Vice Presidents...A serious question; please consider:

[candycorn]

Hello and good morning.

It is spoken often here that Gingrich may be Mitt's VP or vice versa....Or perhaps Paul would be the VP or Santorum or whomever.

My question is this:

Why all the suspense? It would seem to me that the benefits of naming your running mate early on in the race would give your campaign a bump (it doesn't need to be a fellow candidate for POTUS). It also would seem to me that while the top or bottom of the ticket is in Iowa, the other end of the ticket could be in SC or NH or doing fundraising in New York.

I think that the main reason is because there isn't enough money from fundraising to support basically two campaigns at one time.

Is there a better reason?

 

[Caroljo]

I don't think anyone has ever announced their VP before being nominated....it's just not done that way. But it would be a good idea maybe. I'm all for Newt getting nominated, but i really wouldn't want him taking Ron Paul along with him (i doubt that would happen anyway). Guess it really wouldn't matter, i wouldn't vote for Obama anyway!

 

[candycorn]

I don't think anyone has ever announced their VP before being nominated....it's just not done that way. But it would be a good idea maybe. I'm all for Newt getting nominated, but i really wouldn't want him taking Ron Paul along with him (i doubt that would happen anyway). Guess it really wouldn't matter, i wouldn't vote for Obama anyway!

Yes, but why is it "not done that way"?

It seems to me that if you're thinking you're going to win the Presidency or at least your party's nomination (else why run?) you would have at least had a blush with who you pictured as your VP.

In the "old days" of campaigns where money wasn't the driving force it is now, I could understand it. Like before television, nobody had to buy television ads so it was cheaper to run for office. However now it costs a lot of money to not only buy the airtime but to score the ad to be the most effective (there was a reason why Newt threw in the word "unionized" when he came up with the silly idea of having kids clean the schools instead of learning in them).

Why not get more boots on the ground working for your campaign since you, as the candidate, can only be in one place at a time. It would double your candidacy's retail politicking if nothing else.

 

[Sallow]

Romney really really wants to be president. He's not going with Newt if he wins the nomination. And while he's said some incredibly stupid things, he hasn't done the whole hog batshit crazy conservative thing. And he won't. His eye is really on the General. Look for a safe pick like Pawlenty. Rubio said he wouldn't do it..but who knows. He might even find someone more moderate then either of those guys.

 

[candycorn]

Romney really really wants to be president. He's not going with Newt if he wins the nomination. And while he's said some incredibly stupid things, he hasn't done the whole hog batshit crazy conservative thing. And he won't. His eye is really on the General. Look for a safe pick like Pawlenty. Rubio said he wouldn't do it..but who knows. He might even find someone more moderate then either of those guys.

Okay, lets say Pawlenty or Rubio. Or lets really get crazy (for now--watch out in 4-8 years) and say Nikki Haley. Or Richard Lugar, Jeb Bush, JC Watts, etc... The question I'm wanting answered is what is the harm in having your guy/gal in mind, naming him/her today and putting his/her credability, fund raising abilities, charisma, lieutennants, political apparatus, etc... to work for you as well as a named VP.

I understand that this isn't done but why isn't it done? I'm not seeing a huge downside to telling the public that "This is my Vice President" in December of 2011 versus August 2012. Having another big gun on the campaign trail who is working for you seems to be a plus.

I guess the big drawback is that some reporter will ask Mr. Pawlenty, Mr. Rubio, Ms. Haley, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Bush or Mr. Watts..."If you are prepared to take over as President, why aren't you running?" To me, it's a non issue since there are so many hurdles in the way to start with--namely money, electoral math, and of course money (it counts twice!).

But beyond that, I can't see a downside to naming your running mate in December verus 7 months later when they really can't add all that much to your campaign.

 

[occupied]

Presidents usually pick unambitious toadies to be VP, Bush allowing Cheney to pick himself still boggles my mind, not sure any nominee has ever chosen one of their primary opponents as VP.

 

[Paulie]

I don't think anyone has ever announced their VP before being nominated....it's just not done that way. But it would be a good idea maybe. I'm all for Newt getting nominated, but i really wouldn't want him taking Ron Paul along with him (i doubt that would happen anyway). Guess it really wouldn't matter, i wouldn't vote for Obama anyway!

