Who would you like to see at Romneys running mate..

[BluePhantom]

Rick Santorum for the win.

Up until very recently I have been pretty sure Rubio would get the call, but now that I think about it in more depth I am not so certain for the following reasons.

A) Rubio would probably ice Florida for Romney, but as I said, I think (and I imagine the Romney camp will believe) that they can take Florida without him. So no real help there.

B) Consider the ten states with the highest percentage of Hispanic population (in order): 1. New Mexico, 2. California, 3. Texas, 4. Arizona, 5. Nevada, 6. Florida, 7. Colorado, 8. New Jersey, 9. New York, 10. Illinois.

So let's have a look at this. Rubio pulled 55% of the Hispanic vote in Florida in the 2010 election. By comparison, Rick Scott only pulled 50% of the Hispanic vote in the same election. Now it would be completely simplistic to suggest that Rubio pulled 5% more simply on race alone, but just for the sake of argument let's go with that and assume that Rubio will pull 5% more of the Hispanic vote for Romney.

So the question becomes in which states will a 5% increase in Hispanic voting for Romney flip the state from blue to red? Well first let's get rid of the states that are solidly red anyhow. That leaves New Mexico, California, Nevada, Florida, Colorado, New Jersey, New York, and Illinois.

We can toss out Illinois right off the bat as it's Obama's home state. Will that 5% be enough to flip California, New Jersey, or New York? Not a chance. New Mexico? Highly doubtful. Florida? Romney will probably get that anyhow. So Nevada and Colorado are really the only ones where Rubio might...might be able to secure the state. That would bring in a total of 15 electoral votes for Romney.

On the other hand Portman would go a long way in securing Ohio and would probably deliver it to Romney for 18 electoral votes. Portman is a better call.

Now before everyone goes off bitching about this and that regarding this analysis, keep in mind this is hypothetical and I am making a hell of a lot assumptions just for the sake of argument.

The overall consideration is: who would stand a better chance of delivering more EVs? Up until now I have said Rubio....I am not quite as certain anymore.

 

[Avorysuds]

My choices,,

Chris Christie
Paul Ryan
Marco Rubio
Scott Walker
John Kasich
Alan West

Those on my list in no particular order

Again, doesn't matter who his running mate is, it's still going to be Romney.

Romney's problem here is that if he gets a running mate that people might get somewhat excited about, it'll just remind them about how inadequate he is to the people he's representing.

My guess, he'll take Rob Portman. A guy who won't upstage him, but has gravitas.

This nails it. This is the second election in a row where Republicans care more about the VP, or in this case the possible VP (extra sad) than the actual candidate.

It's odd being a Paul fan because one of the last things I cared about is who his VP would be. For people like McCain and Mitt it's one of the most important decisions they can make to actually attract voters because they lack that ability on their own.

It’s amazing watching the partisanship on both sides, watching the mindless zombies line up behind their candidate and it’s even more funny watching the Republicans lash out and attack the masses that simply won’t conform to Mitt.

Mitt is running against Bush III. Mitt is running against a guy that has near every one of the odds against him, unpopular wars, bad economy, high UE, un-trustworthy and a sellout… and yet Mitt struggles to even keep up with Obama in the polls… That should tell you guys a lot, but somehow you gloss over that basic reality.

 

[Mac1958]

Trying to divide America along racial lines is not a Republican thing.

Indeed, dividing people into little groups, identity politics, is a Democrat specialty. The problem for the Republicans, however, is that the strategy has been very successful, and they face an uphill battle. The least they could do is try to communicate their message to those groups on a clear and consistent basis. The other guys are, and it's hardening many minorities against the Republicans.

The GOP ignores demographics at their own peril.

.

I don't suppose you will want to support that statement? That democrats own that startegy.

Please, if you are going to tell me that the practice is so prevalent in Dem strategy and so absent in the GOP that it is obvious to anyone...and that there is no need to support it.......just don't. It is better if you just let it sit there.

Great!



By the way.....how can the GOP refine it's message to "those groups" without recognizing them as "those groups"?


They have to play the Democrats' game, no doubt about it. Certainly the top two ethnic groups they'd have to target would be blacks and Hispanics - oh wait, African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans (can't forget the hyphens, hope I didn't "offend" anyone). Then find some kind of way (not my problem to figure out what that is) to show those groups that "conservative values" are in line with theirs, just leave out the way generations of those groups have become dependent on the government due to the actions of people who "care" so much about them.

Tough job, definitely, but the demographics are staring the GOP in the face.


