Lion of the Blogosphere

Romney for VP part II

I previously wrote about VP picks:

The primary purpose of the VP pick is to demonstrate that the Presidential candidate has made a wise choice in choosing someone who is able to take over the government if the President dies and there’s a national emergency. The Presidential candidate should not choose a VP to generate excitement or to rally the base.

Any pick that gets certain of my commenters excited is a bad pick.

Mitt Romney rejected my advice by picking Ryan who looks like a little kid and not like someone ready to take over the government if the President dies and there’s a national emergency. Will Trump make the same mistake?

Romney looks ready to take over. Once again, I’m not sure if Romney wants the job, but some of the comments opposing Romney are ridiculous.

What does Romney bring to the table? Hopefully, he will bring everyone who voted for him in 2012. If Trump gets all of their votes, plus the votes of blue-collar whites who voted Democratic or sat out in 2012, then Trump wins. The danger for Trump is losing votes of traditional Republican voters who think Trump is too prole (or whatever other negative things are said about him).

* * *

dbp writes in a comment:

I think this is a good idea. Romney would bring gravitas not seen since Cheney and quite frankly, his conservative credentials are far more solid than Trump’s–without seeming fringe to anyone except a radical left-winger and they are not reachable anyway.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 1, 2016 at 9:53 am

Posted in Politics

66 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Not a bad idea. This is a bit cynical, but following your logic, why not old Joe Biden? He has experience. It is a reach across the aisle. He will always say something than Trump says at his most bombastic. It would bring him some of those blue poodle Democrat votes. Check out my blog at iamdanger.com

    Iam Danger

    January 1, 2016 at 10:22 am

  2. What does Romney bring to the table? Hopefully, he will bring everyone who voted for him in 2012.

    Trump will lose more votes by choosing the loser RINO than he will gain by choosing the “acceptable to traditional voters” guy.

    Tarl

    January 1, 2016 at 11:33 am

  3. You’re really seeing through a NYC lense. Romney would be a bad pick. What he brings to the table is outweighed by those that will be turned off by him.

    99% of the people who voted for Romney voted for him simply because he was the nominee. All of those people are going to vote for Trump or whomever else is the nominee. The 1% who voted for Romney as Romney are all concentrated in NYC, DC metro, and other elite areas. Nearly all of those places are in states that are going to the Democrat. The only place that I can see Romney being an asset is the part of Virginia that is in the DC metro.

    “The danger for Trump is losing votes of traditional Republican voters who think Trump is too prole ”

    And how many people is that? Maybe more than a few in NYC, the DC metro, etc… but again these places are going to the Democrats. Being prole is a huge asset for Trump. It will allow him to pick up blue-collar whites across the rust belt, while taking the edge off of the black vote (and the hispanic, but their votes don’t matter much). Romney, with his anti-prole vibe would counteract one of Trumps key strengths: Trump’s prole nature.

    Trump needs a prole as VP, or at least someone who isn’t repulsive to proles.

    T

    January 1, 2016 at 11:41 am

  4. I think this is a good idea. Romney would bring gravitas not seen since Cheney and quite frankly, his conservative credentials are far more solid than Trump’s–without seeming fringe to anyone except a radical left-winger and they are not reachable anyway.

    This will contrast with Clinton, who will choose a nobody or somebody even more left-wing than she is. She will do this because if she picks someone with accomplishments, she will look bad by comparison.

    dbp

    January 1, 2016 at 11:58 am

  5. I thought the idea of Jim Webb might work, it would help bring over blue collar Democrats who don’t want to vote for Hillary. A lot of people who support Trump also liked Webb way more than the other Democrats too. It would look good to independents who don’t like the two-party system.

    The problem is it wouldn’t win over traditional, establishment Republicans.

    chairman

    January 1, 2016 at 12:01 pm

    • Jim Webb talks the talk, which is nice. But he hasn’t walked the walk with his voting record, which was nearly lock step with Harry Reid.