Yes, but why is it "not done that way"?

It seems to me that if you're thinking you're going to win the Presidency or at least your party's nomination (else why run?) you would have at least had a blush with who you pictured as your VP.

In the "old days" of campaigns where money wasn't the driving force it is now, I could understand it. Like before television, nobody had to buy television ads so it was cheaper to run for office. However now it costs a lot of money to not only buy the airtime but to score the ad to be the most effective (there was a reason why Newt threw in the word "unionized" when he came up with the silly idea of having kids clean the schools instead of learning in them).

Why not get more boots on the ground working for your campaign since you, as the candidate, can only be in one place at a time. It would double your candidacy's retail politicking if nothing else.

Paul has mentioned various names as possibilities during his campaigns. Andrew Napolitano being the most notable.

 

[Jackson]

I don't think anyone has ever announced their VP before being nominated....it's just not done that way. But it would be a good idea maybe. I'm all for Newt getting nominated, but i really wouldn't want him taking Ron Paul along with him (i doubt that would happen anyway). Guess it really wouldn't matter, i wouldn't vote for Obama anyway!

Yes, but why is it "not done that way"?

It seems to me that if you're thinking you're going to win the Presidency or at least your party's nomination (else why run?) you would have at least had a blush with who you pictured as your VP.

In the "old days" of campaigns where money wasn't the driving force it is now, I could understand it. Like before television, nobody had to buy television ads so it was cheaper to run for office. However now it costs a lot of money to not only buy the airtime but to score the ad to be the most effective (there was a reason why Newt threw in the word "unionized" when he came up with the silly idea of having kids clean the schools instead of learning in them).

Why not get more boots on the ground working for your campaign since you, as the candidate, can only be in one place at a time. It would double your candidacy's retail politicking if nothing else.

I certainly understand what you are saying. But in reality, I feel the light supporters of a candidate just my lose that support when they name an unappealing VP.

It used to be that geography played too much of a role in VP choices. I'd rather see the candidate select someone who could confidently hold the office of president if the need be.

I personally believe that Gingrich - Romney ticket would be best, but Romney wouldn't agree to that at this time. Even though it makes a good combination and funding would be so much easier for Newt, it just isn't in the cards that Romney would give up the presidential prize so easily.

I would also like to know who some of the cabinet picks would be before the nomination...showing that the president isn't just selecting friends and donors but those best suited for the positions.

Thanks for bringing this up. It was a good topic.

 

[JDzBrain]

First, it would be disrespectful of you opponent to pick them as a VP since it's the same thing as saying I win...you loose. And if that person said they'd accept as VP...it's an admission that they can't win. That's the political optics for why they don't do it Candy.

And the truth is, NONE of the guys running will be chosen as a VP. All you have to do is look at all the damage that is being done to them on the national stage by the liberal media, infighting within the party and backstabbing by most of the candidates. ALL of these folks...that don't win...will be damaged goods on the national stage.

On top of that, the eventual VP selection will be based on who can deliver the most support to the campaign nationally.

A Marco Rubio would deliver a LOT of Latino votes to whoever the nominee is. For Rick Perry, that may not be as important since he is respected by Latinos. But for Newt, he'd be a good choice since Rubio gets Latino AND TEA Party supporters.

For guys like Newt and Rommney who are political insiders, someone like, as Paulie mentions, a Andrew Napolitano would deliver the Constitutional Conservatives, Libertarians and TEA Party vote. Plus, he is the ULTIMATE political outsider.

Ron Paul, Ron has his own credentials as a conservative and strict constitutionalists. He will need to find a running mate that voters will see as a counterbalance to his extreme views and deliver the center of the republican party. Andrew Napolitano wouldn't fit that bill...although THAT would be a ticket the founders could support! ;~)

He'd need someone like a Mitch Daniels or John Thune, the guy who put Tom Daschle out of Congress, with a younger, more vibrate persona and would deliver middle America, lock, stock and barrel.

The thing is though, THAT is a long way off because a LOT can change between getting nominated and the general election. The reason they wait is so they can choose a running mate that addresses their need given the current political climate at the time of the general election. It's just the reality of the political process in modern America.

