I’ve been trying to come up with some organized thoughts about who Romney should pick as Vice President. That’s not working out so well. So I’ll go with some disorganized thoughts,
1. Obama has a likeable persona who will run a well organized, tactically competent, and very well funded campaign. Romney hasn’t faced anything like that this year. Obama will also have the sympathies of most of those who produce the media consumed by most low information persuadable voters (to the extent that they end up voting.)
2. Other than the Obama campaign, the most relevant factors for the Romney campaign will be the circumstances of the country in early November 2012, the quality of Romney’s performance as candidate, the performance of Romney’s campaign operatives, and the media strategy undertaken by the Romney campaign and allied groups. The circumstances will be the most important thing and it is quite possible that they will be ambivalent so that other factors will be decisive.
3. Unless he or she is a total disaster, Romney’s choice of running mate will likely be less important than the above factors, but it is also possible that the all the other factors will be so balanced that the choice of running mate might prove decisive. In any case, the better Romney’s choice of running mate, the better off Romney is.
4. Esteemed commenter Stephen H. and Ricochet’s Troy Senik are for Marco Rubio. Both argue that Rubio’s energizes conservatives while, at the same time, his speaking style is attractive to moderates. They also argue that Rubio might make some inroads with Latinos, but without being any kind of an ethnic identity politics candidate. I think they are mostly right, but I don’t think that Rubio would be optimal as compared with governors like Bobby Jindal, Bob McDonnell, or Mitch Daniels (let’s assume for the purposes of this discussion that Daniels is open to being VP – if he isn’t, just focus on Jindal and McDonnell.) That doesn’t make Rubio a bad choice. He would be a much better choice than the undisciplined and much less likeable Santorum.
5. Rubio is really good at the soaring rhetoric. His election night speech in 2010 was genuinely powerful and a look at C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2 will show you how rare Rubio’s speaking talents are compared to the rest of the Republican congressional membership. But he has never held executive office and he has been in Congress for less than a year and a half. You can argue that Obama was a good and likeable speaker with similar inexperience in 2008. Obama had been in the Senate for two years longer but Rubio has been the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives. Obama still got elected. Maybe the Republican challenge in 2012 is different from the Democratic challenge in 2008. Obama is a social democratic-leaning and socially liberal politician. His lack of federal-level experience was actually a political advantage in 2008. If Obama had been a 20 year Senate veteran, his record would have been littered with votes against middle-class tax cuts, against popular military hardware, and against welfare reform. Not having been a Senator for very long made it easier for Obama to promise tax cuts + more spending + lower budget deficits all at the low price of restoring the Clinton-era tax rates on high earners and raising some taxes on oil companies. The Republican challenge this year is different, more complicated and more difficult. The Republicans have to make their case on the economy. That is the comparatively easy part. The Republicans also have to make the case for some combination of entitlement and health care reform. That is a lot tougher. I don’t care what moderated and more vague version of the Ryan budget Romney ends up trying to sell. It will be obvious that Republicans will be proposing spending less money on middle-class entitlements. It will be obvious that Republicans will be proposing spending the remaining Medicare funds differently (premium support.) Romney has already tried to explain the advantages of transitioning away from a system of primarily employer-provided health insurance the working-aged. The results have varied from the forgettable to the damaging . Remember when he said he liked being able to fire people who provided him with services? He was trying to explain why it would be good idea to go to a system of individually purchased insurance. If the circumstances of November 2012 are ambivalent, the Republicans are going to have to sell the country on some big changes if they are going to win. The Republicans are going to need to reassure the public that they know what they are doing much more than they are going to need to inspire anybody with soaring oratory.
6. But the Republicans already have reassuring don’t they? Isn’t the technically competent, well prepared, excruciatingly boring, totally unideological Romney the ultimate in reassuring?
7. Not so much. Conservatives aren’t reassured for obvious reasons. They fear he doesn’t share their (or anybody else’s) principles and that he will sell them out at the first opportunity. There is also good reason for persuadables to not be reassured by Romney. Sure he has his business background, but his main governing achievement is something that looks a lot like a state-level version of Obamacare. He doesn’t have the best political record for selling himself as the guy to implement a combination of spending cuts and conservative policy reform.
