AHC:Give Romney a worse running mate

samcster94

Banned
Here are a few options

- Former Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, brings up ties to the Dubya terms. Plus both are out of political office.
- Former President, George H. W. Bush.
- Former Governor of Wisconsin and was Secretary of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush, Tommy Thompson.
- Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore.
- Former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee
- Former mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani
Jeb seems like political suicide and exactly the candidate I am looking for.
 
@David T I generally agree that vice-presidential selection doesn’t seem to matter all that much.

But . . .


Next question, of that 5% how many were going to vote for Dukakis anyway vs. swing voters in the middle?

Even if we make the completely unrealistic assumption that all of that 5% would have voted for Bush if he had chosen someone other than Quayle, 5% of Dukakis voters means only 2.3 percent of the total electorate--not enough to seriously dent Bush's 7.8 percent lead. Actually, I doubt that the vice-presidential candidates were decisive to more than one percent of the total electorate--if that much.
 
As David T. points out earlier in the thread, Palin was not a "disaster" and did not really hurt McCain during the actual election campaign - this was only seen in retrospect when elements within the failed McCain campaign (mostly Wallace and Schmidt going by Game Change) blamed her for McCain's loss (and not his stopping his campaign during the financial crisis, which really doomed it). Most press accounts at the time credited Palin with turning out votes for McCain and hyping the Republican base in ways McCain himself did not (McCain's biggest convention bump was after her acceptance speech), and, again all press accounts at the time also had her holding her own with Biden, a seasoned politician with lots of experience, in their one debate.

As for Romney, to pick someone "worse" than Palin, you would have to pick someone who would cost him net numbers of votes (which it is not clear Palin did for McCain). You would need someone who is not only polarizing/loathed by the left, but who have zero hype from the right. I can see Jeb Bush (given the Bush name was not a positive in 2012) or maybe even Rudy Giuliani, who often comes as abrasive and sometimes says whatever comes to him at the moment (so not well loved by the left, but also a pro-choice social liberal who would not consolidate doubters on the right of Romney's own conservatism). Another option would be Romney picking the man McCain WANTED to pick in 08 - Joe Lieberman. Lieberman was persona non grata for the Democrats by this time but also as a social liberal (and Al Gore's running mate) would have garnered zero enthusiasm (the opposite in fact) from Republicans - although Romney (like McCain) might have thought there would be enough Independents to make up the difference.A Republican ticket of two Northeastern moderates would probably do worse than Romney did picking Ryan.
 
Even if we make the completely unrealistic assumption that all of that 5% would have voted for Bush if he had chosen someone other than Quayle, . . .
When Mondale picked Ferraro in '84, since she was perceived (fairly or unfairly) as someone on the liberal side, that might have pushed away more conservative-minded swing voters.

It's almost a case-by-case basis on particular vice-presidential picks. And some elections certainly could swing on 1 percent.
 
When Mondale picked Ferraro in '84, since she was perceived (fairly or unfairly) as someone on the liberal side, that might have pushed away more conservative-minded swing voters.

It's almost a case-by-case basis on particular vice-presidential picks. And some elections certainly could swing on 1 percent.

"As for her effect on the ticket, one poll showed that 6 percent of Walter Mondale's voters switched to Mondale because of Ferraro. The same number switched to Ronald Reagan because of Ferraro." https://www.thedailybeast.com/geraldine-ferraro-dies-memories-of-her-1984-campaign I'm not sure which poll is being referred to, but that sounds plausible. Very likely even most of the "6 percent" (on both sides) were just using it as an excuse for a vote they would cast anyway.

It's arguable that Ferraro had a small positive effect on Mondale's vote: "The voters who claimed the vice-presidential candidates mattered, narrowly voted for the Mondale-Ferraro ticket. Fifty-three percent supported the Democrats; 46 percent the Republicans. Women were more likely to think the vice-presidential candidates mattered; those women voted overwhelmingly for Mondale-Ferraro (63 percent). Men who named the vice-presidential candidates, however, voted heavily (59 per- cent) for Reagan-Bush."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/418804?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

I'm a little bit puzzled by you saying that Ferraro hurt the ticket because she was perceived as too liberal. Her voting record in Congress, while satisfactory to liberals, was if anything a bit to the right of Mondale's. Who thought she was too liberal who did not already think that Mondale was? If she hurt the ticket at all, I think it would be more because of publicity about her husband. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Zaccaro

But really I don't think she either helped or hurt much, and that's the story with most running mates.
 