      His inner “shitlord” may have been kept in check by Democratic Leadership: if you like him, that’s what you hope. But its a risk.

      That said, I’d proudly pull the lever for a Trump/Webb ticket, or a Trump/Anyone ticket.

      jackmcg

      January 1, 2016 at 2:08 pm

  6. Trump will be 70 when he takes office, and Romney will be two months shy of 70. There’s gravitas, and then there’s one foot in the grave. Maybe one of Romney’s five sons could be coaxed into running for VP. Tagg, the oldest, is rich, worked on his father’s campaign, and is reportedly politically ambitious.

    Mark Caplan

    January 1, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    • Yes we need to deepen the bench of future good candidates. Bush 2 left us high and dry with Cheney as a VP.

      Mrs Stitch

      January 1, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    • For men, the lifespan of their father and mental clarity correlate nicely with life expectancy. Trump’s father lived into his 90s and Trump – unlike Reagan in 1980 – still sounds mentally as sharp as he did in his 50s. Both are positive indicators he can serve 8 years.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      January 1, 2016 at 4:51 pm

      • “and Trump – unlike Reagan in 1980 – still sounds mentally as sharp as he did in his 50s.”

        Before my time. Was this realized contemporaneously or only in hindsight? I believe I’ve heard this stated about ’84, but not 1980.

        anon

        January 3, 2016 at 6:37 am

      • Was this realized contemporaneously or only in hindsight? I believe I’ve heard this stated about ’84, but not 1980.

        Reagan famously seemed to drift off during one of his 1984 debates vs Mondale. The 1980 election against Carter I’m not sure, but he did seem be slowing down in his first term. The difference between his younger self and his time as president is noticeable; watch some of his speeches for Goldwater and you can tell the middle age Reagan was more cognitively versatile and energetic at the time.

        Trump by contrast speaks at the same pace as he did in the 1990s.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 3, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    • Trump and Romney are both young 70.

      ScarletNumber

      January 1, 2016 at 7:22 pm

  7. I don’t know if this is a good idea. You’d have a VP who looks more presidential and has more gravitas than the president himself. I don’t know if Trump would go in for that.

    Tom

    January 1, 2016 at 12:37 pm

    • You’d have a VP who looks more presidential and has more gravitas than the president himself.

      So like Bush/Cheney and Obama/Biden and Dukakis/Bentsen then?

      Tarl

      January 1, 2016 at 1:15 pm

      • Bush won. Obama won. Strategy works. Dukakis lost because of his own mistakes, Bentsen was acknowledged by everyone as a better vice presidential material than Quayle.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 1, 2016 at 2:06 pm

      • Bush/Cheney doesn’t fit. Cheney didn’t look more presidential than Bush, nor did he have more gravitas. People tend to forget the difference between candidate Bush and President Bush… Candidate Bush had lots of gravitas and handled himself very well.

        jackmcg

        January 1, 2016 at 2:13 pm

      • Bush/Cheney doesn’t fit. Cheney didn’t look more presidential than Bush, nor did he have more gravitas.

        He sure as hell did. He had a MUCH better resume than Bush in 2000 — Congressman, White House Chief of Staff, SecDef, Fortune 500 CEO. You’re a moron if you think that doesn’t have more gravitas than Governor of Texas.

        Tarl

        January 1, 2016 at 4:05 pm

      • Bush won.

        And then he and his liberal son proceeded to dismantle Reagan’s legacy and the country – it was GHWB in 1990 who raised legal immigration caps from the more moderate level of 600,000 a year to 1 million. And there’s no need to remind you of Bush #2’s immigration policy.

        The VP should be selected with the view he or she will be Trump’s successor, and as successor they should be conservative.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 1, 2016 at 5:00 pm

      • Gravitas is not resume.

        jackmcg

        January 1, 2016 at 8:26 pm

      • Cheney had more gravitas than Bush in addition to having a better resume. Compared to Cheney’s seriousness, personal dignity, ability to express himself, and depth of personality, Bush was a total lightweight.

        Tarl

        January 2, 2016 at 1:17 pm

  8. Look at the reaction from readers over your suggestion. People are overwhelmingly opposed. That should give you a hint that Romney would actually hurt Trump with the base. And I can’t imagine independents, minorities and Reagan Dems liking Romney any better. Romney would hurt Trump in spite of being a fairly capable fellow.

    destructure

    January 1, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    • My readers are extremely atypical, and they will vote for Trump anyway.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 1, 2016 at 2:04 pm

      • Lion is right. Trump needs to pick somebody who will prevent National Review, Krauthammer, Fox News, and Sheldon Adelson from stabbing him in the back.

        Rotten

        January 1, 2016 at 4:58 pm

      • Yes, this might as well be an Aspberger board.

        ScarletNumber

        January 1, 2016 at 7:21 pm

      • Only if my state is in play.

        I am not going to endorse him with a vote unless there is a concrete benefit.

        Lion of the Turambar

        January 2, 2016 at 1:01 pm

  9. I think Romney pushes away the evangelical vote that Trump needs. They won’t especially like Trump because of his social Liberalism, multiple wives, New York- ness, etc. But they actively distrust Mormons. They might come out and vote for Trump just to stop Hillary, and because maybe they are waking up to the immigration threat as there isn’t a corner of America left that doesn’t have Hispanics and Asians streaming in. They could hold their noses and vote Trump, but adding Romney to the ticket is asking too much of them.

    That said I have no idea who would be a good choice, but my gut is that Trump will go outside the Republican establishment — they are working much harder at destroying Trump than at stopping Hillary, so Trump’s emotional response will be “f you all.” Maybe he finds some ex-military guy with strong credentials. My dream pick would be Ann Coulter, just to watch the Left’s heads explode and to see her slice and dice her opponent in debates, but that would never happen.

    peterike

    January 1, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    • So evangelicals will vote for Hillary? I don’t think so.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 1, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    • Nah, evangelicals are in the bag. It is the non-evangelical blue-collar whites that Trump needs to win and that Romney will push away.

      T

      January 1, 2016 at 8:00 pm

  10. First of all, what is with people on the alt-right and Jim Webb? He’s got no appeal to anyone and is an open borders sellout.

    Second of all, you do realize that Romney simply isn’t a possibility for Trump, right? The ONLY way Trump can win is to make a deal with Cruz. Do the math. The GOPe is going to change the rules in the winner take all states and make them proportional. The GOPe also has direct control over 7 percent of the delegates as “super delegates”. That means that unless Trump wins at least around 50% of the primary vote, and probably more like 55%, he cannot secure the nomination without making some kind of deal. The only guy who would possibly be willing to make a deal with him is Cruz.

    If Trump is the nom, Cruz is the Veep. End of story.

    In a perfect world, the GOPe would come to terms with Trump and Trump could run with Susana Martinez as his VP to bring the establishment on board for the general. That would be a very appealing ticket. But I am convinced that the GOPe will fight Trump to the death.

    Otis the Sweaty

    January 1, 2016 at 1:05 pm

    • Interesting point of view on Cruz. It hinges a lot on Iowa though. If Cruz underperforms in Iowa, he can’t build any momentum for a while, especially if Trump can landslide South Carolina (strong possibility), and win the delegate rich winner-take-all Florida, he’s well on his way to 55% delegates, especially if the establishment tries to rally around one guy and fails.

      So I wouldn’t be too worried about an inevitable Trump/Cruz ticket yet. Though I’d obviously vote for it.

      jackmcg

      January 1, 2016 at 2:21 pm

      • Unless Cruz finishes in 3rd or less in Iowa, an impossibility, he isn’t dropping out. He has the money and organization to stay in for the long haul. He is being backed by the bulk of right wing talk radio and Fox News.

        As for Florida and all the other winner take all states, the GOP will change the rules to make them proportional after Trump wins SC.

        Otis the Sweaty

        January 1, 2016 at 3:09 pm

      • The GOPe also has direct control over 7 percent of the delegates as “super delegates”. That means that unless Trump wins at least around 50% of the primary vote, and probably more like 55%, he cannot secure the nomination without making some kind of deal. The only guy who would possibly be willing to make a deal with him is Cruz.

        I don’t think this is feasible unless the delegate split is so close as to justify a brokered convention. If it’s not that close, and it likely won’t be, by the time of the start of the convention the deadline to get a new candidate on the ballot will have passed in many states.

        They also have no one to replace Trump with.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 1, 2016 at 4:13 pm

      • They can replace Trump with Cruz. No question the establishment would back Cruz if that was the only way to stop Trump. Look at the way they have started slobbering over Cruz these past few weeks.

        Otis the Sweaty

        January 2, 2016 at 2:05 am

      • They can replace Trump with Cruz. No question the establishment would back Cruz if that was the only way to stop Trump.

        But can they overcome the technical obstacles? The state deadlines for parties to get their nominees on the ballot will have passed and how does Cruz get control of Trump’s campaign funds?

        And would Cruz want to try even if he’s passed over for VP? He’d infuriate the base for all eternity, have to raise hundreds of millions in weeks, provoke a Trump third party run, hand the White House to Hillary in a kamikazee run, all to help an establishment that arguably hates him more than Trump? Why would he want to?

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 2, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    • “First of all, what is with people on the alt-right and Jim Webb? He’s got no appeal to anyone and is an open borders sellout.”

      Webb is an unusual politician. He gives speeches like this which have an obvious appeal to some people. Enough appeal to get him elected Senator from Virginia not too long ago. Running for President (especially as a Democrat) was kind of delusional though.

      James B. Shearer

      January 2, 2016 at 1:27 am

  11. The only thing Romney offers is establishment money and the notion that he’s so pathetically devoid of personality that nobody will vote against him because he’s simply part of the furniture. That’s it.

    Now for a quibble with the New York perspective. One of Romney’s hidden weaknesses that hurts him but that the media don’t grasp is the significance of ancient fueds. Romney did worse than expected in precisely those place (southern Ohio) where anti Mormon feelings persist. Since the media refuse to take religion seriously they, and you, downplay the significance of such factors even when it is crystal clear in electoral results, particularly in southern Ohio in ’12.

    Curle

    January 1, 2016 at 1:19 pm

    • “he’s so pathetically devoid of personality that nobody will vote against him”

      The best you can hope for in a VP is that he doesn’t turn away any votes. You got it! But I disagree, Romney brings in establishment types who turn their nose at Trump. Even if it’s only 5% of Republican voters, that’s a significant percentage of voters Trump can’t afford to lose.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 1, 2016 at 2:08 pm

    • But I disagree, Romney brings in establishment types who turn their nose at Trump. Even if it’s only 5% of Republican voters, that’s a significant percentage of voters Trump can’t afford to lose.

      The establishment is more like 0.001% of all voters. You’re wrongly confusing white collar Republicans with establishment Republicans.

      To appeal to real white collar voters Trump has better options. And, ideally, Trump should have someone on the same page on immigration since the VP will probably be the next Republican nominee for president. Duncan Hunter’s immigration and foreign policy are similar to Trump, he hails from California, and has military experience. Sessions is excellent on immigration but he might be too old to succeed Trump.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      January 1, 2016 at 4:06 pm

  12. I stump for Trump, but if Romney is a VP, I will have to burry my head in total shame. I will have nothing to say! The whole message of Trump is anti-establishment, Romney personifies the sneaky, weasly, treacherous establishment that got the courty into this mess. Plus he is a Mormon, there is no way I can defend that!

    Yakov

    January 1, 2016 at 1:54 pm

    • VP is a ceremonial job. All he does is go to funerals. Trump is the boss he will run things. Do you really think that Trump will let himself be a pawn of Romney? Zero chance of that happening. And Romney is too old to run for president eight years from now.

      For people who want to see Trump become president, the most exciting VP pick should be the guy who maximizes the chance of that happening.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 1, 2016 at 2:10 pm

      • Marriage should be based on common values and love, not convenience and practical calculation. Romney is a living Judah Iscariot – he denies and then denies denying his faith. He never stops lying, he is an abomination. I just want him to go away.

        Yakov

        January 1, 2016 at 2:19 pm

      • “Marriage should be based on common values and love, not convenience and practical calculation.”

        Love marriages were the exception even in Europe until a few hundred years ago, and were still uncommon among the European aristocracy until the 20th century. Our Ashkenazi ancestors didn’t have love marriages either. Marriages were arranged between families based on practical considerations. I’m not saying we should go back to that, only that it is ridiculous to condemn someone for marrying based on practical calculation.

        nebbish

        January 2, 2016 at 4:27 pm

      • I meant it as a metaphor for choosing a VP.

        Yakov

        January 2, 2016 at 6:44 pm

  13. Yakov

    January 1, 2016 at 2:05 pm

  14. This is what traditional politics are all about. This guy will not get my vote, ever!

    Yakov

    January 1, 2016 at 2:13 pm

  15. Two rich, white plutocrats on the ticket. I can already hear the “They don’t understand the struggles of the common man!” hysterics.

    Brendan

    January 1, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    • Which will be especially hilarious coming from Shrillary, whose money comes from corrupt dealings, political connections, and foreigners. Not an honest dollar in there or an honest day of work behind any of it.

      Tarl

      January 1, 2016 at 4:10 pm

  16. Picking a VP can’t really help you, but it can hurt you. I would not vote for Trump if he picked Mitt. I care about one issue above all others, reducing legal and illegal immigration. Romney is not trustworthy on that.

    Dave

    January 1, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    • Romney was more against illegal immigration than anyone else running in 2012, and probably more than anyone in 2016 if we exclude Ted Cruz’ recent flip-flop on that issue. Ann Coulter likes Romney.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 1, 2016 at 3:33 pm

    • There are better options than Romney if you’re considering immigration.

      And Trump dislikes Romney, so this is all purely theoretical. No way Trump selects him.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      January 1, 2016 at 5:03 pm

      • Trump’s a deal-maker. I am sure he’s made real estate deals with people he didn’t like.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 1, 2016 at 5:06 pm

      • No need to so much as start negotiations with someone he not only dislikes but who brings him no benefits even if a ‘deal’ is reached.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 1, 2016 at 5:13 pm

  17. Rubio down to 3rd on Preddictit. Why? There haven’t been any new polls. Trump at 30 and Cruz at 33. Rubio all the way down to 29. I hope Cruz keeps attacking Rubio at the next debates bringing Rubio down, as Rubio is the only establishment candidate who could conceivably win.

    It’s amazing that based on polls Trump is the frontrunner and based on betting markets Cruz is the frontrunner, yet I think most people still expect it to be Rubio.

    Trump is making noises like he might lose Iowa. I think Laudner has told him that he won’t be able to overcome Cruz.

    Otis the Sweaty

    January 1, 2016 at 3:20 pm

  18. Trump’s high negatives are the reason he trails Hillary in national matchups. If you look at Republicans with better nationwide positive-negative ratios, you’ll see they are now leading her by a few points.

    The way for Trump to compensate for negative scores that are to a considerable degree an inevitable result of such an unorthodox campaign as his are:

    A) Raise Hillary’s personal negatives even higher than they already are.

    B) Raise Trump’s favorables.

    C) A combination of A and B.

    For the following reasons I anticipate scenario C playing out in the coming months where Trump greatly narrows the gap with Hillary, possibly even consistently passing her, before the conventions:

    i) Hillary already has sky high negatives while the media has let her skate and before Trump starts attacking. Her numbers will only go lower as Trump hits her on covering up Clinton’s sexcapes, corruption, law breaking, immigration, terrorism, allowing ISIS to take over the Middle East either by design or by incompetence, Libya, Benghazi, Obamacare, whether she will reverse any of Obama’s illegal executive orders, and the flimsy burger-flipper economy.

    ii) Trump has room to increase his positives because the media has already thrown everything they have at him, because he’s already been in the spotlight for decades, and because some of his unfavorables come from hesitant Republican voters who will eventually become positive as they accept him as the nominee. He shouldn’t neglect opportunities to boost his favorability ratings when his message shifts to the general.

    iii) Trump will still have higher unfavorables than a normal Republican candidate. But thanks to Hillary’s numerous flaws, she has more poll downside than Trump, the race is very winnable.

    Trump does not need Romney, who had weak favorability ratings for such an on message and careful candidate, to accomplish any of this.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    January 1, 2016 at 4:34 pm

  19. Lamar Alexander would fulfill most of your requirements, and would be a better choice for vp in terms of real experience than Romney.

    Paul Rise

    January 1, 2016 at 7:21 pm

  20. Jesus H. Christ, Dick Cheney was a DISASTER! He was hated by voters, easily demonized by the press, and he lead us into the folly of Iraq! A neo-con fool!

    No Cheneys, No Romneys. . .NONE OF IT!

    Trump/Cruz makes the most sense. I hope President Trump continues to empower and take the advice of Jeff Sessions.

    Honestly, a President Trump is not enough. What is needed is a revolution and total dismantling of the power structure which is run by and for international corporations. Nationalism/protectionism must return or America shall perish and deservedly so.

    Corporations are driven by AMORAL profit. There is no loyalty/tradition in capitalism or “free markets.” There is only the profit-motive which has no country and only seeks more consumers and more cheap labor. Capitalism is utterly hostile to the higher values of classical Western Civ. and mankind.

    The amoral principle of corporations is what has driven the disastrous social culture that has befallen us: feminism, illegal immigration, crass materialism, mass media idiocy, pornography are all corporate driven. They derive all of the profit and and shift the devastating costs onto the public.

    fakeemail

    January 1, 2016 at 7:24 pm

    • “Honestly, a President Trump is not enough. What is needed is a revolution and total dismantling of the power structure which is run by and for international corporations. Nationalism/protectionism must return or America shall perish and deservedly so.”

      Trump is unique. He’s probably the only candidate we’ll see in our lifetimes who is self funded and doesn’t owe anything to donors. So this is a one shot deal. There isn’t going to be any revolution or dismantling of the power structure since there is no way to continue it after Trump is no longer President.

      Mike Street Station

      January 2, 2016 at 7:35 pm

      • Trump has kids, maybe we can have a Trump dynasty similar to Bush and Clinton.

        Yakov

        January 3, 2016 at 1:58 am

  21. Trump has many good choices from the GOP wave win of 2010. Any of the midwestern governors like Synder or Walker would be fine.

    The good thing about Romney is that he would not need to flip flop on amnesty. Snyder, Walker, and Kasich unfortunately are bad on immigration, but Walker and Snyder have been ambiguous.

    Rob Portman is another good choice, he has a nice old GOP WASP vibe. He too voted for the Rubio Amnesty Bill however. Not many good choices for VP who voted against at every stage:

    We got too rural and too hard core conservative:

    John Barrasso of Wyoming;

    John Boozman of Arkansas;

    Mike Crapo of Idaho;

    Ted Cruz of Texas;

    Mike Enzi of Wyoming;

    Mike Lee of Utah;

    Jim Risch of Idaho;

    Pat Roberts of Kansas;

    Jeff Sessions of Alabama;

    Tim Scott of South Carolina;

    Richard Shelby of Alabama;

    Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma;

    Hooker issues: David Vitter of Louisiana.

    My top Senate choice if he were 20 years younger: Chuck Grassley of Iowa;

    A good choice if he weren’t a crippled stroke victim: Mark Kirk of Illinois;

    Then we have the Republicans who did not filibuster Rubio/Amnesty, but at least voted against the final bill. They are likely closet amnesty supporters, but would not look stupid adopting Trump’s positions on immigration:

    Blunt
    Chambliss
    Coats
    Cochran
    Cornyn
    Fischer
    Isakson
    Johanns
    Johnson
    McConnell
    Moran
    Paul
    Portman
    Shelby
    Thune
    Toomey
    Wicker

    Again many are too old, too hardcore evangelical, or are deep south/southern plains and don’t bring any appeal to a competitive region:

    Chambliss
    Cochran
    Cornyn
    Fischer
    Isakson
    Johanns
    McConnell
    Moran
    Paul
    Shelby
    Wicker

    That leaves us with:

    Portman – A good choice

    Thune – young and handsome without looking childish like Paul Ryan. Perhaps a minor boost in semi-competitive MN, IA and WI. However boring and empty suitish.

    Toomey – Boost in PA. Not sure how much a trust a guy who used to run Club for Growth, but could be OK. He managed to win a Senate seat in PA so he has political skill.

    Johnson – He’d take VP in a heartbeat since he’s about to lose his Senate seat to Russ Feingold.

    A good choice: took over a family manufacturing business, Christian but not super radical (favors rape/incest exception to abortion ban, is a conservative Lutheran not an evangelical).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Johnson_%28U.S._politician%29

    He’d be handsome if he didn’t have Mick Jagger sized lips, not a nice thing on a 60 year old. At least he still has most of his hair.

    Seems to be a true anti-amnesty believer.

    Would probably kick in $10+ million of his own money. He put in $8 million of his own cash to win his Senate seat.

    Lot

    January 1, 2016 at 8:03 pm

    • David Vitter of Louisiana.

      Vitter is excellent on immigration, perhaps better than Sessions. It’s a shame about the hookers; otherwise or I would put him near the top of my VP list. Thune looks interesting.

      Good looking conservative options in their 40s and early 50s worthy of consideration are also in the House. Jim Jordan is one of the better ones.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      January 2, 2016 at 12:19 pm

      • Thune is an open borders homo

        Otis the Sweaty

        January 2, 2016 at 3:45 pm

      • Thune is an open borders homo

        Thune is straight and he usually earns Bs, or better, from NumbersUSA. I’m not endorsing him, just saying he’s worth giving some thought as a potential running mate.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 2, 2016 at 7:26 pm

    • Thanks, I think this is a very useful list. That is, I mean it would be useful if Lion or any of us commenters were making this decision.

      Ron Johnson is interesting because, if he feels like he’s getting bounced out of his political career anyway, he might be easier to make a deal with if Trump is running as an independent or otherwise in some situation that scares away a lot of other potential running mates.

      Greg Pandatshang

      January 3, 2016 at 1:45 pm

  22. Vice Presidents are often selected to to fill in perceived gaps for the head of the ticket. I think in this case, it requires someone with a solid military background. Allen West maybe? Another knife in the belly of the establishment…

    Mike Street Station

    January 2, 2016 at 7:38 pm

  23. If I have to bet, it would be Tim Scott.

    Young, African American establishment republican. Hasn’t said anything bad about Trump or endorsed anybody else.

    Rotten

    January 2, 2016 at 7:54 pm

    • I understand the appeal of having a non-CSWM on the ticket, but that’s because I’m surrounded by effete blue tribe liberals in my day to day life. For Republicans, I don’t think affirmative action of that type is actually a winning strategy.

      Greg Pandatshang

      January 3, 2016 at 1:43 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: