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

[Sheldon]

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?

This may have already been mentioned but I'm too lazy to read the whole thread right now. A possible reason why candidates wait until later is that the announcement may create a larger bump in polling. You hold it off, let the media build suspense, get people talking and speculating, then make the announcement and if it's the right call you get a bigger orgasm in the polls than if you had given the answer before people started becoming really interested in the question.

Another reason could be, assuming you pick someone not whoring the straw polls at the moment, if you choose them earlier you've now got a campaign that has to mitigate the dirt-digging on two politicians instead of just one. Of course if something awful comes up from your VP nom's background you can just dump them but this calls into question your judgement and would be a money shot for opponents.

 

[skookerasbil]

Rubio will lock up the nomination for either Gingrich or Romney. Got me to thinking..........here Ive been salivating at the prospect of a Gingrich/Obama debate but this got me to thinking about a Biden/Rubio debate. Would make for historic events in that they would be remembered for being the classic media examples of the domination of conservative ideas over liberal idea's. Im almost chewing my arm off at the prospect.


Great thread Candycorn..........plus, it caused a meltdown amongst the k00ks.

 

[candycorn]

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?

This may have already been mentioned but I'm too lazy to read the whole thread right now. A possible reason why candidates wait until later is that the announcement may create a larger bump in polling. You hold it off, let the media build suspense, get people talking and speculating, then make the announcement and if it's the right call you get a bigger orgasm in the polls than if you had given the answer before people started becoming really interested in the question.

Good Point.

Another reason could be, assuming you pick someone not whoring the straw polls at the moment, if you choose them earlier you've now got a campaign that has to mitigate the dirt-digging on two politicians instead of just one. Of course if something awful comes up from your VP nom's background you can just dump them but this calls into question your judgement and would be a money shot for opponents.

I don't think it is a consideration compared to the upside. If you don't win the nomination; it's a moot point. So, at least in my mind, the upside plus of more fund raising, more media visibility, more interest in the ticket. If there is any vetting; it will be done by the time a potential running mate is named or at least should be. Opposition research on your own self or team is not only a good idea, it's almost a must.

All in all, I'm happy with the response I received in the thread. Hopefully the continuous attack lust will wane a bit

 

[Sheldon]

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?

This may have already been mentioned but I'm too lazy to read the whole thread right now. A possible reason why candidates wait until later is that the announcement may create a larger bump in polling. You hold it off, let the media build suspense, get people talking and speculating, then make the announcement and if it's the right call you get a bigger orgasm in the polls than if you had given the answer before people started becoming really interested in the question.

Good Point.

Another reason could be, assuming you pick someone not whoring the straw polls at the moment, if you choose them earlier you've now got a campaign that has to mitigate the dirt-digging on two politicians instead of just one. Of course if something awful comes up from your VP nom's background you can just dump them but this calls into question your judgement and would be a money shot for opponents.

I don't think it is a consideration compared to the upside. If you don't win the nomination; it's a moot point. So, at least in my mind, the upside plus of more fund raising, more media visibility, more interest in the ticket. If there is any vetting; it will be done by the time a potential running mate is named or at least should be. Opposition research on your own self or team is not only a good idea, it's almost a must.

All in all, I'm happy with the response I received in the thread. Hopefully the continuous attack lust will wane a bit

Fair enough. More media visibility is a double-edged sword, and no politician is dirt free. Even with extensive vetting you still have to explain away some stuff. How this added liability stacks up against their assets is just a case by case issue that really only comes with hindsight.

I think the bottom line is, if you make the right VP pick early you can lock up your nomination but if you make the wrong VP pick early it turns your campaign into the Hindenberg. Nobody wants to take the gamble of being a Hindenberg this early and end up quoting Pokemon movies for their farewell speech.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

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.

How about Obama picking Biden? He may not have had much support, but he did run.

I must seriously be having a brain fart today.

