Romney's VP Pick
Who would you pick as Romney's VP? I'm interested in hearing WSO republicans opinions on this since the election will likely be a debate on the economy, jobs and industry in general which are all related to finance functions.
Rumors have guys like Rob Portman, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal as potential running mates as well as "wildcard" picks like Susanna Martinez or Tim Pawlenty.
Chris Christie's probably too overweight. Dude's fatter than Cheney, but >20 years younger. Doesn't seem like it should be important, but it is. I think Marco Rubio's the most likely choice, but I'm not sure even he could sway many Hispanic voters to the Republican camp - Romney is just hilariously bad at every one of his attempts to reach Hispanic voters. He's even had to resort to having his son speak Spanish in his ads, because his own Spanish just kinda says "Hello my brown friends! My name is El Gringo!"
Rubio might be a good choice, but recent polling data has shown that Romney's going to get killed with the hispanic vote regardless whether or not he picks Rubio since Rubio is a cuban and cubans are notably republican leaning as opposed to other types of hispanics.
The article mentioned the top 4 candidates being either Pawlenty, Portman, Ryan or Jindal and that they expect Romney to make a "conventional" choice by picking one of these four as opposed to someone a bit more out of the blue like a rubio or Susanna martinez. Personally there's no way Ryan's going to get on the ticket imo because of his budget and so it will likely be one of the other three with Portman in the lead as of now
Marco Rubio because Romney needs compassion from the Hispanic community. Republicans are using affirmative action to show their party is progressing. This is similar to McCain's campaign with Palin and female voters. Except in that case, Palin turned out to be a total moron.
I think Rubio is the out and out favorite at this point but I think Christie is probably still high up there. Besides, who wouldn't want to see a debate between Biden and Christie.
Regardless, Romney needs to step up his game and come out with a coherent and thought out plan of attack other than this weak, squeamish, "I'm ashamed that I'm successful and really am not that much different philosophically than Obama but I won't raise taxes" Bullshit he is peddling right now. He will get annihilated if he tries to play a weak hand against someone who is, although I'm not a fan of him as president, an incredible campaigner and showman. The guy can prepare and speak.
http://www.intrade.com/
The smart money is betting on Rob Portman--30% chance of being the nominee compared to 17.5% and 9.5% for Pawlenty and Rubio, respectively.
I'm not sold on the whole intrade thing yet (I think it tends to follow the polls) but based on the bets Portman right now is the prohibitive favorite. As an avid Republican, I know virtually nothing about him, which goes to show that at the end of the day people vote on the top of the ticket.
Intrade is total BS imo and won't matter. Mccain picked Palin out of the hat last time around since he was the underdog and Romney may very well do the same this time. I think Portman has better than 30% chance of getting selected but I don't think that Pawlenty and Rubio will end up being the vp candidate.
Condoleezza Rice would be a great pick, followed by either Christie or McDonnell but at this point it's impossible to tell.
I say he goes Palin for purely comic purposes! Actually, what he should do is pick a candidate that will allow him to appease the far right arm of the Republican party and not scare away swing voters. Either he should pick a centrist (e.g., Jon Huntsman) that will allow him to pander to the far right a little more, while tempering his rhetoric with an action indicating that he isn't completely crazy OR he should pick a far right candidate (e.g., some t-party d-bag) and then go straight to the center.
Always wondered what people think the "far right" looks like in America. In Europe the "far right" are neo Nazis, and Europe is far to the left of the United States. If you're talking solely about Tea Party voters, then the "far right" would be people who are demanding balanced budgets, entitlement reform, and opposition to Obamacare. Not really understanding this "far right" terminology.
Far right simply means the furthest right you can go on the political spectrum in the US and still be considered mainstream. We have neo-Nazis too and they would in a sense be further right than t-partiers, but they wouldn't be considered mainstream. Similarly, when people speak of the far left, they aren't talking about die hard communists, they are talking about NAACP, Al Sharpton types. For further lessons in semantics, pick up the WSJ, NYT, FT, or any other reputable source of news (BTW fox news doesn't count).