8. Rubio can help Romney with the first half of his reassurance problem. Not a lot of conservatives seem to doubt Rubio is one of them. To the extent that Romney’s running mate can allay conservative concerns about Romney’s electability, Rubio does that. Though on the other hand, Jindal and McDonnell would basically do the same thing once conservatives were introduced to one of them as the running mate. But I don’t think Rubio is quite as good at allaying the concerns of persuadables. Rubio is eloquent on the theme of entitlement reform, but Jindal, McDonnell, and Daniels have experience as spending cutting governors who maintained core services. I think this is huge. Entitlement reform and health care reform are scary. Having a record and being able to say “I cut spending. I balanced the books. It turned out fine.” would be a huge advantage. I suppose part of the counterargument in favor of Rubio is that his speaking skills advantage more than makes up for his relative lack of executive accomplishment. I’m not sure that Rubio’s rhetorical advantage over Jindal, McDonnell, and Daniels is that large. In the context of a general election campaign, I’m not even sure such an advantage exists. There is more than one way to make a point effectively. I’ve seen Jindal and Daniels on the interview shows talking about entitlement reform (Daniels) and Obamacare (Jindal.) They were both very good and, in a presidential race, their ability to point to their records would tend to reinforce their arguments.
March 28th, 2012 | 7:59 am
“Jindal, McDonnell, and Daniels have experience as spending cutting governors who maintained core services. I think this is huge.”
Yeah, huge is an understatement, since the Dems will absolutely go over the top with demagoguing even the tiniest budget cuts as putting women, children, and the elderly out on the streets to starve. As I’ve said before, I think Christie has the same experience, and appears to me to have the best persona to reach the persuadables.
Rubio will be savaged at least as viciously as Sarah Palin was. Might as well accept it. Doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be picked, as long as every single charge, no matter how unfair, has a well thought out parry, but it will be monumentally vicious, unfair, and grotesque. The fact is that non-white-male Republicans are afforded no leeway by the MSM or the Dems. It’s no-holds-barred character assassination ends-justifies-any-means time for them. I don’t know how any of them are able to stand it.
March 28th, 2012 | 2:55 pm
Coburn, assuming he’s healthy–makes the focus Obamacare; hard-line moral conservative. Good bedside manner.
March 28th, 2012 | 3:53 pm
J.A., I like Coburn a lot. He is the opposite of the rhetorically maximalist but hollow conservative politics you see represented by Bachmann (this is not to say that I agree with every deal he has ever cut with the Democrats.) I’m not sure he is the best spokesman for a presidential election audience (he is really good on Medicare but I don’t think he plays as well for people who don’t watch much C-SPAN.)
Brian, you’re last paragraph contains volumes of truth, but I think it will get ugly no matter who Romney picks. There is a trasmission belt between liberal groups and the MSM. I remember the first New Hampshire debate after Santorum had done well in Iowa. The questions might have been written at a meeting of MSNBC primetime hosts. Poorly sourced hit pieces will come be published and broadcast. You are right that the Republicans should be ready and that being ready will require a lot of preparation.
March 28th, 2012 | 8:34 pm
Since Obama will most likely dump Biden and draft Hillary, we must find a veep to match her (undeserved) “gravitas” and respectability. As a Sec. of State she’s been a loser with an awful treaty with Russia her greatest legacy. Liberals, however, love her and think she’s wonderful and competent and intellectual. So how do we match such a move by Obama?
March 29th, 2012 | 8:38 am
Mark: Obama’s an egomaniac who appears to have absolute contempt for the Clintons. He’s certainly not going to be seen as desperate for them to bail him out. He’s with Slow Joe, the non-threatening non-entity, all the way.
March 29th, 2012 | 3:47 pm
At the moment, it’s Paul Ryan’s party, and we’re all just members of it — Mitt Romney included. Ryan’s the man of the hour, rightly so, and the GOP is trumpeting his ideas in any case. So, Paul Ryan for veep! So long as the discussion centers on the debt (as it will when we hit the debt ceiling ahead of schedule in Oct.), Republicans have an advantage. Democrats will say that the GOP is going to take away Medicare, but they’re going to say that no matter who’s the VP nominee.
March 29th, 2012 | 4:10 pm
I’m not sure it matters who Obama has for VP. If Romney’s VP is seems like they would make a good president and can reassure the relevant subgroups that is more than good enough (for electoral – though not governing – pursposes.)
I like Ryan, but his lack of executive experience would be an electoral problem. He is a great spokesman on entitlement/health care policy but he has no record of actually cutting spending while maintaining services and I believe that an early Ryan budget propoal (the old Ryan Roadmap) increased middle-class taxes while cutting taxes on high earners. He still wouldn’t be a bad choice (Santorum), just not optimal.