 

[BluePhantom]

Whether the candidates themselves would like to name a VP right now is really irrelevant. No legitimate VP contender will accept right now. Think of it like this just as an example. Let's say Gingrich goes to Rubio and says "hey I want you to declare as my running mate tomorrow." Rubio can't do that. He knows he is a legitimate contender for VP and if he says yes to Gingrich and Romney gets the nomination, Rubio is done. Romney can't run with Rubio at that point because a) The media will attack Rubio on the grounds of "if Romney is the best man why did you back Gingrich?" and b) Romney will say "well if Rubio couldn't help Newt get the nomination why would I think he will help me win the presidency?"

So no legitimate candidate for VP is going to be willing to commit as this point. They have far too much to lose to cast their lot with someone at this stage of the game.

 

[candycorn]

Whether the candidates themselves would like to name a VP right now is really irrelevant. No legitimate VP contender will accept right now. Think of it like this just as an example. Let's say Gingrich goes to Rubio and says "hey I want you to declare as my running mate tomorrow." Rubio can't do that. He knows he is a legitimate contender for VP and if he says yes to Gingrich and Romney gets the nomination, Rubio is done. Romney can't run with Rubio at that point because a) The media will attack Rubio on the grounds of "if Romney is the best man why did you back Gingrich?" and b) Romney will say "well if Rubio couldn't help Newt get the nomination why would I think he will help me win the presidency?"

So no legitimate candidate for VP is going to be willing to commit as this point. They have far too much to lose to cast their lot with someone at this stage of the game.

When you say "at this point", what if Candidate X came to Rubio in June of 2010 and said, "How would you like to be my running mate? "

Would that change your opinion at all. I can sort of see your point here about wanting to leave their options open but that only goes so far. I know I'm likely alone in this but I do think there are men and women of some conviction in the government or in the aura of presidential timber (CEO types, ex office holders, ex military brass etc...) who will say "This is my guy/gal." To think that all potential VP choices are limp wristed spineless creatures who will not commit to anything is pretty unfair to the many good potential public servants on both sides of the aisle.

 

[Amelia]

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.

uh...genius...

Biden was a primary opponent of Obama.

As a matter of fact, it was Biden who said, during a debate, that the POTUS is not a position to learn while on the job.

 

[candycorn]

This may have already been mentioned but I'm too lazy to read the whole thread right now. A possible reason why candidates wait until later is that the announcement may create a larger bump in polling. You hold it off, let the media build suspense, get people talking and speculating, then make the announcement and if it's the right call you get a bigger orgasm in the polls than if you had given the answer before people started becoming really interested in the question.

Good Point.

Another reason could be, assuming you pick someone not whoring the straw polls at the moment, if you choose them earlier you've now got a campaign that has to mitigate the dirt-digging on two politicians instead of just one. Of course if something awful comes up from your VP nom's background you can just dump them but this calls into question your judgement and would be a money shot for opponents.

I don't think it is a consideration compared to the upside. If you don't win the nomination; it's a moot point. So, at least in my mind, the upside plus of more fund raising, more media visibility, more interest in the ticket. If there is any vetting; it will be done by the time a potential running mate is named or at least should be. Opposition research on your own self or team is not only a good idea, it's almost a must.

All in all, I'm happy with the response I received in the thread. Hopefully the continuous attack lust will wane a bit

Fair enough. More media visibility is a double-edged sword, and no politician is dirt free. Even with extensive vetting you still have to explain away some stuff. How this added liability stacks up against their assets is just a case by case issue that really only comes with hindsight.

I think the bottom line is, if you make the right VP pick early you can lock up your nomination but if you make the wrong VP pick early it turns your campaign into the Hindenberg. Nobody wants to take the gamble of being a Hindenberg this early and end up quoting Pokemon movies for their farewell speech.

Fair enough.

I think the benefits could far outweigh the risks. Another huge plus is that you don't run the risk of having to pick a Palin type and then find out later on that she has vacancy for rental between her ears. McCain's first choice was Lieberman according to "Game Change".

In the end, I think the VP may add 3-4 percentage points to your candidacy if you announce early. If nothing else, your announcement (lets say it happens today just for the sake of argument), 9 months prior to the convention keeps your name in the newspapers and on TV for about 36 hours. If you don't announce right after you announce your candidatcy, I would save it for March. If you're still around on the 20th for Super Tuesday, you're a contender and you get an attention bump if nothing else.