"Far right" always essentially refers to neo nazi tendencies. (I'm an independent btw) Essentially poor and rural folk make up the vast majority of this society, like all societies. The upper class and middle business class far right refers to libertarian economics and varying degrees of religious social conservatism. Liberals view these people as "greedy" or as "polluters" who are old rich and care only about their elitist class or whatever. This refers more to the class warfare of rich vs poor which goes on in both parties because there are elitist concerns (i.e. rich conservative christians or rich liberal environmentalists as an example) versus the normal everyday concerns of the middle class base (on issues such as jobs, the economy, gas prices). However the "far right" in America/Europe is comprised of working class and poor whites who are more concerned about issues such as illegal immigration (America becoming more diverse), welfare (supposedly the notion that minorities take $$ from "hardworking whites"), and changes in our judeo christian culture to more multiculturalism which socially speaking is resulting in a loss of white privilege for those lesser off in the majority. However, due to the shitty economy our country is focused on the economic argument of more/less government which is why the republicans chose a social moderate like Romney as opposed to a "far right" candidate like Michele Bachman (spelling?), Rick Santorum, Pat Buchanan, etc. Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate, isn't typically considered "far right" because he is socially liberal and there is a base in the democratic party among wealthier liberals that he appeals to.
For full disclosure, I think I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson unless Romney steps it up
I think in the end, he'll select Rubio...regardless of how his team sees him with the Hispanic vote. Chris Christie would be a laughable selection with his recent lack of censorship when it comes to public speaking. I think Paul Ryan and Bobby Jindal are also very unlikely selections.
Also rumored is Rand Paul - which could be a major gamechanger for Romney, but also unlikely. He could bring unity to the independents for Ron Paul and the conservative libertarians who are skeptical of Romney's true roots.
As a libertarian I follow all the Paul/Johnson/Liberty etc. groups on Facebook and such, and the discussions there whenever the Romney/Rand links are brought up are very negative. For these supporters, it's very much recognition that a MAJOR overhaul is needed, and that's why I'm supporting Gary Johnson.
Picking Rubio would backfire on him. Hispanics don't like Cubans and don't identify with them at all.
Portman Rubio Ryan
Why did I read the subject line as "VP Romney's Dick"
Better question, why did I then proceed to click on it?
In order from best to worst: Donald Trump, Chris Christie, Oprah Winfrey
Romney picks Christie as running mate (Originally Posted: 12/28/2011)
Hypothetical :) I know some say Christie doesnt want to be #2 but what if he uses this experience to run as pres in the future? Is this a possible combo? I think I'd like it but most people are saying Romney cant pair up with another northeastern republican... I also personally think that the idea of trying to balance your ticket ideology wise is retarded but whatever (yes i do understand why its done)
I think Ron Paul probably picks Gary Johnson
Ideology wise I think it's actually smart for Romney to go central right which Christie fundamentally is. The rest of the country might be very weary of a tea party darling. The mess in Congress right now is in part due to the unrelenting tea party faction. Christie although liked by the tea party doesn't come off as a Palin Bachman or Perry, making him the perfect candidate who can excite the tea party voters but not scare away the independents.
I'd like it. Christie is the man.
Marco Rubio is the name that's constantly thrown around.
He'll do/say anything to win so we'll see
Gary Johnson said if Ron Paul gets the bid he'll back out and support Paul 100%
Romney Picks Paul Ryan as VP Running Mate (Originally Posted: 08/11/2012)
Looks like Romney has chosen Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100008723963904434040045775821125211415…
Not sure what to think about that since all the talk was previously swirling around other potentials like: Condoleeza Rice, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, etc.
I'll have to do my reading on Ryan to see where he stands on the issues. What do you all think?
