Pence loses in 2012, who is VP in 2016

Mike Pence won the 2012 Gubernatorial by a fairly close margin.

Has he lost in 2012, who would have been the likely 2012 running mate choice for Trump?

The final three were Gingrich, Christie, and Pence historically, with it leaking (rumoring?) that Trump's first choice was Christie before Kushner and Manafort talked him out of it. I can't see Manafort letting it be Gingrich either, although Carson (who was tasked with vetting VP prospects) was apparently supportive of Gingrich apparently. Jeff Sessions comes to mind as well.
 
Walker, perhaps? I don't think the two ever feuded that badly, but Walker definitely had (has) future designs on the presidency and might not have accepted such an offer, perhaps sensing that being the bottom half of a defeated ticket would tarnish his future chances.

The common denominator among those who were in the running to be Trump's VP pick seems to be that they were either political has-beens (Gingrich) or figures whose lease on political life was perceived to be coming to an end (Pence, Christie). Not incidentally, these are basically the two types of reputable politicians who wanted to be Trump's running mate.
 
Last edited:
If not Christie or Gingrich, the following candidates were seriously considered:
  • Jeff Sessions
  • Bob Corker
  • Richard Burr
  • Tom Cotton
  • John Kasich
  • Michael Flynn
Richard Burr is probably the best choice because he not only brings the swing state of North Carolina to the ticket, his retirement opens up his Senate seat for a new Senator (perhaps Mark Meadows).
 
Last edited:
Jeff Sessions would make sense. He was among the first “established” Republican politicians to support Trump, and for a little bit it seemed like he was the front runner for potential VP
 
Jeff Sessions would make sense. He was among the first “established” Republican politicians to support Trump, and for a little bit it seemed like he was the front runner for potential VP

The biggest issue with doing so is precisely because Sessions was one of the first Republican officeholders to back Trump. Trump's biggest job with picking a VP was making sure the VP bolstered his standing with conservative Trump skeptics. Pence IOTL was an attempt to appeal to Cruz voters who otherwise would be hesitant to support Trump.

For this reason, Sessions and Flynn would not fulfill this role (plus Flynn's Russia connections are a major timebomb). Kasich claims he was actually offered the job in return for basically doing the president's job with no credit, but obviously that should be taken with a grain of salt. Cotton would bolster Trump's standing with neoconservatives and GOP foreign policy figures, but I don't think that was every an essential to win demographic. Burr would be suitable.

As for figures who weren't on any shortlist, I could see the merits in picking Nikki Haley, Kelly Ayotte, Scott Walker or Rick Scott.
 
Trump wanted someone whose career prospects were stalled out enough to be a sycophant to him but also sated the GOP generally (both the voter base and someone who could act as a "middle man" between him and the party itself).
 
Trump wanted someone whose career prospects were stalled out enough to be a sycophant to him but also sated the GOP generally (both the voter base and someone who could act as a "middle man" between him and the party itself).
Sounds like Chris Christie to me. Trump did want him originally, before Bannon and others on his staff talked him into Pence.
 
I'd say Tom Cotton or Richard Burr were the best choices. Chris Christie had too much of a profile, much of it negative in recent years.
 
Current politics?

I'm not sure. This is a couple years old now.

I'd say Tom Cotton or Richard Burr were the best choices. Chris Christie had too much of a profile, much of it negative in recent years.

But would they have said yes? Cotton and Burr had futures, which can't be said of the OTL final three contenders.

If not Christie or Gingrich, the following candidates were seriously considered:
  • Jeff Sessions
  • Bob Corker
  • Richard Burr
  • Tom Cotton
  • John Kasich
  • Michael Flynn
Richard Burr is probably the best choice because he not only brings the swing state of North Carolina to the ticket, his retirement opens up his Senate seat for a new Senator (perhaps Mark Meadows).

Kasich wasn't going to say yes and Corker took himself out of the running IIRC. Burr meanwhile is from a seat that's up for reelection and I doubt the party would want somebody else running there. Cotton has only been in the Senate for two years.

That basically leaves Flynn and Sessions (aside from Christie and Gingrich).

Trump-Flynn reminds me of Perot-Stockdale. Sessions is a four times elected Senator, but doesn't spice things up much.
 
Last edited:
2016 may be two years ago, but this is the sort of POD which requires a decade's distance to really digest and entertain properly.
 
Sounds like Chris Christie to me. Trump did want him originally, before Bannon and others on his staff talked him into Pence.

Trump had serious problems with evangelicals before he chose Pence, I think that's the problem with a Christie. That being said there's rumors he was having second thoughts on Pence...
 
Trump had serious problems with evangelicals before he chose Pence, I think that's the problem with a Christie. That being said there's rumors he was having second thoughts on Pence...

Sounds like a recipe for a GOP breakdown.

It also would be Trump doubling down on his core schtick, kind of like how Bill Clinton doubled down and picked Al Gore.
 
Not sure, I tend to think Gingrich or Flynn would be less suspicious to both the Trump circle (lol, when he still listened to Jared) and the electoral coalition he required, and he's been fairly shrewd to please the evangelical bloc without looking attached to them. But Christie would be interesting even if it cuts the values voters a little loser to vote McMuffin or something (does this make PA or FL harder to win?).
 
Top