There are different strategies that presidential nominees pursue when selecting their running mates. One of the most popular is creating regional balance. For example, John F. Kennedy needed to reassure the racists in the Democratic Party, so he picked a Texan. That Texan became president when JFK was killed in Texas, and he compensated by picking a pro-civil rights northerner, Hubert H, Humphrey, That Texan also became the greatest champion of black rights since Abraham Lincoln. Jimmy Carter followed that model by picking Minnesota Senator Walter Mondale as his running mate.
Another strategy is to pick someone to excite the base of your party. Nixon did this with Agnew. McCain did this with Palin. But something related is trying a desperation move by appealing to some racial, religious, ethnic, or gender group. Mondale and McCain did this with their picks of Geraldine Ferraro and Palin, respectively. Gore did it with Joe Lieberman.
Another option is picking your strongest rival. Reagan chose this path. It shores up divisions in the party. Obama made his chief rival his Secretary of State, which is not much different in its intention.
Another option is to pick someone who is an ideological fellow-traveler. I think Dole had this in mind when he selected Jack Kemp. I think Clinton did the same with Gore and Gore did the same with Lieberman.
Another strategy is to pick someone who makes you look good by comparison. Nixon did this with Agnew. Poppy Bush did it with Dan Quayle.
Finally, you can pick someone strictly for what you view as competence. I think George W. Bush did this with Cheney and Obama did it with Biden.
As you can see, there can be some overlap. But assuming Mitt Romney pulls this thing out and wins the nomination, how do we see him going with his vice-presidential pick?
He could go for regional balance and look for a southerner. He could pick someone who makes him look awesome by comparison. He could pick an ideological soul-mate, although no one seems to know where he really stands on the issues. He could pick his strongest rival. He could make a desperation move to try to win latino votes or the support of women. Or he could go for someone who he truly thinks is up to the job.
Feel free to use the same criteria to guess who Santorum or Gingrich would pick.
And sometimes you pick an attack dog.
Romney will pick Christie. The deal has already been made.
.
If he wants to win, I agree.
But:
1-If the pro-Obama fix that is in place is a conscious fix…that is, if the various people who are actually in the ring have all acceded to said fix…then he will choose either another innocuous tomato can or even a total loser. If played right a Christie/Romney ticket would be very strong. Christie is a born attack dog…I mean he is really good at it. He has as true a natural gift for political attack as has Obama for the presentation of high-flown, empty rhetoric. With Christie chewing up the opposition, Romney could drift above the fray looking ever more presidential. They’d win New Jersey (a large electoral college state); they would more than likely win the white working class vote big-time, and they’d get the fat vote, too. Sorry about that, but there it is. In a bloated, obesity-challenged society, the defiantly overweight can become heroes. Watch. If “I’m black and I’m proud” resonated with the black population, why won’t “I’m overweight and I’m proud” resonate with the fat population? I will venture a guess that there are more obese people in the U.S. than there are people of color. Watch.
2-In a brokered convention, all bets about VP are off. It’s all about horse trading, then.
Watch. If the fix is not “conscious”…that is, if some of the people in the battle are not aware enough to understand how the media-dominated ruling system really works (and I can quite easily believe that Romney and a large proportion of the movers and shakers in the Ratpublican party might not have the brainpower to understand something like that)…then just as in a fixed fight, it could end in an upset. Not if it goes to the judges, of course, because that’s how they got to be judges in the first place. (Witness the Supreme Court ruling on the 2000 election for all you might need to know about that shit.) But if the chosen winner slips and hurts himself at some place in the fight or if the designated loser suddenly lands a lucky knockout punch…well then, ain’t it lucky that the chosen loser is also a PermaGov-compliant type!!!
No coincidence, of course. Win/win is PermaGov policy whenever possible. That’s how they got where they are in the first place… seeing many more moves ahead than did their opponents.
Bet on it.
AG
Regional balance? Sure, pick someone who might actually have some appeal in the midwest.
Someone who makes him look awesome by comparison? A rusty metal rooster on an old weather vane perhaps.
An ideological soul mate? Someone with as big a case of political blue balls who will do or say anything to get elected. Hubert Humphrey comes to mind.
His strongest rival? {Hahahahahahahaha}
Desperation move? Ronald Reagan.
Someone he thinks is truly up for the job? Barack Obama.
Huh?
You mean my wife isn’t the only one who doesn’t get me?