He's not exactly the most fiscal conservative guy in the world, contrary to what the press says. I think he'll do well enough to get Romney elected, though. Too bad he didn't pick up Condi, she woulda torn shit up
Paul Ryan is probably my favorite politician in Washington, D.C.--he's a fiscal hawk, he's intelligent, kind of nerdy, and pretty brilliant.
That said, I think it was a very bad pick, if for no other reason than Ryan builds onto the Democrat "narrative". He has a very long legislative track record, which is always very bad when it comes to an opponent putting out attack ads. His track record is pretty contradictory, with his support of Bush's big government spending programs and his newfound fiscal hawk persona. The contradictions will be used against him. And finally, he is the author of the GOP's most recent budgets (budgets that they should get a lot of credit for because they were daring and proper), but that means every single line item and cut in the $3 trillion budget can be used as a bludgeon against the Romney/Ryan ticket.
Paul Ryan is damaged goods--damaged goods should be doing battle in Congress in leadership roles, which Ryan is currently and properly doing. It's candidates like Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, etc. who have relatively limited legislative track records who are successful, not damaged goods (McCain, Kerry, Dole, etc.).
LOL. he voted for every single budget deficit during the 2000's.
This is probably the only thing that I know about Ryan:
http://dealbreaker.com/2011/07/please-ladies-don%E2%80%99t-bother-cliff…
I did see some of his remarks during fiscal fights, but his rhetoric always struck me more as political opportunism than an expression of principals.
classic mixup
Maybe Romney's doing the smart thing and running as the VP?
.
Awesome choice by Romney - I think I'll actually go out and vote this time.
Romney/Ryan are both clowns that deserve to be nowhere near the White House.
If I agree with that will you agree the same is true for Obama/Biden? Because we're being forced to pick between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/D5gXRPXs0PQ
As opposed to the ex-community organizer who knows very little about the economy who is our current president?
Christ , reading this thread makes me want to cancel my Green Card application.
As a Romney supporter, I was convinced that he would pick Portman. So this choice is absolutely stunning. It's bold and incredibly risky.
I think Romney only picked Ryan because he's facing an uphill climb. Despite the stagnant economy and utter failure on the domestic front, Obama has managed to make this election about Romney's record at Bain Capital. Romney had hoped that he could win by default, thinking that the American people would automatically fire the incumbent during a time of economic trouble. This has not been the case, as all the polls show Obama with a healthy lead. By picking Ryan, Romney is trying to shift the election into a debate on our fiscal future, a debate he thinks he could win, given the country's center-right tilt. Ryan also helps him with blue-collar midwestern voters, a demographic that he has bee unable to appeal to.
Despite this, I think it's a bad choice politically. It shifts the attention too much away from Romney, similar to what Palin did to McCain. Moreover, whenever a nominee makes a "bold" VP pick, it has not usually ended well. I'm very worried about the direction of the Romney campaign, and as of now, I predict a healthy Obama victory. Pretty sad since a 2nd Obama term will be the beginning of America's permanent decline.
But really, how bad can he be? He did go to Harvard. Granted, it wasn't HBS, but still.
Agreed 110%.
I think there are a few things to consider here.
First and foremost, Obama isn't leading in all the polls and the ones that he actually does hold a lead in are typically poorly executed polls. From what I've seen, Obama will lead by a few percentage points in a handful of the polls that circulate on a regular basis but the key points there are that these polls (1) typically question registered voters (not 'likely' voters) and (2) lean to the left because, in some cases, the organization polled 5% or 6% more registered Democrats than Republicans...so they are biased, even if unintentional. Furthermore, polling 'experts' have said that such a close race is bad news for the incumbent. If a voter hasn't made up their mind yet, the longer they wait to do so, the less likely they are going to vote for the current occupier...which makes sense...if you don't think he's done enough already to get/keep your vote, what's going to be done over the next few months to change your mind?
Ryan was always considered a real potential running mate, so I wasn't surprised at all. I think this choice is much less 'bold' than you do. As far as historically bold choices, the bad outcomes typically revolve around conservative candidates picking more 'liberal' running mates with the hope of picking up the Independent votes. The country doesn't react well to that.
