who SHOULD have mitt picked?

oh c'mon, balls, we already got enough to worry about in the New Jersey thread.

that one's easy - "i'll be there for you"

In terms of actually winning, I've got to believe Rubio. He would have pacified the right almost as much as Ryan, but surely he'd have more appeal elsewhere. There were drawbacks (forget what they are), but that's true of anyone.

jesus god, clemenza

outside the Beltway elite Rubio has as much appeal as an abuela's left to rot on South Beach.

Compared to Ryan? The premise is, he had to pick someone.

howbout IT DOESNT MATTA

Voted Christie because I live in NJ and seriously we can't get rid of that fat piece of shit fast enough.

Morbius...you've made that point 3,753 times. We've made note of it. Strangely enough, we still like to talk about stuff.

BRB, gonna do some substitutions for Morbs.

"Bam" = "THE ELECTION DOESN'T MATTER, BUT NEITHER DOES BASEBALL"
"Mittens" = "THE ELECTION DOESN'T MATTER, BUT NEITHER DOES FILM"

as you know, my serious answer to this question is Obama

romney didn't pick rubio because of his brief mormon period, there's some stricture against apostates is my guess. also rubio is unpopular with hispanics who aren't from cuba because of his immigration stance. i think rob portman is the guy who would've appealed to indie voters/moderate conservatives and not completely alienated the far right. and he's bland enough to not threaten romney while not a total geek like ryan.

romney is an egomaniac - his olympics comments prove this - who wouldn't tolerate a running mate w/charisma of any sort.

voted rafalca

Didn't know about the Mormon thing--maybe that's it. Whatever Rubio's immigration stance, wouldn't (I'm guessing) Ryan be as much or more to the right? (And wouldn't Rubio have a better chance of explaining his way out of that box?) I thought Romney was going to go with Portman, and if they weren't so caught up in the events/polls of one or two weeks, I think he probably would have.

ya portman was the obvious pick, they panicked

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8lh4xurQV1qzs5cqo1_500.jpg

should have gone with tony huml imo

is there a reason santorum isn't on the list?

Every reason in the world.

Although now I'm imagining Santorum going "Oh so he picks THAT Catholic instead. Asshole."

write in vote for palin

Rubio would have been good, but Ryan's been my 2016 bogeyman for years already. I don't think VP will matter enough to put Romney over the top, but I doubt choosing Ryan will hurt him.

It's a cliche but the American electorate is like SO stupid you guys. Ryan's pretty face will matter 100x more than his blatantly loathsome budget or any other kind of policy stuff.

how come santorum didn't win the biggest brown-noser award HELLOOOOO

the american electorate *is* so stupid but if all you needed was a pretty face congress would prob look a little different. he is young, elf-like, has a goofy voice and no real experience in anything. that matters more than his pretty face or his loathsome budget or any other kind of policy stuff.

anyway portman and mcdonnell were the 'best choices'

my basic answer to this is 'idgaf'

ahahahaha http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/john-mccain-paul-ryan-sarah-palin-bold-choice.php

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/a-risky-rationale-behind-romneys-choice-of-ryan

I see why McCain would say he is still proud of Palin, but I love that can't help it and keeps going and says that he is "proud of her family." Because the Palin family is nothing to be proud of. That's like saying you're proud of Snooki, but also all of her well-tanned friends.

Also, he should have picked Palin, obviously.

If Romney had said 'fuck you' and picked Palin that would have been amazing.

jaymc can point out whether anybody has selected a failed veep candidate again

most recent time that happened on dem side: cleveland picked thomas hendricks and won after hendricks had already 'lost' w/ tilden. william jennings bryan ran and lost w/ adlai stevenson I after stevenson had already served as vp in cleveland's second term, and mcgovern tried and failed to get humphrey to accept the vp nod after the eagleton nod combusted. no failed vp candidate has ever been nominated for vp again by the gop, charles fairbanks did lose as vp on the charles evan hughes ticket after winning on the tr ticket eight years earlier. no failed gop vp nominee has gone on to be the gop presidential candidate. two dems have won the nomination after being on losing tickets as vp: mondale lost as vp in 80 but won in 76; won the dem nod in 84 and lost iirc. fdr lost as vp in 1920, won the nod and the presidency 12 years later.

Oh yeah I know about FDR and Mondale: I was interested in picks like Palin being picked again. Hendricks answers the question. Thanks!

and even hendricks gets a heavy asterisk since tilden actually won that race. i've already seen cw that this is a no lose proposition for ryan, that even if romney loses ryan still has his seat in congress (though this isn't a sure thing right?) and is 'automatically' the frontrunner for 2016 what w/ the prestige and profile raising of having gotten the vp nod. it's crazy how strong this myth is (same thing happened w/ edwards), and i can see the logic - ppl know who you are, access to a donor base, campaign trail experience - but it has only ever actually happened once (and that was FDR) and never in the modern era. the notion that if obama loses a super close race he runs again in 16 (which i've seen floated) has more basis in history than this heir apparent assumption. america really does hate losers.

he'll def keep his seat and be one of the few gop dudes w/ a national brand but unlike some other people on this list, dude just does not have a presidential cv and that will be still be true 4 years from now

that said I think the 'america hates losers' thing is based on a really small sample set, as is all the pattern-analysis w/ this kinda stuff. america didn't hate dan quayle, lieberman and sarah palin because they were losers. they were just kinda lame political figures w/ no national appeal to begin w/. that might have gone away w/ 8 years as vp, but it would have been true if they hadn't been in the presidential race to begin with. it's not hard to imagine better picks being more successful 4 years later.

i'm guessing he was one of the heavyweights scared off by bush's post-gulf war approval ratings but i do think bentsen could've been a strong candidate in 92 (all three presidential candidates being texans is some sort of nightmare though). muskie should be mentioned also as a failed vp candidate that actually did automatically become the front runner.

o wait i forgot that the gop HAS nominated a failed vp candidate for president before - dole in 96. though i think it's a stretch to suggest his failed vp candidacy played a major role in that happening.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/08/08/us/ecveep4/ecveep4-blog480.jpg

lol santorum

whole thread is a lotta mittpicking if u ask me

GOOD PUN!!!!!!

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

adam ryan, obv.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

And Nate Silver's top 2 come in bottom 2 here

dont blame me i voted rafalca

I tried googling for a photo of the two of them together, but can't find a single one. Makes you wonder.