Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have you noticed how Romney did dismally in the Southern Primaries?
Obama won 3 States in the South in 08 and was close in a forth (Georgia) it should be scary for republicans going into this election.
I am not saying that Mississippi, Alabama, Texas are going Blue, but I sure don't see them coming all out for Romney. ARK may return a lighter shade of red too.
To cross the finish line Romney needs both Ohio and Florida, but before that he needs to win back Virginia and North Carolina. That is why I think he is gonna pick a VP from a Southern State. By bet is on Bob Mc Donnell from Virginia
Romney is weak among women but I think he will be too scared to pick a woman as his VP because memories of Palin are still too fresh. Its too soon for the republicans. A Southern Female Minority (Such as Nikki Haley) would send waves but again the risks are too high.
Presidential Candidates need to sure up their negatives in their VP, and although Nikki would raise Romney's scores in certain constituencies, the two together don't make a full President like Obama and Biden did.
Months before Obama announced it, I told friends that he was gonna pick Biden. Everyone said he was boring, and I said exactly. Obama was the celebrity, he was young, no foreign/ millitary experience. Obama needed someone with experience, he needed someone low key and he needed someone White. Biden was the obvious choice.
Romney has a variety of choices, but a Southerner, preferably from Virginia seems like the best bet to me. He can win FL and OH without picking people from there People having been touting Rubio, I think that is the fast way to lose the election.
I would say Portman. Romney needs a safe pick. Look at Clinton-Gore, they were from neighboring states, were both perceived as moderate Democrats, and really didn't complement each others weaknesses at all. Sometimes that's all you need, someone who's in tune with you. I don't think we should be looking strategically by region, gender, race etc. I gave the Clinton-Gore example. But Bush picked Cheney from a safe red state (Wyoming) and Obama picked Biden from a safe blue state (Delaware). In 84, Mondale picked Ferraro, a female, and lost. In 88, Dukakis picked Bentsen (Texas) and lost. In 96, Dole (Kansas) picked Kemp (New York) and lost. In 2000, Gore (Tennessee) picked Lieberman (Jewish, Connecticut) and lost. In 2004, Kerry (Massachusetts) picked Edwards (North Carolina) and lost. In 2008, McCain picked Palin (Female) and lost.
Obviously, my cherry picking doesn't conclusively prove that picking a running mate with a complementary gender/race/region/ethnicity doesn't help. but I think I gave enough examples to show that any benefit is marginal and inconsequential at best, especially since the examples I pointed out of people who used that strategy lost to people who didn't use that strategy and went with "safe" picks, people more like themselves. And that seems to me to be the ticket.
If Romney picks Portman, I think they can frame themselves as the adults in the race who are above all the political celebrity nonsense when our country is in such crisis. I think they will have a much more focused message than if the VP were someone with a little more pizazz. 200 years of this country's history shows boring can win elections. It doesn't always, but it can. And I really think that's the best option for Romney
I would say Portman. Romney needs a safe pick. Look at Clinton-Gore, they were from neighboring states, were both perceived as moderate Democrats, and really didn't complement each others weaknesses at all. Sometimes that's all you need, someone who's in tune with you. I don't think we should be looking strategically by region, gender, race etc. I gave the Clinton-Gore example. But Bush picked Cheney from a safe red state (Wyoming) and Obama picked Biden from a safe blue state (Delaware). In 84, Mondale picked Ferraro, a female, and lost. In 88, Dukakis picked Bentsen (Texas) and lost. In 96, Dole (Kansas) picked Kemp (New York) and lost. In 2000, Gore (Tennessee) picked Lieberman (Jewish, Connecticut) and lost. In 2004, Kerry (Massachusetts) picked Edwards (North Carolina) and lost. In 2008, McCain picked Palin (Female) and lost.
Obviously, my cherry picking doesn't conclusively prove that picking a running mate with a complementary gender/race/region/ethnicity doesn't help. but I think I gave enough examples to show that any benefit is marginal and inconsequential at best, especially since the examples I pointed out of people who used that strategy lost to people who didn't use that strategy and went with "safe" picks, people more like themselves. And that seems to me to be the ticket.