This is a good elaboration on the points I am trying to make...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administr…
At the end of the day, polls don't always translate into votes. The intensity surrounding Obama continues to drop. While people might approve of Obama and would prefer him to be reelected, that doesn't actually get him a vote and the people that aren't really invested in the election won't turnout to vote. The conservatives in this country are outright scared of Obama getting reelected and that will create an unprecedented turnout for the right...just look at Wisconsin.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/2012_electoral_c…
Of the states that are currently 'toss-up' you can almost guarantee Wisconsin to go to Romney given his VP pick and the recent recall results there. I think Rubio will deliver Florida for Romney. That's another 39 (10+29) electoral college votes for Romney...add that to his projected 206 and you have 245 to Obama's 247. I think Romney has a decent shot at Ohio (10 votes) which is currently a 'toss-up'. Romney might also have a shot at Pennsylvania (20 votes) and Nevada (6 votes) as well and now you are getting into 'leaning towards Obama' territory where Obama would start losing some of that projected 247.
Regards
Overall I like Ryan. I do think there are issues once you start getting more experience politicans on the ticket just because there is more history to sift through and find mistakes and/or errors and/or changed opinions, etc.
I think Ryan does bring some excitement to the race and that people will get behind him because of his understanding of the government budget and they will ultimately believe he will get something worthwhile done.
I know many people wanted Romney to go with other candidates, but I think this is his best choice. Condi would have sunk his ship because she is tied, almost 100%, to Bush...which many independents and blue dog democrats don't like. Then you would have the media tearing Romney apart for choosing a black female and they would paint him as though he's pandering to people outside his base. Don't get me wrong, Condi brings a lot to the table, so maybe she has a place in Romney's Cabinet, but I just don't think she would have helped with the election.
I think Christie could have helped because he's brash and viewed as being (somewhat) in the middle...the exact opposite of what the media will paint Romney as to undecided voters.
I like Rubio a lot, but I think he's a bit inexperienced and I think he does more good in the Senate than he would as the VP. I do think he will be POTUS one day, but not for a while.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs
Regards
i would be totally glued to election coverage if he chose christie just to hear him talk crazy amounts of shit. love that fucker.
YOU DIDNT BUILD THAT
Ryan is a risky move, but a necessary move. Romney is not leading in the polls and needs to juice his campaign. Ryan will increase political donations, which is key. The sleeper in all this is the Congressional elections which will largely determine Obama's 2nd term.
We just don't have the money. We are running over a Trillion in deficits each year. If you cut defense to ZERO (ignoring all the negatives that would come from this), you would still have over a $300B gap.
You repeal the Bush tax cuts for the top 5% of earners and you save ~$100B a year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/calculating-the-cos…
So now you have a $200B gap, assuming no more spending, no increase in rates (we spend $200B in interest coverage).
Now lets jack tax rates on the top 5% of earners. Considering that the tax cuts cost $100B per year, you could probably find $200B in tax increases for these people. Now you have a balanced budget.
Ohh, we still have $16T and increasing. How are we going to even pay the debt down to a reasonable level?
Government has grown too big and has become too wasteful. The Federal Government increases because of the promise of taking care of people. They have failed on all accounts. When you ask for responsibility and fail, you have that responsibility taken away. Shrink the government, pay down the debt and put more responsibility on the individual.
Ryan is a risky move, but a necessary move. Romney is not leading in the polls and needs to juice his campaign. Ryan will increase political donations, which is key. The sleeper in all this is the Congressional elections which will largely determine Obama's 2nd term.
We just don't have the money. We are running over a Trillion in deficits each year. If you cut defense to ZERO (ignoring all the negatives that would come from this), you would still have over a $300B gap.
You repeal the Bush tax cuts for the top 5% of earners and you save ~$100B a year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/calculating-the-cos…
So now you have a $200B gap, assuming no more spending, no increase in rates (we spend $200B in interest coverage).
