AHC:Give Romney a worse running mate

samcster94

Banned
Although Romney's run for President was a failure, he ran a relatively competent running mate after the disaster of Sarah Palin 2008. That might have helped him do a bit better and he even had a small chance for a while. Who could Romney have picked as a Palin level embarrassment, excluding Palin herself???
 
Although Romney's run for President was a failure, he ran a relatively competent running mate after the disaster of Sarah Palin 2008. That might have helped him do a bit better and he even had a small chance for a while. Who could Romney have picked as a Palin level embarrassment, excluding Palin herself???
Mitt Romney has a tougher primary, and is forced into a deal - Santorum becomes his running-mate, in return for Santorum backing him. Santorum does poorly in the GE campaign.
 
Bob McDonnell was on the VP list.

McDonnell looks very good on the surface at the time, but if his legal issues come out it will be very very messy for Romney. Think of the last time a presidential candidate had to switch running mates in the middle of a campaign and ask how well that went.
 
Chris Christie, if not thoroughly vetted, could have been a disaster. Gingrich had plenty of skeletons in his closet, but I remember hearing somewhere that the Romney team found out about a lot of Christie's own scandals before most of the general public did through their vetting process, and for that reason (among others) was not chosen. Say they don't do as thorough a review, and Christie himself agrees to get on board, there's lots of potential for that to go terribly.
 
. . . ran a relatively competent running mate . . .
I don’t think Paul Ryan was all that great. He was too young. He’s from the House which a lot of voters (mistakenly) think of as the junior league.

At the event where Romney introduced him, Ryan appeared open collar without a tie ? ? Ryan’s a doctrinaire libertarian and it sometimes shows, meaning he can come across as a smuck who thinks he’s smarter than other people.

No, he’s not as poor as Palin, not as poor as Quayle in ‘88. But approaching the Quayle level.
 
I don’t think Paul Ryan was all that great. He was too young. He’s from the House which a lot of voters (mistakenly) think of as the junior league.

At the event where Romney introduced him, Ryan appeared open collar without a tie ? ? Ryan’s a doctrinaire libertarian and it sometimes shows, meaning he can come across as a smuck who thinks he’s smarter than other people.

No, he’s not as poor as Palin, not as poor as Quayle in ‘88. But approaching the Quayle level.

Ryan is not a doctrinaire libertarian. The guy voted for Bush's medicaid expansion and was the guy who put forward the border-adjustment tax, for example. He just talks like one more than other republicans do.
 
No, he’s not as poor as Palin, not as poor as Quayle in ‘88. But approaching the Quayle level.

BTW, I don't think that Palin hurt McCain very much in 2008, or that Quayle hurt Bush very much in 1988:

(1) On Palin, see my post at https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-president-palin.318975/page-3#post-9298478:

***
The best study I have seen is Bernard Grofman and Ruben Kline, "Evaluating the Impact of Vice Presidential Selection on Voter Choice." They conclude

"While our general finding that the net impact of vice presidential selection is at most 1 percentage point confirms that of earlier work, our assertion that the gross impact of vice presidential selection in 2008 was very similar to (though slightly lower than) the historical average impact, and that the net impact of vice presidential selection in 2008,at about one-half of a percentage point, was also slightly lower than its historical average, may violate the common wisdom that Palin’s choice had significant electoral implications for McCain. Compared to previous elections, the difference between DR voters’ (those with preferences for Obama over McCain and Palin over Biden) and DD voters’ propensities to vote Republican was nearly the same as the period average (.11 versus .13). The difference, however, between RR voters’ and RD voters’ likelihood of voting Republican is nearly three times the historical average (.42 versus .15), suggesting that there was potential for Palin’s candidacy to have been very costly to the Republicans, if the proportion of RD voters was high. On the other hand, if the proportion of DR voters was very high, even the 11-percentage-point difference we found in 2008 could have cost the Democrats votes. The facts, however, were that DR voters represented only 2% of the sample in 2008, far less than usual, and RD voters only 5% of the sample in 2008, only negligible, even below (an already quite low) long-term average. Nonetheless, as usual, the net impact of vice presidential comparisons by voters in 2008 helped the Democrat..." http://www.mwpweb.eu/1/76/resources/publication_522_1.pdf