 

[Avatar4321]

Presidents usually pick unambitious toadies to be VP, Bush allowing Cheney to pick himself still boggles my mind, not sure any nominee has ever chosen one of their primary opponents as VP.

Not since Clinton picked Gore.

But then we've only had two Presidents since then.

Edit: Scratch that. I forgot that it was 88 when Gore ran. The last one then was when Reagan chose Bush.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Hello and good morning.

It is spoken often here that Gingrich may be Mitt's VP or vice versa....Or perhaps Paul would be the VP or Santorum or whomever.

My question is this:

Why all the suspense? It would seem to me that the benefits of naming your running mate early on in the race would give your campaign a bump (it doesn't need to be a fellow candidate for POTUS). It also would seem to me that while the top or bottom of the ticket is in Iowa, the other end of the ticket could be in SC or NH or doing fundraising in New York.

I think that the main reason is because there isn't enough money from fundraising to support basically two campaigns at one time.

Is there a better reason?

You have to be the nominees BEFORE you can name you're running mate. How stupid would it be for a Romney to name Newt as his running mate at this point in the game?

 

[konradv]

Presidents usually pick unambitious toadies to be VP, Bush allowing Cheney to pick himself still boggles my mind, not sure any nominee has ever chosen one of their primary opponents as VP.

Not since Clinton picked Gore.

But then we've only had two Presidents since then.

Edit: Scratch that. I forgot that it was 88 when Gore ran. The last one then was when Reagan chose Bush.

How about Obama picking Biden? He may not have had much support, but he did run.

 

[rightwinger]

Romney and Newt won't run together

The current field is very weak, look for someone outside the current group as VP. I see a Sarah Palin type pushed by the TeaTards

 

[Jarhead]

Romney really really wants to be president. He's not going with Newt if he wins the nomination. And while he's said some incredibly stupid things, he hasn't done the whole hog batshit crazy conservative thing. And he won't. His eye is really on the General. Look for a safe pick like Pawlenty. Rubio said he wouldn't do it..but who knows. He might even find someone more moderate then either of those guys.

Okay, lets say Pawlenty or Rubio. Or lets really get crazy (for now--watch out in 4-8 years) and say Nikki Haley. Or Richard Lugar, Jeb Bush, JC Watts, etc... The question I'm wanting answered is what is the harm in having your guy/gal in mind, naming him/her today and putting his/her credability, fund raising abilities, charisma, lieutennants, political apparatus, etc... to work for you as well as a named VP.

I understand that this isn't done but why isn't it done? I'm not seeing a huge downside to telling the public that "This is my Vice President" in December of 2011 versus August 2012. Having another big gun on the campaign trail who is working for you seems to be a plus.

I guess the big drawback is that some reporter will ask Mr. Pawlenty, Mr. Rubio, Ms. Haley, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Bush or Mr. Watts..."If you are prepared to take over as President, why aren't you running?" To me, it's a non issue since there are so many hurdles in the way to start with--namely money, electoral math, and of course money (it counts twice!).

But beyond that, I can't see a downside to naming your running mate in December verus 7 months later when they really can't add all that much to your campaign.

I blieve it is becuase the one the winner picks may still be in the primary.

And if yoiu see that person slide down in the polls...you may not want to pick him as your number 2

 

[Jarhead]

Presidents usually pick unambitious toadies to be VP, Bush allowing Cheney to pick himself still boggles my mind, not sure any nominee has ever chosen one of their primary opponents as VP.

uh...genius...

Biden was a primary opponent of Obama.

As a matter of fact, it was Biden who said, during a debate, that the POTUS is not a position to learn while on the job.

 

[BluePhantom]

First, it would be disrespectful of you opponent to pick them as a VP since it's the same thing as saying I win...you loose. And if that person said they'd accept as VP...it's an admission that they can't win. That's the political optics for why they don't do it Candy.

And also consider that the VP nominee would refuse that right now anyhow. My gut feeling is that Rubio will probably be the guy but he would not allow his name to be attached to any one candidate right now for fear of that candidate not getting the nomination and then he's pretty much screwed because now Rubio has pissed off the guy who did get the nomination by backing another candidate. How could a guy link himself to Romney right now, for example, and then be able to go out on the campaign trail if say Gingrich gets the nod and be a credible backer of the nominee?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Newt would demolish Hillary in the VP debate

Obama is replacing Biden.