Now lets jack tax rates on the top 5% of earners. Considering that the tax cuts cost $100B per year, you could probably find $200B in tax increases for these people. Now you have a balanced budget.
Ohh, we still have $16T and increasing. How are we going to even pay the debt down to a reasonable level?
Government has grown too big and has become too wasteful. The Federal Government increases because of the promise of taking care of people. They have failed on all accounts. When you ask for responsibility and fail, you have that responsibility taken away. Shrink the government, pay down the debt and put more responsibility on the individual.
Ryan is a risky move, but a necessary move. Romney is not leading in the polls and needs to juice his campaign. Ryan will increase political donations, which is key. The sleeper in all this is the Congressional elections which will largely determine Obama's 2nd term.
We just don't have the money. We are running over a Trillion in deficits each year. If you cut defense to ZERO (ignoring all the negatives that would come from this), you would still have over a $300B gap.
You repeal the Bush tax cuts for the top 5% of earners and you save ~$100B a year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/calculating-the-cos…
So now you have a $200B gap, assuming no more spending, no increase in rates (we spend $200B in interest coverage).
Now lets jack tax rates on the top 5% of earners. Considering that the tax cuts cost $100B per year, you could probably find $200B in tax increases for these people. Now you have a balanced budget.
Ohh, we still have $16T and increasing. How are we going to even pay the debt down to a reasonable level?
Government has grown too big and has become too wasteful. The Federal Government increases because of the promise of taking care of people. They have failed on all accounts. When you ask for responsibility and fail, you have that responsibility taken away. Shrink the government, pay down the debt and put more responsibility on the individual.
If you were either pro-Romney or anti-Obama, will you now vote when you would not have before the announcement? I suspect there will be some and it gives Romney a little bit better of a chance.
"Madame Speaker, This bill offends my principles, but I'm going to vote for this bill in order to preserve my principles, in order to preserve this free enterprise system..." While begging congress to pass TARP
^^^ Abdel FTW
Wisconsin 2011... Was it the Walter Benjamin quote? "Behind every fascism is a failed revolution"
Romney is a joke... He's not going to cut spending. I'm convinced that the deficit would remain the same regardless which candidate is elected. The only difference is where that spending will go. Under Romney, it will go to the Pentagon and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Under Obama, more of it will go to infrastructure, healthcare, etc.
I'll take the latter over the former. Also I don't want war with Iran.
Magni architecto fugiat quis quae consequatur laudantium consequuntur. Ipsum omnis molestiae et quas qui enim nisi. In aliquid vitae veritatis debitis. Culpa rerum magni distinctio fugiat nesciunt.
Repudiandae iure quo deserunt suscipit odit qui. Non maxime culpa illum a odio voluptatem vitae autem. Id dolorem id illum nam nisi.
Non occaecati deleniti omnis quod possimus praesentium. Sed ipsa suscipit cupiditate. Sed omnis saepe minus occaecati fugit voluptates. Qui molestias a possimus quam fugiat quas incidunt modi. Reiciendis dolore commodi autem dolore non. In sit voluptas omnis praesentium placeat et. Sit assumenda quidem voluptatibus quia.
Sint id autem perferendis qui magnam eveniet quia. Autem deleniti ducimus quos praesentium magnam. Cum est placeat dolore esse vitae ex consequatur.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Facere provident dignissimos iure dolor. Est sint dolores est maiores magni.
Aliquam quae et nam qui. Ducimus omnis quis ipsam quia nobis suscipit vel tempora. Quia magni vel aliquid.
Error quas doloribus nihil nostrum expedita praesentium. A quam eius iure sit veniam earum. Quia delectus quia hic sit. Maxime inventore voluptas voluptas quo perspiciatis. Omnis inventore voluptatem ab quibusdam dolorum.
Voluptatum consequatur dolore nostrum nostrum sunt. Soluta molestiae optio temporibus. Dolores consequatur quas commodi nobis tenetur quibusdam ullam.