I’d agree that Christie is a strong pick for Romney. A lot of speculated that Rubio would be a natural selection for just about any GOP candidate to shore up Latino support, but a Mormon Prez coupled with a Catholic VP might fail to spark the fundamentalist base voters. Also, I just read at TPM yesterday that Rubio was actually a Mormon for several years in childhood, so that’s another item that the fundies would view askance.
That suggests that Mitt needs to pick as solid a christian running mate as he can get along with, with an eye toward shoring up the southern vote. Huckabee might work, or Haley Barbour. I’m tempted to say Saxby Chambliss could be a possibility–remember the university study some months back that put him in the top 5 telegenic members of Congress? That’s a factor that Team Mitt might take into consideration. And it would have the added bonus of giving the left a big thumb in the eye.
They might also conclude that Christie on the ticket would eclipse Mitt in the personality department and undermine his bid. But given Mitt’s blandness, that might also be a plus.
Whatever he does, Romney’s going to play it safe.
Santorum will pick a fellow traveler. The question is, who’s as far out there as he? Bachmann comes to mind, but I don’t see Santorum getting along with her any better than she would get along with Palin. And given Santorum’s intolerance for opposing theological views, it’s hard to see him picking anyone that doesn’t share the majority of his Catholic dogma. Add to that his patriarchal bent and you wonder if Santorum believes women belong in politics at all. Maybe Mel Gibson.
I’m guessing Newt’s instinct would be to pick a military figure for his running mate, like Petraeus or even Stanley McChrystal. The problem is, neither one of them would be seen within miles of Newt. He probably would avoid Christie because Newt doesn’t want to share the limelight with anybody, much less run the risk of being upstaged, despite the plus side of having a running mate that makes him look slimmer in comparison.
So what does that leave? Someone non-white, and from Newt’s point of view, someone unexpected. Rubio is a possibility, and unlike Mitt, Newt would have no trouble doubling up the ticket with two non-protestants, especially if it shores up cred with Latinos–Newt’s from the South already so he doesn’t have to go out of his way to court that vote. Bobby Jindal would be a surprise running mate, but his appeal may be too limited.
Alternatively, Newt might select a female candidate. Bachmann is probably not a good fit for him, personality-wise (but then who is). Jan Brewer might be a good choice: she helps with the women voters (in Newt’s eye), and she has the rabid anti-immigrant bona fides that can bring the base out in droves. I assume she’s a protestant of some sort. Plus, she’d be a docile running mate, thus appealing to Newt’s domineering side. The more I think about it, the better a fit Brewer seems to make.
I still can’t figure out what Santorum would do. He might pick an unknown.
And I forgot: Bachmann isn’t running with anyone. Due to redistricting, she’s going to have her hands full trying to hang onto her seat in the House.
Romney has to go with a strong southern “Christian” to shore up the base and while he may have been forced into a deal with Christie, Christie isn’t a great fit geographically (and neither is Santorum). Huckabee or some southern Governor seems the most likely, ideally one with Latino appeal.
Obama picked Biden because he was an experienced old hand with a lot of establishment support and foreign policy experience – areas in which Obama was notably weak. Now that situation is reversed, and ideally Obama would pick a younger white southerner/westerner with bipartisan appeal who would also be his pick for President in 2016.
Any money on Obama making Biden his Secretary of State or Defence and going with a new running mate to freshen up his ticket and appeal to the white males who just can’t cross over to vote for him otherwise? Someone who can’t be clearly typecast as a “librul” – i.e. a General, businessman, or Governor from a conservative state would be ideal. The Dem/progressive base would not be amused, but have they anywhere else to go? By November they will forget their outrage and vote for the top of the ticket.
Obama will focus on competence and electability rather than ideology – ideally someone who can compensate for his perceived weakness on the economy. As an incumbent he can get away with a left field choice in a way in which McCain could not. Who has been the most competent member of Obama’s administration to date, ideally on the economy?
Biden isn’t going anywhere – he’ll be the VP in Obama’s next term. Look, however, to the person that Obama appoints as Secretary of State as his choice for a replacement – Clinton has already said that she’s done after this year.
You think he would go with Wes Clark to replace Hillary?
If Romney wins it’ll be Bob McDonnell of Virginia. I’m pretty confident about that, and I’m even more confident about that after he tried to back away from the state-rape bill.
Christie is a born loser and a terrible pol. He vetoed the legislation for the same reason McDonnell backed off a bit. But for how sincere he sounds about busting up teacher’s unions and screaming at people he disagrees with, he doesn’t sound genuine in his opposition to gay marriage at all.