In short, I do not think Palin hurt McCain very much. OTOH, I don't agree that she actually helped him. The exit poll you cite provides, as its own summary remarks, "mixed evidence.'" " Fully 60% of Americans casting ballots said that Palin is not qualified to be president should it be necessary; 81% of these voters favored Obama. Yet those who cited Palin’s selection as a factor in their vote — 60% of all voters — favored McCain by 56% to 43%." What I would like to know is this: Of those who would cite *Biden*'s selection as a factor in their vote (a question which unfortunately doesn't seem to have been asked in the exit poll, as far as I can see) how many would favor Obama and how many McCain? In short, may this not simply be a case that those who cite the choice of a vice-presidential candidate as a factor in their decision are more likely to cite him or her as a factor *for* the party to which that candidate belongs?

(Also, FWIW, of those--only 7% of the electorate--who cited the choice of Palin as *the most important factor* in their vote, 52% voted for Obama.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p6 Palin got her best ratings among those who called the choice of Palin a "minor factor" in their decision.)...

***

(2) On Quayle, as Steve Chapman notes in "Nobody Votes for the Veep" https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2000/06/nobody-votes-for-the-veep.html "In Gallup Polls taken every four years asking if the selection of a particular running mate or a type of running mate (a black, for example, or a woman) would make the respondent more or less likely to vote for either ticket, the invariable consensus choice is that it "doesn't make much difference." Even in 1988, 64 percent of voters said that about Quayle. Only 5 percent of those who voted for Dukakis gave Quayle as an explanation."

In the same way, I think Ryan's effect on 2012 was negligible--and so would be the effect of any other running mate, unless they got into a really serious scandal.
 
POD 2006

Romney wants to shore up his conservative credentials, so he settles on a two term southern Senator who is reliably on the right. Unfortunately, a month before the election nominee George F. Allen refers to a reporter of color as a “macaca”.
 

samcster94

Banned
I don’t think Paul Ryan was all that great. He was too young. He’s from the House which a lot of voters (mistakenly) think of as the junior league.

At the event where Romney introduced him, Ryan appeared open collar without a tie ? ? Ryan’s a doctrinaire libertarian and it sometimes shows, meaning he can come across as a smuck who thinks he’s smarter than other people.

No, he’s not as poor as Palin, not as poor as Quayle in ‘88. But approaching the Quayle level.
I only meant relative to Palin not that he was the best case.
 

samcster94

Banned
POD 2006

Romney wants to shore up his conservative credentials, so he settles on a two term southern Senator who is reliably on the right. Unfortunately, a month before the election nominee George F. Allen refers to a reporter of color as a “macaca”.
Romney in '08 would be interesting in itself.
 
Romney in '08 would be interesting in itself.

After the fall of Lehman Brothers, any Republican presidential candidate is going to lose pretty badly. The real effect of nominating Romney in 2008 is that it will probably lead to the GOP nominating someone else in 2012.
 

samcster94

Banned
After the fall of Lehman Brothers, any Republican presidential candidate is going to lose pretty badly. The real effect of nominating Romney in 2008 is that it will probably lead to the GOP nominating someone else in 2012.
Gingrich is my best guess.
 
Carly Fiorina?

If social conservatives go nuts about his son, than Rob Portman could turn out worse.

Now the person Romney should have picked was Tim Pawlenty.
 
It's already been mentioned, but the Romney camp reportedly found skeletons in Christie's closet while vetting him, so if for whatever reason they don't manage to pick up on those then he's possibly a time bomb waiting to happen.
 
If Romney decides that he needs those credentials with the religious right, then Mike Huckabee.

Imagine this: Sandy Hook happens in October rather than December. Big tragedy that everybody involved in the campaigns has to talk about. Old Huck' states (as he did in our timeline) that Lanza killed those kids because he didn't pray in school.

Somewhere Mitt is reconsidering his abstinence from alcohol.
 
Last edited:
Ryan is not a doctrinaire libertarian. The guy voted for Bush's medicaid expansion and was the guy who put forward the border-adjustment tax, for example. He just talks like one more than other republicans do.
I will embrace messy facts, even when they go against my theory, perhaps especially when they go against my theory! :)

In talking with libertarians online and a few in real time, I’m pretty quick to feel my hackles raise with their usual simon simple analogy or explanation, as if I’m not smart enough for the real stuff. And emotionally, Ryan kind of rubbed me the same way.
 
Top