True story

 

[candycorn]

Hello and good morning.

It is spoken often here that Gingrich may be Mitt's VP or vice versa....Or perhaps Paul would be the VP or Santorum or whomever.

My question is this:

Why all the suspense? It would seem to me that the benefits of naming your running mate early on in the race would give your campaign a bump (it doesn't need to be a fellow candidate for POTUS). It also would seem to me that while the top or bottom of the ticket is in Iowa, the other end of the ticket could be in SC or NH or doing fundraising in New York.

I think that the main reason is because there isn't enough money from fundraising to support basically two campaigns at one time.

Is there a better reason?

You have to be the nominees BEFORE you can name you're running mate. How stupid would it be for a Romney to name Newt as his running mate at this point in the game?

Well, I just mentioned the pair as an example. What I am talking about is this; why not--when you make your announcement or soon thereafter--announce your VP right then; the ticket is set. Obviously at this point you aren't going to get your chief rival to join your ticket even if you wanted him or her. But if you knocked out by, for just examples, Nikki Haley or Mark Rubio....someone who isn't running and you have their support...just name them and let them start raising money, appearing with you, getting media attention which is free pub?

 

[candycorn]

First, it would be disrespectful of you opponent to pick them as a VP since it's the same thing as saying I win...you loose. And if that person said they'd accept as VP...it's an admission that they can't win. That's the political optics for why they don't do it Candy.

Yeah, I didn't mean your opponent. Obviously; they want to be POTUS, not VPOTUS. Someone who isn't running at this point. Or, if you want to do as I think, announce it a week after you announce your bid for the "double bump".

As for the political optics of the situation, I feel that the optics will actually set you apart.

And the truth is, NONE of the guys running will be chosen as a VP. All you have to do is look at all the damage that is being done to them on the national stage by the liberal media, infighting within the party and backstabbing by most of the candidates. ALL of these folks...that don't win...will be damaged goods on the national stage.

Liberal Media? Whatever.

That's is another good thing about it; if you are going to select someone who you beat you don't have to worry about the policy differences you had during the campaign.

 

[candycorn]

I don't think anyone has ever announced their VP before being nominated....it's just not done that way. But it would be a good idea maybe. I'm all for Newt getting nominated, but i really wouldn't want him taking Ron Paul along with him (i doubt that would happen anyway). Guess it really wouldn't matter, i wouldn't vote for Obama anyway!

Yes, but why is it "not done that way"?

It seems to me that if you're thinking you're going to win the Presidency or at least your party's nomination (else why run?) you would have at least had a blush with who you pictured as your VP.

In the "old days" of campaigns where money wasn't the driving force it is now, I could understand it. Like before television, nobody had to buy television ads so it was cheaper to run for office. However now it costs a lot of money to not only buy the airtime but to score the ad to be the most effective (there was a reason why Newt threw in the word "unionized" when he came up with the silly idea of having kids clean the schools instead of learning in them).

Why not get more boots on the ground working for your campaign since you, as the candidate, can only be in one place at a time. It would double your candidacy's retail politicking if nothing else.

I certainly understand what you are saying. But in reality, I feel the light supporters of a candidate just my lose that support when they name an unappealing VP.

It used to be that geography played too much of a role in VP choices. I'd rather see the candidate select someone who could confidently hold the office of president if the need be.

I personally believe that Gingrich - Romney ticket would be best, but Romney wouldn't agree to that at this time. Even though it makes a good combination and funding would be so much easier for Newt, it just isn't in the cards that Romney would give up the presidential prize so easily.

I would also like to know who some of the cabinet picks would be before the nomination...showing that the president isn't just selecting friends and donors but those best suited for the positions.

Thanks for bringing this up. It was a good topic.

Yeah, thats the thing. If you announce now, you can show that you're ready. If you can put some of your cabinet favorites in place, it shows you have a team in mind to implement what you're doing.

I just brought up Gingrich/Romney as examples.