If Romney picks Portman, I think they can frame themselves as the adults in the race who are above all the political celebrity nonsense when our country is in such crisis. I think they will have a much more focused message than if the VP were someone with a little more pizazz. 200 years of this country's history shows boring can win elections. It doesn't always, but it can. And I really think that's the best option for Romney
Well the situation with Obama was different though. He was leading in the polls, and in a variety of states. The only neg was not location, it was his greenest and celebrity. He needed someone experienced and low key (Boring)
As For Cheney, he was Texan by the time Bush found him (He was CEO of Halliburton at the time) so technically both the Pres and the VP were from Texas during the Bush years. Cheney last ran for public office in Wyoming in 88, and stepped down in 89. But Cheney provided the military experience Bush lacked. Cheney was Sec of Defense under Bush the 1st.
Clinton Gore is the one that makes your case the best but makes mine even more. With Clinton it was a 3 man race and it was close between him and Bush. I said it makes my case too because although Gore was a Southerner like Clinton, he shored up Clinton's delegate count too allowing Clinton to win Traditional republican strongholds such as Gore's home-state of Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana along with Clinton's home state of Arkansas. Gore was chosen for a reason, a geographic reason.
Not being argumentative, but all the people you picked lost for a very clear reason, and just because they lost doesn't mean it was because it was their location. Ferraro for example was not vetted properly and her husband was involved in lots of fishy stuff.
It is very clear that candidates pick people to compliment them.
Biden's state was irrelevant, Biden strengthened Obama's foreign experience. That is clear
Cheney helped the Bush ticket in national security
Clinton himself said he chose Gore because of his Foreign experience and the Electoral map
Reagan picked a southerner and the number two in the primaries for his VP
Geographic or other shore up are not new. They have been going on for about as long as there have been parties.
As for Portman, that is the safe choice. That is if Romney is ahead in the EC. Winning Ohio without winning Florida, Virginia and North Carolina is not gonna win Romney the election. Romney needs to win Virginia and NC and Obama is gonna have Romney pinned there campaigning for a good bit of the election just watch. And if Romney is stuck in Virginia that means he is leaving NM, Colorado, Nevada and AZ unguarded Obama could afford to lose a big state like Florida if he keeps Romney away from the Southwestern states by keeping Romney in the South.
As for Romney being the adult, you must have already forgotten the childish primaries we had been having these last 3 months.
I can't get psyched up enough about Romney to play this game. The only names I can think of that would excite me would be Newt or Rand.
two controversial choices. Newt Lives in Virginia and could help with other southern states, but he comes with so many negatives.
Rand doesn't really have much experience with national politics, or even much experience with anything at all
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJboutit
Can you say Paul Ryan I hate these 2 fools so much
Nice choice, but Romney won't be winning Wisconsin and Paul Ryan isn't a meat and potatoes Republican. Ryan would probably be the best choice if Romney wasn't so lackluster with certain demographics because Ryan is a popular voice in economic policy. I dunno, I would change my vote to Ryan if Romney starts opening big leads in battlegrounds
Well the situation with Obama was different though. He was leading in the polls, and in a variety of states. The only neg was not location, it was his greenest and celebrity. He needed someone experienced and low key (Boring)
As For Cheney, he was Texan by the time Bush found him (He was CEO of Halliburton at the time) so technically both the Pres and the VP were from Texas during the Bush years. Cheney last ran for public office in Wyoming in 88, and stepped down in 89. But Cheney provided the military experience Bush lacked. Cheney was Sec of Defense under Bush the 1st.
Clinton Gore is the one that makes your case the best but makes mine even more. With Clinton it was a 3 man race and it was close between him and Bush. I said it makes my case too because although Gore was a Southerner like Clinton, he shored up Clinton's delegate count too allowing Clinton to win Traditional republican strongholds such as Gore's home-state of Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana along with Clinton's home state of Arkansas. Gore was chosen for a reason, a geographic reason.
