The unofficial Obama and Romney VP speculation thread

[Mormon Red Death]

If Marco Rubio is acceptable after being in the Senate for less than two years, then Snyder should be acceptable.

Snyder makes a lot of sense because he has been a good governor and he would be the anti-Palin pick. I'm skeptical whether a VP pick ever puts specific states in play, but perhaps the memories of Romney's father with some of the 65+ crowd combined the current Gov being the running mate would actually give Romney a shot in the state.

I always find it interesting that Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota elect GOP governors, like them, and then give the GOP the cold shoulder in presidential elections. I suppose I'm looking at limited sample set, it's easy to see why they wouldn't go for Bush. But shouldn't Romney appeal to these states like Pawlenty, Snyder, Thompson and Walker have appealed to them? (the recall is turning into a disaster for the Dems in Wisconsin btw).

Michigan had a democratic govenor for 8 years before Snyder. Jennifer Granholm and she was a complete disaster. The absolute worst governor in history. Since Snyder has been in office unemployment has gone from 11.3% to 8.3%. Michigan has a balanced budget (from a 1.5 billion dollar deficit) and he has stepped in with emergency financial management where cities (Mainly Detroit) couldnt do it.

[oxcoug]

Allegedly Romney has now "locked" his list at seven, with the following contenders:

Senator of Florida – Marco Rubio
Senator of Ohio – Rob Portman
Senator of New Hampshire – Kelly Ayotte
Governor of New Jersey – Chris Christie
Governor of Minnesota – Tim Pawlenty
House of Representative of Washington State – Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Governor of Louisiana – Bobby Jindal

http://race42012.com/2012/05/31/the-...ning-update-2/

Not sure I buy it, but most of my top choices are there. I still say Rubio or Jindal is the best choice. Jindal is a slightly better substance pick Rubio a better optics pick. But both are excellent picks.

I am very much convinced that the Republican Party is at a key inflection point where they have to be thinking 10-15 years ahead and updating the Party's image to put women and minorities in national leadership roles. If they don't do so then their image will calcify as Hispanics and other minorities coalesce as Dems, much like African Americans now are.

This priority would be a non-thing if there were not exceptionally qualified minority options out there - but both Rubio and Jindal are stars who can handle the VP role, the campaign role, while beginning the shift.

I'll be pretty disappointed if Romney puts Portman on the ticket.

[oxcoug]

Allegedly Romney has now "locked" his list at seven, with the following contenders:

Senator of Florida – Marco Rubio
Senator of Ohio – Rob Portman
Senator of New Hampshire – Kelly Ayotte
Governor of New Jersey – Chris Christie
Governor of Minnesota – Tim Pawlenty
House of Representative of Washington State – Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Governor of Louisiana – Bobby Jindal

http://race42012.com/2012/05/31/the-...ning-update-2/

Not sure I buy it, but most of my top choices are there. I still say Rubio or Jindal is the best choice. Jindal is a slightly better substance pick Rubio a better optics pick. But both are excellent picks.

I am very much convinced that the Republican Party is at a key inflection point where they have to be thinking 10-15 years ahead and updating the Party's image to put women and minorities in national leadership roles. If they don't do so then their image will calcify as Hispanics and other minorities coalesce as Dems, much like African Americans now are.

This priority would be a non-thing if there were not exceptionally qualified minority options out there - but both Rubio and Jindal are stars who can handle the VP role, the campaign role, while beginning the shift.

I'll be pretty disappointed if Romney puts Portman on the ticket.

BTW, this isn't just a ethnicity / race thing it's also a generational thing - Rubio can make the Republican case to younger voters in a way that a Romney, a Portman or a Daniels cannot.

[LA Ute]

BTW, this isn't just a ethnicity / race thing it's also a generational thing - Rubio can make the Republican case to younger voters in a way that a Romney, a Portman or a Daniels cannot.

My heart is with Rubio and I think he'd energize the base and the electorate generally. My only hesitation is that Mitt keeps saying his top priority is to select someone who is ready to be POTUS, and Rubio's a 2-year senator. Yeah, Obama was one too.... But one of the main knocks on Obama is that he was not ready and it shows.

[YOhio]

Allegedly Romney has now "locked" his list at seven, with the following contenders:

Senator of Florida – Marco Rubio
Senator of Ohio – Rob Portman
Senator of New Hampshire – Kelly Ayotte
Governor of New Jersey – Chris Christie
Governor of Minnesota – Tim Pawlenty
House of Representative of Washington State – Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Governor of Louisiana – Bobby Jindal

http://race42012.com/2012/05/31/the-...ning-update-2/

Not sure I buy it, but most of my top choices are there. I still say Rubio or Jindal is the best choice. Jindal is a slightly better substance pick Rubio a better optics pick. But both are excellent picks.

I am very much convinced that the Republican Party is at a key inflection point where they have to be thinking 10-15 years ahead and updating the Party's image to put women and minorities in national leadership roles. If they don't do so then their image will calcify as Hispanics and other minorities coalesce as Dems, much like African Americans now are.

This priority would be a non-thing if there were not exceptionally qualified minority options out there - but both Rubio and Jindal are stars who can handle the VP role, the campaign role, while beginning the shift.

I'll be pretty disappointed if Romney puts Portman on the ticket.

WTF? No Gary Herbert?

[dabrockster]

My heart is with Rubio and I think he'd energize the base and the electorate generally. My only hesitation is that Mitt keeps saying his top priority is to select someone who is ready to be POTUS, and Rubio's a 2-year senator. Yeah, Obama was one too.... But one of the main knocks on Obama is that he was not ready and it shows.

Being VP for 4 years I think would suffice...

[Katy Lied]

For the deficit, it's only an issue to me in the long term. Deficit spending is critical during a recession. Countercyclical economic policy works best. Ask Europe how austerity is working to get them out of their slump. Long term, the deficit is likely to fix itself if we do almost nothing. The Bush tax cuts would be repealed automatically, the economy will eventually pick up more steam (increasing tax revenues), the troops are coming home from Afghanistan and already mostly home from Iraq, etc. Those items alone erase the deficit and then some. There are lots of things we can do to speed it up and we should do them.

You have a lot of preposterous assumptions here.

[oxcoug]

You have a lot of preposterous assumptions here.

No doubt. Better question: Ask Europe why they have been so timid abt balancing budgets and addressing entitlement issues.

Can we come up with a less silly word for fiscally responsible public finances? It's a pretty loaded term at this point and is intended to evoke fear of financial pain.

Let's just start saying "reality" instead of "austerity" - nothing Europe has done to date can objectively be called "austere."

[calicoug]

You have a lot of preposterous assumptions here.

Like what?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Like what?

Like assuming that Europe has actually been austere.

[Pelado]

You have a lot of preposterous assumptions here.

Like what?

Where to begin? Let's start with the highlighted items:

For the deficit, it's only an issue to me in the long term. Deficit spending is critical during a recession. Countercyclical economic policy works best. Ask Europe how austerity is working to get them out of their slump. Long term, the deficit is likely to fix itself if we do almost nothing. The Bush tax cuts would be repealed automatically, the economy will eventually pick up more steam (increasing tax revenues), the troops are coming home from Afghanistan and already mostly home from Iraq, etc. Those items alone erase the deficit and then some. There are lots of things we can do to speed it up and we should do them.

Europe has yet to try austerity - they haven't really lowered spending at all.

The deficit will not fix itself - it will require the politicians to a) Spend less than they have or b) Slow the rate of spending increases and/or c) Increase tax receipts.

Raising tax rates will not necessarily increase tax receipts. Economic growth will raise tax receipts, but is hampered by tax increases and uncertainty.

Troops coming home will reduce costs, but not nearly to the extent needed.

[BYUMizzou]

Ron Paul supporters getting hysterical over Rand Paul's endorsement of Romney and speculating that he "sold out" in exchange for the VP slot.

[Y84it]

Ron Paul supporters getting hysterical over Rand Paul's endorsement of Romney and speculating that he "sold out" in exchange for the VP slot.

Bwaa HA HA!!

I actually like Ron Paul! Don't like his supporters. Although Romney picking Rand APul makes some sense.

[Indy Coug]

Like what?

Virtually all of them.

[cowboy]

You have a lot of preposterous assumptions here.

I happens all the time, and I wish it was unique to liberals. People draw silly conclusions because they are to ignorant or lazy to do the math. As a result we have our leaders saying stupid stuff that gets passed down: Taxing the rich will eliminate the deficit, properly inflated tires will eliminate our dependency on Middle Eastern Oil, peeing on our gardens will eliminate our need to water them, etc.