And, is the Democratic strategy of messaging "those groups" hardening them against the GOP because they are engaging in positive Democratic messaging or negative GOP messaging?

Hmm. If by "positive Democratic messaging" you mean "you're fucked, don't bother trying, you have no chance, you need us to take care of you", then yeah, there's some of that, and the other part would be "those other guys aren't going to take care of you, so that means that they hate you", which I guess would qualify as "negative GOP messaging."

So some of both, I reckon.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Indeed, dividing people into little groups, identity politics, is a Democrat specialty. The problem for the Republicans, however, is that the strategy has been very successful, and they face an uphill battle. The least they could do is try to communicate their message to those groups on a clear and consistent basis. The other guys are, and it's hardening many minorities against the Republicans.

The GOP ignores demographics at their own peril.

.

I don't suppose you will want to support that statement? That democrats own that startegy.

Please, if you are going to tell me that the practice is so prevalent in Dem strategy and so absent in the GOP that it is obvious to anyone...and that there is no need to support it.......just don't. It is better if you just let it sit there.

Great!

By the way.....how can the GOP refine it's message to "those groups" without recognizing them as "those groups"?
[/QUOTE]

They have to play the Democrats' game, no doubt about it. Certainly the top two ethnic groups they'd have to target would be blacks and Hispanics - oh wait, African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans (can't forget the hyphens, hope I didn't "offend" anyone). Then find some kind of way (not my problem to figure out what that is) to show those groups that "conservative values" are in line with theirs, just leave out the way generations of those groups have become dependent on the government due to the actions of people who "care" so much about them.

Tough job, definitely, but the demographics are staring the GOP in the face.


[/QUOTE]
And, is the Democratic strategy of messaging "those groups" hardening them against the GOP because they are engaging in positive Democratic messaging or negative GOP messaging?[/QUOTE]

Hmm. If by "positive Democratic messaging" you mean "you're fucked, don't bother trying, you have no chance, you need us to take care of you", then yeah, there's some of that, and the other part would be "those other guys aren't going to take care of you, so that means that they hate you", which I guess would qualify as "negative GOP messaging."

So some of both, I reckon.

.[/QUOTE]

Too bad. You could be interesting to talk with.

 

[Sallow]

Rick Santorum for the win.

Up until very recently I have been pretty sure Rubio would get the call, but now that I think about it in more depth I am not so certain for the following reasons.

A) Rubio would probably ice Florida for Romney, but as I said, I think (and I imagine the Romney camp will believe) that they can take Florida without him. So no real help there.

B) Consider the ten states with the highest percentage of Hispanic population (in order): 1. New Mexico, 2. California, 3. Texas, 4. Arizona, 5. Nevada, 6. Florida, 7. Colorado, 8. New Jersey, 9. New York, 10. Illinois.

So let's have a look at this. Rubio pulled 55% of the Hispanic vote in Florida in the 2010 election. By comparison, Rick Scott only pulled 50% of the Hispanic vote in the same election. Now it would be completely simplistic to suggest that Rubio pulled 5% more simply on race alone, but just for the sake of argument let's go with that and assume that Rubio will pull 5% more of the Hispanic vote for Romney.

So the question becomes in which states will a 5% increase in Hispanic voting for Romney flip the state from blue to red? Well first let's get rid of the states that are solidly red anyhow. That leaves New Mexico, California, Nevada, Florida, Colorado, New Jersey, New York, and Illinois.

We can toss out Illinois right off the bat as it's Obama's home state. Will that 5% be enough to flip California, New Jersey, or New York? Not a chance. New Mexico? Highly doubtful. Florida? Romney will probably get that anyhow. So Nevada and Colorado are really the only ones where Rubio might...might be able to secure the state. That would bring in a total of 15 electoral votes for Romney.

On the other hand Portman would go a long way in securing Ohio and would probably deliver it to Romney for 18 electoral votes. Portman is a better call.

Now before everyone goes off bitching about this and that regarding this analysis, keep in mind this is hypothetical and I am making a hell of a lot assumptions just for the sake of argument.

The overall consideration is: who would stand a better chance of delivering more EVs? Up until now I have said Rubio....I am not quite as certain anymore.

Rubio wouldn't "ice" anything but a small part of the Cuban population, who would go Romney anyway. Cubans are universally hated by most Hispanics..and I'm part Cuban.

If Romney were serious about the hispanic vote..he would go with Martinez. Rubio is a Tea Party heart throb.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Who would you like to see at Romneys running mate..