Not being argumentative, but all the people you picked lost for a very clear reason, and just because they lost doesn't mean it was because it was their location. Ferraro for example was not vetted properly and her husband was involved in lots of fishy stuff.
It is very clear that candidates pick people to compliment them.
Biden's state was irrelevant, Biden strengthened Obama's foreign experience. That is clear
Cheney helped the Bush ticket in national security
Clinton himself said he chose Gore because of his Foreign experience and the Electoral map
Reagan picked a southerner and the number two in the primaries for his VP
Geographic or other shore up are not new. They have been going on for about as long as there have been parties.
As for Portman, that is the safe choice. That is if Romney is ahead in the EC. Winning Ohio without winning Florida, Virginia and North Carolina is not gonna win Romney the election. Romney needs to win Virginia and NC and Obama is gonna have Romney pinned there campaigning for a good bit of the election just watch. And if Romney is stuck in Virginia that means he is leaving NM, Colorado, Nevada and AZ unguarded Obama could afford to lose a big state like Florida if he keeps Romney away from the Southwestern states by keeping Romney in the South.
As for Romney being the adult, you must have already forgotten the childish primaries we had been having these last 3 months.
I'm not saying picking geographic complements is something new, and I'm certainly not saying it makes the situation worse, I'm just saying there's not much of anything in the way of evidence that it has ever helped. In your Clinton/Gore example, Clinton was in just as good a position as Gore to bring in those Southern states because he himself was a Southerner. Seriously, ask just about any Southerner whether they like Clinton or Gore better and I bet I can tell you their answer 95% of the time. Every other example you mentioned was just "Yeah, they lost, but it was for other reasons." And I agree with you, they did lose for other reasons. But picking a complementary VP candidate didn't help them either. I really cannot think of one election where it has, unless we're talking about a complementary candidate in a professional sense rather than a demographic sense (as in the Bush-Cheney ticket).
Romney and Obama are in a virtual tie at this point, and Romney gets ahead by picking a safe, serious candidate who complements him professionally (Portman has been in Washington for a while and has served in Congress while Romney is a Washington outsider who has never served in a legislature). A celebrity will not work for him. I have no doubt that you are being sincere about what you think Romney must do even in spite of the fact it sounds like you don't particularly want him to win. And that's not sarcasm, your analysis was very fair. But at the same time, I personally really want Romney to win. and I know he can't, absolutely cannot, do it by beating Obama at the celebrity-ticket game. He needs to run as the serious, down to business candidate. Romney was clearly the adult in the primaries, I don't know why you mentioned that. I don't want Portman in order to carry Ohio, I want Portman since I think he can help more than any other candidate with winning NC, VA, FL, and others as well. When it comes to partisan bickering and sideshows, things most Americans really do detest, people don't think of Rob Portman. Sure, no one's heard of him, but that's exactly the point. Because they've heard of other senate candidates from 2010 (Angle, O'Donnell, Paul) and not necessarily for good reasons. Romney should not concentrate on winning the south. That should be the least of his concerns. As far as VA and NC go, they're obviously Southern but the swing demographic in those states is more culturally Mid-Atlantic. Most independents are sick of the Palins and the Obamas and that type of politician. That being said, I think you are right in that McDonnell would also be a great choice.
I can't get psyched up enough about Romney to play this game. The only names I can think of that would excite me would be Newt or Rand.
Well, I guess we're all entitled to our opinion.
Personally, I think Romney would have a better chance of winning if he suspended his campaign right now and stopped running than if he picked either Newt or Paul
I'm not saying picking geographic complements is something new, and I'm certainly not saying it makes the situation worse, I'm just saying there's not much of anything in the way of evidence that it has ever helped. In your Clinton/Gore example, Clinton was in just as good a position as Gore to bring in those Southern states because he himself was a Southerner. Seriously, ask just about any Southerner whether they like Clinton or Gore better and I bet I can tell you their answer 95% of the time.
you may not understand the electoral college. Clinton and Gore maybe the same to someone in Louisiana but in Tennessee Gore is a home town boy.
