    Thanks for bringing this up. It was a good topic. :eusa_angel:
     
  9. JDzBrain
    Offline

    JDzBrain Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    519
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Back woods of Kentucky
    Ratings:
    +140
    First, it would be disrespectful of you opponent to pick them as a VP since it's the same thing as saying I win...you loose. And if that person said they'd accept as VP...it's an admission that they can't win. That's the political optics for why they don't do it Candy.

    And the truth is, NONE of the guys running will be chosen as a VP. All you have to do is look at all the damage that is being done to them on the national stage by the liberal media, infighting within the party and backstabbing by most of the candidates. ALL of these folks...that don't win...will be damaged goods on the national stage.

    On top of that, the eventual VP selection will be based on who can deliver the most support to the campaign nationally.

    A Marco Rubio would deliver a LOT of Latino votes to whoever the nominee is. For Rick Perry, that may not be as important since he is respected by Latinos. But for Newt, he'd be a good choice since Rubio gets Latino AND TEA Party supporters.

    For guys like Newt and Rommney who are political insiders, someone like, as Paulie mentions, a Andrew Napolitano would deliver the Constitutional Conservatives, Libertarians and TEA Party vote. Plus, he is the ULTIMATE political outsider.

    Ron Paul, Ron has his own credentials as a conservative and strict constitutionalists. He will need to find a running mate that voters will see as a counterbalance to his extreme views and deliver the center of the republican party. Andrew Napolitano wouldn't fit that bill...although THAT would be a ticket the founders could support! ;~)

    He'd need someone like a Mitch Daniels or John Thune, the guy who put Tom Daschle out of Congress, with a younger, more vibrate persona and would deliver middle America, lock, stock and barrel.

    The thing is though, THAT is a long way off because a LOT can change between getting nominated and the general election. The reason they wait is so they can choose a running mate that addresses their need given the current political climate at the time of the general election. It's just the reality of the political process in modern America.
     
  10. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,153
    Not since Clinton picked Gore.

    But then we've only had two Presidents since then.

    Edit: Scratch that. I forgot that it was 88 when Gore ran. The last one then was when Reagan chose Bush.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2011

Share This Page