 

[BluePhantom]

Whether the candidates themselves would like to name a VP right now is really irrelevant. No legitimate VP contender will accept right now. Think of it like this just as an example. Let's say Gingrich goes to Rubio and says "hey I want you to declare as my running mate tomorrow." Rubio can't do that. He knows he is a legitimate contender for VP and if he says yes to Gingrich and Romney gets the nomination, Rubio is done. Romney can't run with Rubio at that point because a) The media will attack Rubio on the grounds of "if Romney is the best man why did you back Gingrich?" and b) Romney will say "well if Rubio couldn't help Newt get the nomination why would I think he will help me win the presidency?"

So no legitimate candidate for VP is going to be willing to commit as this point. They have far too much to lose to cast their lot with someone at this stage of the game.

When you say "at this point", what if Candidate X came to Rubio in June of 2010 and said, "How would you like to be my running mate? "

Would that change your opinion at all. I can sort of see your point here about wanting to leave their options open but that only goes so far. I know I'm likely alone in this but I do think there are men and women of some conviction in the government or in the aura of presidential timber (CEO types, ex office holders, ex military brass etc...) who will say "This is my guy/gal." To think that all potential VP choices are limp wristed spineless creatures who will not commit to anything is pretty unfair to the many good potential public servants on both sides of the aisle.

I never said they were spineless creatures. They are politicians and they are going to play the game and try to maximize their odds. As far as June of 2010, Rubio would almost certainly say the same thing to everyone who asked. "I will honored to be your running mate at such a time as you have acquired the nomination." And everyone who is running right now will know and understand because they know the game of politics too.

 

[konradv]

Newt would demolish Hillary in the VP debate

Obama is replacing Biden.

True story

CrusaderFrank becomes ComedianFrank!!!

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

Gingrich/Rubio or Gingrich/Ryan
Romney Treasury Secretary
Huntsman SOS
Barack&Meechelle, White House Janitor Staff
Nancy Pelosi :In charge of cleaning White House Toilets

 

[candycorn]

Whether the candidates themselves would like to name a VP right now is really irrelevant. No legitimate VP contender will accept right now. Think of it like this just as an example. Let's say Gingrich goes to Rubio and says "hey I want you to declare as my running mate tomorrow." Rubio can't do that. He knows he is a legitimate contender for VP and if he says yes to Gingrich and Romney gets the nomination, Rubio is done. Romney can't run with Rubio at that point because a) The media will attack Rubio on the grounds of "if Romney is the best man why did you back Gingrich?" and b) Romney will say "well if Rubio couldn't help Newt get the nomination why would I think he will help me win the presidency?"

So no legitimate candidate for VP is going to be willing to commit as this point. They have far too much to lose to cast their lot with someone at this stage of the game.

When you say "at this point", what if Candidate X came to Rubio in June of 2010 and said, "How would you like to be my running mate? "

Would that change your opinion at all. I can sort of see your point here about wanting to leave their options open but that only goes so far. I know I'm likely alone in this but I do think there are men and women of some conviction in the government or in the aura of presidential timber (CEO types, ex office holders, ex military brass etc...) who will say "This is my guy/gal." To think that all potential VP choices are limp wristed spineless creatures who will not commit to anything is pretty unfair to the many good potential public servants on both sides of the aisle.

I never said they were spineless creatures. They are politicians and they are going to play the game and try to maximize their odds.

I didn't mean to imply you did.

As far as June of 2010, Rubio would almost certainly say the same thing to everyone who asked. "I will honored to be your running mate at such a time as you have acquired the nomination." And everyone who is running right now will know and understand because they know the game of politics too.

Well, okay. You may be right about that

I think that the guy/gal who names his/her VP up front is more interested in governing than playing the "game". Which I think is one of our problems....we have consturcted this gauntlet of a race to get elected whereby you need to raise money like you're a financier and you pay tacit attention to the problems of working class Americans who aren't at the $500 a plate fund raiser or not in the room when you're giving a speech to the Chamber of Commerce.