March 30th, 2012 | 4:18 pm
I strongly agree that Romney needs to select a running mate who will help him “shore up” and excite the conservative GOP base. However, I doubt he will select a fellow governor like Mitch Daniels, Bob McDonnell, or Bobby Jindal.
Beginning with FDR in 1932, it has been the usual practice of Governors, who win major party nominations as Washington outsiders, to select Washington insiders (typically current or former members of Congress) as their running mates. Only two-time loser Thomas Dewey deviated from that practice in 1944 and 1948.
Given the media feeding frenzy that greeted relative unknowns Dan Quayle in 1988 and Sarah Palin in 2008, Romney would be well advised to select a known quantity who has been previously vetted. At the very least, the running mate should be much more thoroughly prepared and briefed on current issues than was Palin in 2008
Given the importance of both Florida and Ohio to Romney’s fall electoral strategy against Obama, Senators Rubio and Portman will surely be on his short list. The first-term Rubio would need to be thoroughly prepared and briefed about how to deal with the media feeding frenzy he would face as the first Latino on a major-party ticket. Portman, who was twice confirmed by the Senate in 2005 and 2006 as US Trade Rep and OMB Director, would likely face less turbulence.
March 30th, 2012 | 4:49 pm
Of Romney’s 2012 Republican rivals, only three really merit serious consideration as potential running mates. Rick Santorum has done remarkable well, going from an “astericks candidate” in early December to narrowly winning Iowa a month later to emerging as the main opponent of Romney after winning all three contests on Feb 7th. But Santorum is a very strident social conservative who is identified with divisive hot-button issues, he has trouble staying on message, he is widely disliked in the media, and he probably won’t help Romney much in his home state of Pennsylvania.
Rick Perry merits consideration by virtue of being the third-term governor of Texas, the 2nd largest state in the Union. His poor performance in the numerous GOP presidential debates last autumn and his poor showing in the early caucusues and primaries before dropping out in January, however, probably rule him out as the vice-presidential running mate. Plus, Obama didn’t win Texas in 2008 and probably will lose Texas to any Republican in 2012.
Before Perry entered the race last August, Tim Pawlenty–a successful 2-term governor of “purple” Minnesota–was touted as a possible conservative alternative to Romney. Had he remained in the race, instead of withdrawing last August, he might have emerged–instead of Santorum–as the main opponent of Romney in Iowa and beyond. The main strike against Pawlenty is that he is bland, but he did endorse Romney when he ended his own candidacy.
March 30th, 2012 | 5:33 pm
Given the 24-hour cable/satellite TV news cycle and the internet, traditional ticket-balancing considerations have seemed less important since 1992 when Bill Clinton picked fellow southerner Al Gore. Dick Cheney in 2000, and both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin in 2008, all came from very small electoral vote states. Cheney and Biden were chosen to mitigate the perceived lack of experience on the part of their presidential candidates. Palin, the first female Republican vice-presidential nominee, was chosen as a potential “game-changer” to counter the famous-first situation that Obama presented as an African-American presidential nomineee.
In 2012, Romney (age 65) really needs a younger, more conservative running mate. Someone who would shore up and excite a conservative GOP base that is suspicious of, and unenthusiatic about, Romney. Someone who might help the ticket win a key electoral vote swing-state like Florida or Ohio or Pennsylvania, or perhaps help win votes in a disputed region like much of the Midwest. Someone who could be a plausible president right now. Someone who could help Romney govern in Washington D.C. in 2013. Someone who lacks any real skeletions in their closet.
Although I might seem biased as an Ohio resident, it seems to me that Senator Rob Portman of Ohio best fits the description of what Romney needs in his vice-presidential running mate. But for his last name, former Governor Jeb Bush of Florida would also fit that description.
March 30th, 2012 | 7:26 pm
Joe, I have no idea who Romney will end up picking, but several thoughts on your thoughts,
1. Romney doesn’t, as a political matter, need any insider cred, and, if he did, Daniels and Jindal would both supply some given their earlier jobs in DC. McDonnell not so much of course.
2. Quayle had been in Congress for over ten years when he was selected to be his party’s vice presidential candidate. Vetting and preparation of the vice presidential candidate is less a function of the resume of the vice presidential candidate than of the compentence (in these areas) of the presidential candidate’s campaign. We can only hope that Romney is good at it.