FTR it may not have taken much confidence or foresight, but I also called the Biden pick as early as March of 2008 when a lot of people thought he’d pick someone from Virginia — I mean he was pretty close to picking Tim Kaine from what I heard, so they weren’t that far off. Sebelius would have been a disaster pick; Evan Bayh, same thing. Biden made sense, I went with Biden early on after it was clear Obama couldn’t lose by the math alone.
He seems to have the least negatives of the bunch. Don’t think they’ll go the Palin crazy route two times in a row.
himself, though geographically he makes all the sense in the World.
If they are smart it will be a woman (particuarly if Santorum wins) – though I couldn’t begin to tell you who that might be.
By backing down you mean? Or what? McDonald has that George Bush about him: appeals to both the wingnuts because he can wink and nod he’s one of them — and in this case it’s moreso, given his record — but also get indies/lean conservatives to think he’s not such a bad guy. Plus he’s got good hair and looks the part.
For Romney, I believe, the issue will be foreign props. The campaign, in its relentless belief that the economy is his strong suit and the establishment being aware as well that someone from inside washington needs to be there, will want someone who knows at least something about foreign policy and can compete in a debate with Biden (who will be on the ticket, at least so far, or perhaps if the switch is made, it’ll be Clinton). So who fits the bill for Romney? I’ve suggested before, perhaps a military person. But more likely a Senator (absolutely not a governor) with some foreign policy credentials. From the south would help. Rubio is too green and compromised. Corker comes to mind as a possibility.
Sometimes you are forced to pick a rival in order to get them out of the race and close ranks for the general election.
It seems that in the case of Mondale, McCain, and Gore pandering to identity politics didn’t work well enough.
Sam Brownback. He’s really not concerned about poor people. Or, Nikki Haley.
Ack, this is a tough question – so many options. Why should I waste my beautiful mind thinking about that?
I hope he chooses the phat phuck from New Jersey.
You’re still going with Romney, huh.
I think it’s going to be Santorum.
And, of course, he will choose Jesus as veep.
Romney’s choice will be complicated by the fact that he would like the GOP convention to unanimously approve his VP. He doesn’t want 100s of Paulites or Santorum fans booing the Veep speech.
If Santorum takes Michigan and big chunks of the Rust Belt, he’ll face lots of pressure to take the “strongest rival” approach. Romney-Santorum: the top picks your wallet, the bottom clamps on your chastity belt.
I would guess that Romney’s instinct would be to double-down on what he perceives as his brand, competence. An ideological fellow-traveller, if you will, tho we know the Mittster has no ideology. Mitch Daniels fits that need. Mitt & Mitch: two humans, no humanity.
Romney will be driven less by the need to generate excitement than to avoid embarrassment. Which is tough going in today’s GOP. Whomever he chooses, it’ll be good for John McCain.
No one in this post thread has commented on Martinez from New Mexico. On the surface, the national punditry has thrown her name out there (swing state, woman and Latino)and that might be enough for her to get the nod.
On the other hand, I attended a meeting of community bankers from New Mexico last summer in which she was the featured speaker. Now this bunch of folks were convinced, as one banker said, hell would freeze over before Obama would be reelected. Needless to say, they were a very conservative audience.
After the governor spoke, the crowd was underwhelmed with her performance. Being bankers, they wanted to hear an anti-regulation bomb throwing speech and she spoke of her humble childhood and the need for improving educational opportunites for the state.
While she would not bring the sort of craziness and drama that Palin did, she is still green and not ready for the national spotlight.
Romney would be well served picking Richard Lugar as his running mate. Lugar would be in the same vein as Biden was for Obama, foreign policy bona fidas, well respected within the Senate and familiar with the ways of Washington. It won’t happen though.
My money would be on the governor from Virgina.
As a resident of NM, I agree that Martinez is just too green. I reiterate, Romney needs some foreign policy person to balance this ticket. Lugar is too old for VP. He’s 79 years old. Someone suggested Brownback which would appeal very strongly to the religious conservatives but I think he would make Romney very uncomfortable. But Corker, who I suggested above, brings the south, moderation, business experience, a good biographical narrative, foreign relations experience, safety, presidential-looking appeal. Give it some thought.
Ok, I thought about it. Corker is a no go.
First let me state that I think that anyone on this ticket who loses to Obama is dead meat from here on out. No governorships, no senators, no congress, no gigs on Faux News. I think the Real Right will turn on the ticket like a pack of wolves in an attempt to shift blame from “conservatism” to the candidates.