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.

Ideological smarminess isn't really an argument for somebody having a given ideology though.
 
Here are a few options

- Former Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, brings up ties to the Dubya terms. Plus both are out of political office.
- Former President, George H. W. Bush.
- Former Governor of Wisconsin and was Secretary of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush, Tommy Thompson.
- Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore.
- Former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee
- Former mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani

Just wondering, but what's wrong with Thompson? He's from a good state, was well-liked, and seems actually pretty good as an anti-Obamacare running mate given his background.
 
Not OP but my understanding is that Thompson was pretty bumbly and a bit gaffe prone.

He was well-liked enough in Wisconsin that his third-party brother got 11% when he ran for Governor in 2002.

If he helps deliver Wisconsin (unlike Ryan) and can frame a better argument against the ACA (and probably a moderate Romney-aligned one compared to Ryan) I think he'd be a decent pick. FL + WI gets you to 245. The thing about Ryan, I think, was that (A) he scared old people and (B) him being picked sort of doubled down on the image of Romney as "poor guy who doesn't like poor people". Put Ohio and one top of that and you're at 263.
 
A democrat?

What Democrat would say yes?

Artur Davis spoke at the RNC that year, but I'm not sure if he'd hurt the ticket.
Walt Minnick, the one Democrat the Tea Party endorsed, lost in 2010. I'm not sure if he'd hurt the ticket.

Maybe Jim Webb given he was retiring that year. He proceeds to be gaffe-prone and annoy fiscal-economic conservatives.

Doug Wilder went to a Romney fundraiser though he ultimately endorsed Obama, but I'm not sure if he'd hurt the ticket. He's also 81 (but still alive today, so he could be healthy enough).
Gene Taylor of Mississippi supported McCain in 2008.

Maybe James Woolsey Jr (Clinton CIA Director, Carter Navy Secretary, 71 years old, scoop jackson democrat).
 
I was thinking either Kelly Ayotte or David Petraeus. Kelly Ayotte would deliver New Hampshire, however, she would have only been a Senator since 2011, and would invoke bad memories of Sarah Palin. David Petraeus would be despised by conservatives and was embroiled in an extramarital affair.
 
What Democrat would say yes?
Joe Lieberman was thought to be seriously in the running for Secretary of State in a Romney administration, though it's almost impossible to imagine the convention supporting him (as the McCain staff concluded in 2008). In the unlikely scenario that he's able to get the nomination, though, he'd likely cause conservatives to stay home given their prior antipathy towards Romney.
 
Just wondering, but what's wrong with Thompson? He's from a good state, was well-liked, and seems actually pretty good as an anti-Obamacare running mate given his background.
I picked him as this was when he had not held political office in over 4 years and his link to Dubya’s presidency.
Plus he’s less front line politics like Tom Ridge, Former Governor of Pennsylvania and former Homeland Security
 
I'm a little bit puzzled by you saying that Ferraro hurt the ticket because she was perceived as too liberal. Her voting record in Congress, while satisfactory to liberals, was if anything a bit to the right of Mondale's. Who thought she was too liberal who did not already think that Mondale was? If she hurt the ticket at all, I think it would be more because of publicity about her husband. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Zaccaro

But really I don't think she either helped or hurt much, and that's the story with most running mates.
Basically because Gerry Ferraro's from New York and that she's a woman, and that's all the attention a lot of people pay to politics, as much as I might wish it was different.

Her husband was in real estate and had complicated tax dealings, as many people in real estate do. I vaguely remember that because Gerry handled the press conference well, it was a neutral or even net position, although probably a distraction and loss of days campaigning.

==========

You realize of course that you and I are a little like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould arguing about punctuated evolution! :) The theory is clearly true, the question is just to what extent. I think we're on agreement that on most occasions the vice-presidential candidate has no appreciable effect, and perhaps just arguing on the few occasions when he or she might have a small effect.
 
Top