If I were that sort of change agent, and such and such gave me that answer, my response would be "Whew...that phone call you're not getting will be from me."

I'm not dobuting what you say because it is the way things are now. The way things are now is screwed up by almost all accounts. We should have a diamond shaped economy with some rich and some poor and a wide middle class. Instead we're almost at the point to where it is turning into a pyramid or hour glass shaped economy with many rich, many poor and a shrinking middle class.

Again, I'm not doubting what you're saying. I don't think that is the real reason though--anybody worth having will say no because they want to keep their options open? As if there is a guarantee they will be asked by Candidate X if he or she is elected. There has to be a better reason than that.

 

[candycorn]

Gingrich/Rubio or Gingrich/Ryan
Romney Treasury Secretary
Huntsman SOS
Barack&Meechelle, White House Janitor Staff
Nancy Pelosi :In charge of cleaning White House Toilets

I think Newt would want Sasha and Mailia (sp?) to clean the toilets wouldn't they?

Gingrich/Ryan? Don't read the papers much do you?

 

[JDzBrain]

Gingrich/Ryan? Don't read the papers much do you?

Actually, Newt was right and Ryan understands it. Parts of the Ryan bill...no matter how well intentioned...were just the same kind of social engineering by a conservative as we conservatives accuse progressives of all the time. That is NOT what the federal government is suppose to be doing!

I will promise ya...Paul Ryan is a SMART GUY. He's thought about it, understands what Newt was saying and doesn't hold it against him!

That said, I don't know what you are trolling for with this. There is nothing to be gained by naming your running mate before you get the nomination. It has never been done in the history of the primary system that I can think of off hand.

And you can not "govern" if you don't get nominated. To do that, you have to understand the process, the electorate and do the right things at the right time. Any candidate that treats it as a "game" will NOT get the chance to govern!

Oh, and just for the record. Marco Rubio will NOT accept the nomination for VP from anyone. He has given his word to the voters of his district that he was going to Washington to work for them and not to further his political career.

He has said that he has no intention of running for president or anything else until he finishes the work they sent him there to do. I BELIEVE HIM!

Paul Ryan has said nearly the same thing and I believe he means it too. The majority of the TEA Party backed freshmen are men and women of high principle...for a change. Guys like Rand Paul are true believers in the Constitution and our founding principles and are in Washington to FIX IT!

We just have to send them more help and kick progressives to the curb!

 

[Baruch Menachem]

the job of vice president in the modern era of competent medicine is now pointless and ridiculous. the last VP who made purple was Ford.


The VP nominee has as much relevance to the election as the flight of Geese

 

[auditor0007]

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.

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.

My guess is Mitch Daniels. Rubio is the ideal VP pick, if he would accept. With Rubio, you get a much better chance of winning Florida, a state that must be won, and you get a little more on the conservative side to appease the wing nuts.

 

[BluePhantom]

Again, I'm not doubting what you're saying. I don't think that is the real reason though--anybody worth having will say no because they want to keep their options open? As if there is a guarantee they will be asked by Candidate X if he or she is elected. There has to be a better reason than that.

Well please don't misunderstand me though. You may be absolutely correct that announcing a running mate early would be a benefit for the presidential candidate. I think you make a good overall point. It's just that they can't do it for political reasons. Everyone has to play "the game" and that's just the way it is ya know?

 

[BluePhantom]

My guess is Mitch Daniels. Rubio is the ideal VP pick, if he would accept. With Rubio, you get a much better chance of winning Florida, a state that must be won, and you get a little more on the conservative side to appease the wing nuts.

With Rubio you will also pull a greater share of the Hispanic vote which means New Mexico may flip and Nevada would almost certainly be toast for Obama.

 

[Sallow]

Romney and Newt won't run together

The current field is very weak, look for someone outside the current group as VP. I see a Sarah Palin type pushed by the TeaTards

I can see Gingrich picking Bachmann.

Or...Trump.