Now define the South to mean the Old Confederacy, OK and KS. With this in mind, examining Corker leads me to two conclusions:
If Romney needs help in the South the election is lost. Period. Help in the South implies that GA is in play and the VA and NC are quite possible NOT in play for the R’s. Further, Since Northern FL is what will bring the state red, GA in play means that FL is lost.
Second: Go to the first caveat. Corker has already run against a young, charismatic black man and almost lost to him. If it hadn’t been for Ford’s uncle going down 3 months before the election (convenient timing, no?), Corker stays mayor of Chattanooga. Corker wants to stay in politics. RawRed TN (essentially Applachia) will not like his losing.
Therefore: NO CORKER
The laughing chatter this week has been Rand Paul. Since even contemplating that choice leaves me speechless I’ll just have to cross my fingers.
Son of Ron Paul. Romney sold the office for the elder Paul’s attack dog support and his promise to not run on a third party.
Only in a brokered convention. And not likely for a lot of reasons. Rand Paul is not a strong candidate on many levels, not the least of which is that when standing next to his tough old father he looks like a born dweeb.
Tough luck, son. Tough luck.
AG
If the race tightens in the summer as I expect it will — awful gas prices, perhaps another uptick in unemployment — Romney will opt for a bland uncontroversial pick, someone who checks the boxes on True Conservative, Experienced, Won’t Overshadow or Embarrass, and some FP background. Sen Thune fits the bill.
Btw, JFK was forced to pick Lyndon after Johnson threw a crying fit in front of Bobby and wouldn’t take no for an answer. Kennedy had wanted Sen Stu Symington of Missouri.
And Nixon didn’t pick Agnew to appease the base since Spiro was actually a moderate liberal governor; he picked him bec he was unknown and would provide impeachment insurance and geographical balance, plus he wouldn’t complain about being left out of the loop in governing.
Agnew was liberal only in contrast to the Democratic candidate for governor in 1966 — George “Your home is your castle – protect it” Mahoney.
Well that is so but also in GOP ranks Gov Agnew was considered a moderate — including on civil rights — and early in 1968 he was backing moderate Nelson Rockafella for president, not the more conservative Nixon. But then Baltimore was hit by urban rioting following Dr King’s murder and Spiro went hard right against uppity Negros. That probably appealed to Nixon and he forgave him for the early backing of Rocky.
I’m still puzzled why Agnew would be considered an extra incentive to the GOP base. Nixon was about as “base” a candidate as you could want for that time period. Sure, there were Republicans more right-wing than Nixon, but (a) the GOP base was not as far right as it is today, and (b) Agnew was not more RW than Nixon, nor was he noticeably more LW.
It was not realities but perceptions. Agnew was perceived as more moderate than Nixon. More importantly, Agnew’s Greek heritage was sold bigtime to urban ethnics and Catholics who, like Agnew, had moved to the suburbs in white flight. Agnew essentially campaigned as agreeing with Mahoney but being too polite to dogwhistle housing discrimination.
I’m not sure R’s think they need foreign policy cred. They think they already have all the answers on that front. Even Cheney was more a DC insider/competence pick, and Bush was as green on foreign policy as is imaginable.
I keep coming back to Haley Barbour as a fit for Romney. He’ll want to shore up the base even more than McCain did, but without going too crazee ala Palin. And he’ll want to convince Republican party leadership that he can pull together the fracturing coalition of money elites and evangelical base. Barbour is that bridge.
Romney expects to win (who doesn’t?), but he will be under a lot of pressure to pick a ticket that doesn’t damage downticket races even if he loses. And Barbour can excite the base without triggering panic in independents. The people who find Barbour offensive weren’t going to ever vote R anyway.
Nah not Barbour, no way. He would turn off indies and moderate minded Rs and youth of all ages. Besides dicey racial matters, or skeletons, in his background, he’s got the recent pardons of convicted murderers to explain to just about everyone across the political spectrum. He would be toxic for the ticket in the general.
OK, not Barbour, but you raise an important point. A certain segment of received opinion assumes that Romney, after his sharp veer to the right for the primaries, would tack back to center for the general. But the base already considers him far too liberal, don’t like him, don’t trust him, etc. A running mate attractive to independents would only exacerbate the problem. It seems like attracting independents AND exciting the base this year will be about as feasible as squaring the circle. And I’m not just suggesting an enthusiasm gap, I’m suggesting a TP third-party ticket.
Besides which, long-standing trends show that independents are not far from the national average on Obama job approval. (Pollster.com today: national job approve, 47.5, disapprove 47.6; independents: approve, 43.4, disapprove 49.2.) Just for comparison, Republicans, disapprove, 88.3, approve, 8.1.
Actually, just a look at those Republican figures makes you realize how “off base” the Republican base really is. It’s f-ing ridiculous. It’s good to be reminded now and then. For months, the GOP clown show has been getting vastly more coverage than anything related to the Democratic run, for a number of reasons: (a) they are the only show in town, regarding primaries and debates; (b) they are officially one of the nations two major parties, and (c) the punditocracy is giving them every possible break in trying to preserve the idea that the GOP is a “normal” party. For example, in this context Sanitorium has the aura of a strong candidate. But except for these external (non-general-election) factors, the polls are showing the GOP to be a fringe party, and Obama derangement syndrome to be a fringe phenomenon (also affecting a small but vocal part of the left).
All Barbour has to do is keep his mouth shut. As a former lobbyist, he’s pretty good at that, no doubt.
Geov makes a good point. Barbour is a cheap way to pull the Southern voters back into the fold.
All of his baggage will not matter unless Democrats attack him on it. My guess is that Democratic strategists will have bigger fish to fry than Babour’s record as governor. He won’t get Willie Horton’d about the pardons.
Chuck Hagel, if he can be persuaded, sounds like a decent choice. Same age as Romney, former Senator, foreign policy experience, no known scandals. Yes, he is working with Obama on foreign policy, but he could easily quit that gig.
He comes from the South, so there’s geographical balance there too. As a retired Senator, he wouldn’t threaten any seats by running on the ticket. If they win, there isn’t an open seat to defend, and if they lose, he won’t weaken a seat by running.
Hagel has also never seemed to be much of a drama queen either. He will be a team player who will defend Romney without making himself the center of attention in the way Palin did.
Some may consider him too moderate, but at that point, an unsullied VP choice may be more important, and in any event, VPs follow the policy of their Presidents.
Although I don’t see Romney/moderate running mate as a winning ticket against Obama, it may be the only way to save the GOP as a viable party. And such a ticket would no doubt give the GOP their best run for the money. But this means that they are ready to forfeit much of what is currently recognized as their base.
Assuming the GOP leadership has any reasonable option left, maybe this is it. In order to be a viable national party, they literally need to ditch the base and win back the independents and moderate Rs. If the TP is so pissed off with the ticket that they support a third-party run, that may just be the best thing that could happen to the GOP. Not for the 2012 presidency, though, but for the future, and for down-ticket elections. As has been pointed out, their most crucial need is not to win the presidency, but to hold on to the House.
Still, apart from the TP base, Romney has already sullied himself beyond repair, and we have the videotapes to prove it. And he remains a dull candidate at best.
I hdn’t npticed before writing the above, but it fits in very well with Booman’s newest post, “Still Concerned about the Tone”.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/2/24/11296/7672
Carol, how did the working for Obama gig play out for Huntsman with his party in the primaries, JH being arguably a slightly more conservative pol than Hegel? And didn’t Hegel commit the doubly unpardonable sin of backing Obama last election (iirc)?
Romney is not currently trusted by the conservative base and this lack of trust re being a true conservative would only be greatly heightened by his picking an actual moderate. Not a chance in heck he’ll pick Chuck — and doing so would create literal delegate fighting in the convention hall.
He’s stuck with running with a Real Conservative of his choosing.
Hagel might not even accept. It’d be a hard thing to predict:
a. Does Hagel want to give Romney credence by being on a ticket he probably opposes?
or
b. Does Hagel think Romney would win, and by extension his country is asking him to serve at the behest of the president?
I’m going with a.), in that Hagel wouldn’t accept even if offered.
True, working for Obama didn’t work all that well for Huntsman. But Huntsman was going for the top job, is young (he’s like 47),and maybe more personable than Romney.
Yes, the base might not like the fact that he worked for Obama, but Hagel isn’t making any waves there (I only heard of his job through Google). But Hagel could mollify criticism due to his age and stature.
About the VP selection being Hagel or some other real life person who has chops in politics. I’m not sure I buy the “if we lose the Real Right is chastened and comes back to the fold” argument. But assume Christie, Thune, JebBush and Daniels are. Why would these allow an unheard of but potentially powerful former R to gain traction for 2016?
On the other hand, like I said, I don’t buy the arguement and I think the Pres and VP assignments are going to be absolute career killers. Maybe the 2016 crowd believes this also. In that case, someone like Hagel would be perfect AND would prevent a zombie Newt like run in 2016.
Ron Paul. Because of his careful control of the delegates.