It really doesn’t make any difference, the trick being finding someone who wants to be on a losing ticket.

Rubio wouldn't "ice" anything but a small part of the Cuban population, who would go Romney anyway. Cubans are universally hated by most Hispanics..and I'm part Cuban.

True, particularly since there’s noting to ‘ice.’

Also true is Cubans being a unique segment of the Hispanic population, they are not representative of Hispanics Nationwide. And Latino voters clearly see the GOP hostile to Hispanics.

 

[BluePhantom]

Rubio wouldn't "ice" anything but a small part of the Cuban population, who would go Romney anyway. Cubans are universally hated by most Hispanics..and I'm part Cuban.

If Romney were serious about the hispanic vote..he would go with Martinez. Rubio is a Tea Party heart throb.

yeah I had thought about that animosity between Cubans and other Hispanics as well. It's a point not to be overlooked. An argument could be made that he would lose just as many Hispanic votes as he would gain because of his Cuban heritage; perhaps even more. I am not quite certain how that would play out. Still, Rubio does have some pros. He would probably excite the base more than Portman which is always a good thing. Martinez would be a very interesting choice. She is adamant that she will refuse any such offer, but so was Biden. Like I said earlier. Anyone being considered right now will play the game of "oh I have no interest in that". We'll see.

 

[Avorysuds]

Mitt's best bet is to pick a nobody. Someone mentioned Rand Paul and that about sums up the entire enigma that Mitt is in. If Mitt picks someone at all popular it will be seen for one reason, to buy votes that Mitt can't land off his record.

Rand would be the worst for the record as it would give credit to the Ron Paul/Mitt Romney "deals." But in any case that is the issue. Mitt has support 1 mile wide but 1 inch deep. Mitts supporters wouldn't show up to vote in the GE it there was a chance of cold weather and possibly cloudy.

Obama is very lucky because he is pretty much in the same boat as Mitt... All Obama has to do now is spend his billion dollars on showing the country just how similar Mitt and Obama are so that Republicans care even less to turn out and vote. If Obamacare is struck down Mitt can't win no matter who his VP is.

 

[Zander]

I'd like to see a fiscal conservative with unassailable credentials- Jindal, Pawlenty, or Sanford all come to mind. They are governors with executive experience.

Still, anybody will do. Look at Biden- he's a complete moron.

 

[Mac1958]

Cubans are universally hated by most Hispanics..and I'm part Cuban.

Yeah, I've heard about this. But somehow I doubt Romney's thought process would be that deep. His top two priorities are (1) pander and (2) pander, so someone with an Hispanic-sounding last name would probably be good enough for his purposes...

.

 

[BluePhantom]

Rubio wouldn't "ice" anything but a small part of the Cuban population, who would go Romney anyway. Cubans are universally hated by most Hispanics..and I'm part Cuban.

Just one other thought on that Sallow (and God forbid I turn this into a football thread) but consider this. I grew up in northern Idaho and was a fan of the University of Idaho Vandals (yeah, yeah I know...but back then we were actually dominating at the Division II level). Anyhow our blood enemies were Boise St. and let me tell you there was absolute hatred there. Now several decades later as Boise St. football dances around the top five every year, there is more support from Vandal fans than you would imagine; not because we suddenly like Boise St. (we hate their guts), but because for the first time an Idaho football program is getting attention on the big stage. In other words: "we don't like Boise St. but they do represent the state of Idaho so we will support them with reservation."

I think you may see a lot of Hispanics have a similar mindset: "we aren't thrilled that he is Cuban, but he is Hispanic and this is a historic opportunity so with reservation we will support him."

It's just real hard to know for certain how it will all play out.

 

[JoeB131]

Romney will be the face of the GOP. The veep pick has never mattered for much and I don't see that changing here. And this notion that Romney needs a minority is something of a fallacy, since the GOP has made zero effort to attract minorities to this point, and cramming one in there under Mitt would make whomever it is look like a token. I'm still guessing it'll be Ryan, Portman or Rubio (token), in that order...

.

I can't see him taking Ryan, as Ryan has become the face of some very unpopular proposed cuts. (Incidently, I think Ryan is one of the few adults in the room in the GOP Caucus.)

I love this shit.

Ryan is a petulant, dishonest, political hack.

He's also one of the few guys being honest enough to admit that we have to curb the growth of entitlements if we are going to ever make a dent in the debt.

 

[code1211]

Huckabee is to nice for the job.