3. I don;t know much about Portman. He very easily won a Senate seat in the same year Kasich only barely won the election for governor. I hear good things about him, but I can’t rembember anything that stuck. I have a very vague and possibly false memory of him being reported to favor a tax policy that combined high earner tax cuts with a middle-class tax increase as a matter of distributive impact. National Review has an article on him in the new magazine, but I’m going to have to wait for it to arrive in the mail before I can read it.
4. I think that (once again as a political matter), the most important things a Romney vice presidential pick can do is reassure conservatives while selling persuadables that Republican policies are reasonable and comparatively desirable. If they can do those two things they will be helpful in a range of swing states. If two candidates are in a flat tie on those things then consideration of ethnicity or favorite son (or daughter) considerations in a particular swing state might make the difference. I still think that being able to point to a combination of spending cuts and competent government is one of the biggest advantages a Republican vice presidential candidate can bring to the ticket.
March 31st, 2012 | 10:25 am
Pete, I firmly believe that this election will more closely resemble the election of 2004, which likewise featured an incumbent president seeking re-election in a difficult political climate, more than the bad Republican year of 2008. As in 2004, the election will be decided in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, and one or two other states
We agree that Romney needs a somewhat younger, more conservative running mate who will appeal to both the conservative GOP base and independents. The fact that a Romney-led Republican ticket is almost certain to carry Louisiana (and neighboring Southern states) and Indiana probably lessens the chances of either Jindal or Daniels being selected. Otherwise, they would both be solid potential vice-presidential picks.
I just don’t see Romney–whose experience in public office is limited to one 4-year term as governor of Massachusetts after a race in which he only narrowly won–choosing a governor as his running mate. The problem is that the GOP governors in key swing states like Ohio and Florida won narrowly in 2010 and are not very popular at the moment. In contrast, the GOP Senators in those states won by large margins and are more popular. So, Rubio will probably make the short list, as will Portman.
March 31st, 2012 | 5:44 pm
Joe, I think that a 2004-style race (maybe with Obama having a very slightly lower approval rating than Bush) is one of the better scenarios Republicans can reasonably hope for. As a political matter, I just don’t see Romney as needing any Washington insider credibility with the public. He is already the legacy pol, Olympics guy, finance guy, professional presidential candidate who was the closest thing to an establishment candidate the Republicans had this cycle.
But there will be one major difference. The particular circumstances of this moment will (absent some kind of economic or other collapse between now and November) put Republican health care and entitlement reforms on trial. No matter what Romney specifically comes out for, it will mean large spending cuts and major structural changes to popular programs (Medicare) and institutions (employer-provided health coverage.) If the public isn’t comfortable with the Republican position on these issues, they could lose a 2004(ish) race. Better the Obama (and Medicare and employer-provided health insurance) they know than the scary-sounding Republican alternative. So a premium needs to be on reassurance. A spending-cutting governor who maintained public services, all things being equal counts for more on this score than a home state Seantor who might or might not help you somewhat more in one state but less elsewhere.
But all things aren’t equal. Kasich and Walker are too unpopular. Jindal, Daniels, and McDonnell have been able to cut spending while maintaining both services and their popularity (Daniels had a dip in the first half of his first term and McDonnell has had a recent dip that I don’t expect to last.) I think Rubio’s elevated rhetoric helps less with the persuadable voting populations than the records those governors can point to and those governors are each rhetorically effective in their own ways.
I don’t have an opinion on Portman yet. Heck, he might be the guy.
April 1st, 2012 | 4:57 pm
Many years ago, Ron Nessen reported Gerald Ford’s criteria for a running mate in the following order:
1. Capable of assuming the Presidency and governing;
2. In agreement with the top of the ticket on policy questions;
3. A good campaigner.
William Schneider offered a number of years later that public opinion research indicated that the vice presidential candidate would (on average) be good for a 2% bonus in said candidate’s home state, and that about exhausts it; Ergo, the object of such selections should be to avoid embarrassments and distractions. (Interestingly enough, you would be hard put to find such a distraction that was decisive as to the eventual outcome, however).
–
Hey, what do a working politician at the highest level and a scholar/journalist who has spent more than 30 years studying American federal elections know?
May 2nd, 2012 | 7:29 pm
[...] Frum thinks that Bobby Jindal would be a better vice presidential candidate than Marco Rubio. So do I, but I can’t endorse Frum’s reasoning. Frum writes that Republicans are better off [...]
May 3rd, 2012 | 8:50 am
[...] Frum thinks that Bobby Jindal would be a better vice presidential candidate than Marco Rubio. So do I, but I can’t endorse Frum’s reasoning. Frum writes that Republicans are better off going [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact