Mitt and ____________??Follow

She supposedly said the other day that she wouldn't accept the VP slot if offered. I know, I know... easy enough to say this stuff in April. But I also feel that one of Romney's aides would neck-punch the guy and replace him with a robot before allowing him to pick a young, attractive female governor half way through her first term as his VP choice.

I get the feeling that his choice will be as non-controversial as possible. Not sure who but it won't be Haley, it won't be Rubio, it won't be Rand Paul.

The last SC governor had time to make secret trips to Argentina...

Rubio is a Tea Party creature and would serve to further alienate independents.

Unless you're one of the ones who believe Hispanics will flock to a guy with anti-immigration rhetoric and who is only here because of the special asylum rules Cuban immigrants enjoy.

There's better conservatives you could select than one who embodies (and is championed by) the most extreme factions of the party.

I would argue at this point, the Republican Party is split into 3 factions. The ultra-conservative/Tea Party type, the "plain old conservative" establishment, and more moderate conservatives. So let's call them 1, 2, and 3 with the lower the number being the more conservative.

If I were trying to get the votes of all 3 factions, and my presidential candidate was a 3, wouldn't it make the most sense to tap a 1 as VP? Most of the 2s are going to fall in line anyway, and it's the 1s you really risk losing to some other ultra-conservative 3rd party (like Gary Johnson or that nutcase Ron Paul).

Rubio may not be the right choice, but I think an ultra-conservative is the best bet if you want to give Mitt Mormon the best chance to win. As I said previosuly, he's far enough left that he's going to attract disillusioned independents no matter who his running mate is.

Rubio (or Jindal) also make sensebecause they are younger than most of the VP candidates being kicked around, and if they want to give Mitt the best chance to win, they have to take some of the younger voters away from Obama.

I disagree mainly because I am one of those type 1s so can speak from my own experience. I'm unlikely to vote for a 3rd party if Mitt chooses an ultra-conservative., but if Mitt chooses another moderate as VP, that could change.

Also, it's not so much that the 1s are going to vote 3rd party, as that they may not be motivated enough to get out and vote in the numbers Romneyt will need to win.

I'm thinking after this whole contraception hullabaloo it's gotta be a woman, but not one crazy or inexperienced enough to get woman to vote against him.

Unfortunately, that leaves few options.

T-Bagger: Please vote for a 3rd party candidate. That'd be swell.

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 11:20am by Omegavegeta

Mitt has had to pull fairly far to the right in the primaries. I'll speculate who he chooses will come down in part to how far back towards the center they feel he can drift. I mean originally I thought he'd choose one of the more conservative of the bunch to rally the base, but lately, yeah, and I wonder how big of a rift there really is in the party there too.

Anyway, is 'I don't know' an answer?

Yay the first ad hominem attack of the thread.

And yeah, I doubt I'm representative of the typical ultra-conservative, mainly because I'm mostly a fiscal (that word always looks funny when I type it) ultra-conservative while being mush more moderate in my views on social things. I do not, however, in any way consider myself a libertarian. I just think Mitt needs somebody who is that social ultra-conservative to offset his obviously checkered past on numerous issues.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that to win this election, the Republican Party has to get it's constituency excited to go out and vote. Mitt Romney doesn't do that for me, and I doubt he does it for most Republicans, but especially the Tea Party types. To get them excited, you're going to have to pair him with someone they can get excited about. That means someone young and ultra-conservative.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. If we are talking about the same thing, even if it is a joke, it's still resorting to (jokingly) name calling, which is an ad hominem attack in its simplest form, right?

Lawl.

I'd unquestioningly vote for Mitt if his VP was Warwick Davis.

Verne is too obvious as a mini-me choice.