Candidates needing a state to win the EC have chosen running mates from that state for 200 year now, don't tell me you have never heard about that.
Quote:
Romney and Obama are in a virtual tie at this point,
Romney and Obama are most certainly not tied. Obama is leading in every single state down the eastern seaboard from Maine to Florida (That is including South Carolina and Georgia. He is leading in every state on the West coast, and in every toss up state except Arizona ( a State that was not even a toss up last time) and Iowa.
Some polls in places like Kansas, Montana and Indiana also show Obama leading in some of them.
Usually reliably red states such as Texas have Obama at 44% with Romney at 50% that is too close for comfort.
A tie is if both candidates are at 270, but right now Obama is leading in more states and Romney only has a few states that are safely in his column. The national polls mean nothing, it is the individual state polls you need to look at.
Quote:
and Romney gets ahead by picking a safe, serious candidate who complements him professionally (Portman has been in Washington for a while and has served in Congress while Romney is a Washington outsider who has never served in a legislature). A celebrity will not work for him. I have no doubt that you are being sincere about what you think Romney must do even in spite of the fact it sounds like you don't particularly want him to win. And that's not sarcasm, your analysis was very fair. But at the same time, I personally really want Romney to win. and I know he can't, absolutely cannot, do it by beating Obama at the celebrity-ticket game. He needs to run as the serious, down to business candidate. Romney was clearly the adult in the primaries, I don't know why you mentioned that. I don't want Portman in order to carry Ohio, I want Portman since I think he can help more than any other candidate with winning NC, VA, FL, and others as well. When it comes to partisan bickering and sideshows, things most Americans really do detest, people don't think of Rob Portman. Sure, no one's heard of him, but that's exactly the point. Because they've heard of other senate candidates from 2010 (Angle, O'Donnell, Paul) and not necessarily for good reasons.
Romney would have to have a route to get to Washington first before he can offer someone a trip to there. Romney is NOT on the path to victory so he cannot pick a running mate and plan for the future. he HAS to pick a running mate that will help put him on that road and Portman is not him.
And where did I suggest a celebrity candidate? My Suggestion is Bob McDonnell.
You and many others may want Portman. Heck half the Dems wanted Hillary last time, but candidates pick VPS that are good for them not you.
Quote:
Romney should not concentrate on winning the south. That should be the least of his concerns. As far as VA and NC go, they're obviously Southern but the swing demographic in those states is more culturally Mid-Atlantic. Most independents are sick of the Palins and the Obamas and that type of politician. That being said, I think you are right in that McDonnell would also be a great choice.
On the contrary. If Romney doesn't win the South he has no viable path to the presidency. NONE!!! He has to win Florida, Virginia and North Carolina or else it is a no go. If Obama wins those it doesn't matter if he loses Ohio. In Fact Ohio, like Missouri is losing its prominence as a Presidential Kingmaker.
Now I am not saying that Romney should only campaign in the South, in Fact I am saying the opposite. If he picks McDonnell Virginia would be a much easier win and he can spend the time campaigning else where. So I am saying he should pick a Southerner so he doesn't spend all the time campaigning in the South.
What I did say is that Obama is gonna spend money in the South to make sure Romney is Pinned there, so that he doesn't have a lot of extra time campaigning in the Southwestern States.
As for Independents Obama most certainly will win a higher percentage of those.
Like the saying goes, a servant can't serve two masters. More people pay attention to the nation campaign over the primaries. Romney can' run as right as he did in the primaries and keep the Independents, nor can he run to the center and expect a strong showing from the base. Romney has gone too far right anyway to move to the center and frankly his stances on some issues are repulsive to moderates.
Anyway, I think McDonnell is the man. He can help campaign in the South and Romney can focus on Ohio and Florida (The other two must wins) and look to Colorado and AZ for safety.
Elections are won at the micro level, and Obama is most certainly not tied with Romney.
If Obama keeps Romney pinned against the eastern seaboard or the South trying to defend or win Virginia or NC, Romney's toast.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