Palin….no way after the reality television she did.

Condi…would be perfect but won't do it.


We need someone of color…because Obama got elected only because he was black. No one cared about what he was talking about….he wrote books to brainwash people into thinking he was someone he was not. I doubt he is even a citizen…as it took him over three years to cough up a bogus certificate. His other records are sealed and he won't release his educational records or medical records. Who is he? He is black and that is what got him the job. So if the Republicans want any chance….they better find someone qualified who is of color. And there are plenty out there.

Howard Stern proved this. Go to youtube and type in Sterns Harlem interviews…you will die laughing.

I still love Herman Cain……he is my pick. He is likable…and as the Democrats always say….the personal life does not matter so how could they bring up infidelities if there were any…hell Kennedy, Clinton…had them.

Cain is a gaff machine.

 

[Warrior102]

JC Watts

 

[code1211]

Trying to divide America along racial lines is not a Republican thing.

Indeed, dividing people into little groups, identity politics, is a Democrat specialty. The problem for the Republicans, however, is that the strategy has been very successful, and they face an uphill battle. The least they could do is try to communicate their message to those groups on a clear and consistent basis. The other guys are, and it's hardening many minorities against the Republicans.

The GOP ignores demographics at their own peril.

.

I don't suppose you will want to support that statement? That democrats own that startegy.

Please, if you are going to tell me that the practice is so prevalent in Dem strategy and so absent in the GOP that it is obvious to anyone...and that there is no need to support it.......just don't. It is better if you just let it sit there.

By the way.....how can the GOP refine it's message to "those groups" without recognizing them as "those groups"?

And, is the Democratic strategy of messaging "those groups" hardening them against the GOP because they are engaging in positive Democratic messaging or negative GOP messaging?

When a Republican says he wants to cut taxes, he leaves it at that. When a Democrat wants to cut taxes, he divides and splinters the population into those groups that he wants to buy and those groups that he doesn't.

 

[Dragon]

I want someone entertaining as Romney's running mate. The outcome of the election is looking more and more like a foregone conclusion, totally boring, so we might as well have some laughs along the way.

 

[JoeB131]

I'd like to see a fiscal conservative with unassailable credentials- Jindal, Pawlenty, or Sanford all come to mind. They are governors with executive experience.

Still, anybody will do. Look at Biden- he's a complete moron.

Sanford? You mean the one who was running around "hiking" with his mistress?

Pawlenty, who is probably kicking himself for dropping out early, doesn't excite anyone. He might be a good pick, helps with evangelicals, helps in the midwest, dull as dishwater.

Jindal, you might have to explain the whole excorcism thing... that would be amusing.

 

[Sallow]

I'd like to see a fiscal conservative with unassailable credentials- Jindal, Pawlenty, or Sanford all come to mind. They are governors with executive experience.

Still, anybody will do. Look at Biden- he's a complete moron.

Sanford? You mean the one who was running around "hiking" with his mistress?

Pawlenty, who is probably kicking himself for dropping out early, doesn't excite anyone. He might be a good pick, helps with evangelicals, helps in the midwest, dull as dishwater.

Jindal, you might have to explain the whole excorcism thing... that would be amusing.

Pawlenty's the safe choice..Martinez would be a game changer.

Rubio? Jindal? Ryan? Walker?

All "gifts" to the Obama campaign.

 

[BDBoop]

Susan Collins

Are you joking here or not?

I do think that Romney's running mate has to hit the following boxes.

1) Someone who won't unnecessarily antagonize the far right.

2) Someone who isn't more dynamic than Romney himself.

3) Someone who can credibly talk about issues, and hold his own in the one debate with Biden no one will actually watch.

Jon Huntsman.

 

[BDBoop]

Mitt's best bet is to pick a nobody. Someone mentioned Rand Paul and that about sums up the entire enigma that Mitt is in. If Mitt picks someone at all popular it will be seen for one reason, to buy votes that Mitt can't land off his record.

Rand would be the worst for the record as it would give credit to the Ron Paul/Mitt Romney "deals." But in any case that is the issue. Mitt has support 1 mile wide but 1 inch deep. Mitts supporters wouldn't show up to vote in the GE it there was a chance of cold weather and possibly cloudy.

Obama is very lucky because he is pretty much in the same boat as Mitt... All Obama has to do now is spend his billion dollars on showing the country just how similar Mitt and Obama are so that Republicans care even less to turn out and vote. If Obamacare is struck down Mitt can't win no matter who his VP is.

To the bolded; how so?