Poll: Who should be Mitt Romney’s running mate?
Consider this either a bonus “2012 Tuesday” or an extra “Poll Position” this week: Who should be Mitt Romney’s running mate?
With almost six weeks to go before the Republican National Convention, this feels too early for the “veepstakes” to be winding down and shortened to three serious candidates. But that’s what Reuters reported yesterday, saying Romney’s short list comprises Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio.
That means no Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan — bona fide GOP rock stars who would charge up the base but also draw heavy Democratic fire for various reasons.
Loading ...Here’s a quick pro and con list for each of the three:
JINDAL — Pros: In his second term as governor and has extensive experience for someone so young (he just turned 41); particular knowledge and policy success in the important areas of health care, energy and education reform; strongly identified as a social conservative who could pump up enthusiasm in that part of the Republican base; could attract voters in the fast-growing Asian-American community. Cons: Much-publicized flop in delivering GOP response to President Obama’s 2009 address to Congress is still the No. 1 thing many people know about him; can veer off into the weeds or wonkishness in discussing policy; Louisiana is already a sure thing for Romney in November.
PAWLENTY — Pros: Served two terms as governor; already vetted somewhat by the media due to his own short-lived presidential campaign; personal story appeals strongly to blue-collar workers (credited with coining the phrase “Sam’s Club Republicans”) and critical Midwest swing states; probably the safest pick Romney could make. Cons: His campaign was short-lived in large part because he didn’t connect with GOP voters (we also now know from the way the primary went that he bailed out too soon, before he had a chance to be given the “second look” everyone else got); his record as governor didn’t help Minnesota Republicans build on his electoral success; it’s far from clear Romney could win Minnesota even with him on the ballot.
PORTMAN — Pros: For a first-term senator, he has extensive experience in Washington (12 years in the House, stints as U.S. trade representative and director of Management and Budget) and could be “Mr. Inside” to Romney’s “Mr. Outside”; makes Ohio more winnable for Romney; on a personal note, I dealt with Portman a good bit while he was the U.S. trade representative and always found him one of the more genuinely impressive people in public office. Cons: His experience at USTR and OMB came during the Bush administration and would make it easier for Obama to campaign against George W. Bush (not that he won’t try anyway); just as vanilla as Pawlenty.
Any of the three would be more believable than, say, Joe Biden as someone who could be elevated to the presidency in an emergency. Any of the three strike me as more likely to help Romney’s chances than to hurt them, which is pretty much the whole ballgame. Jindal and Pawlenty strike me as more comfortable than Portman in the “attack dog” role the running mate traditionally fills — although the advent of super PACs and the negative tone we’ve already seen from both sides makes me wonder whether that tradition still holds up very well here in 2012. If picking from this group, and maybe even from the entire veepstakes field, I’m fairly certain I would go with Bobby Jindal.
But what about y’all? What’s your take: Should it be Jindal, Pawlenty, Portman — or someone else? If it’s the latter choice, let us know in the comments thread. In any event, vote in the nearby poll as well.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
285 comments Add your comment
the cat
July 18th, 2012
12:50 pm
Bruno-no, not knew to the blog. I’m a doctor and an actuary as well. What a coincidence, huh? We just happen to disagree.
getalife
July 18th, 2012
12:52 pm
willard/birther joey.
You don't say
July 18th, 2012
12:55 pm
Bruno
Pretty impressive credentials. Great for you and your work effort to obtain all that education.
What type of doctor are you?
@@
July 18th, 2012
12:55 pm
cat:
Being a conservative, I have no feelings…an argument put forth by your side.
So-o-ooo, no need to worry about my feelings.
And cat? Try not to hover, will you?
So Cal
July 18th, 2012
12:58 pm
Yes Palin for sure! She’s so SMART! she would surely be a great choice to bring the cons together! LOL!
Just saying..
July 18th, 2012
1:02 pm
Allen West, Michelle Bachman, Donald Trump…
You don't say
July 18th, 2012
1:03 pm
Bruno
I assume you are in the “medical” field. How do you see Obamacare impacting your practice?
Is it an issue that might cause you to leave the medical industry or will you still be able to make it with all the additional administrative crap that will be imposed on you?
Bruno
July 18th, 2012
1:14 pm
Also, cat, one of the pseudo-arguments that proponents of the ACA keep pushing is the “free-rider” argument, believing that adding millions of people to the insurance pool will somehow magically spread the costs around. Since you’re such a fan of research, you might want to take a gander at this chart which gives the demographics of the uninsured in this country. As the charts show, the vast majority of the uninsured are either very young, very poor, or illegal immigrants. As such, they won’t be paying for their care once ObamaCare kicks in.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/05/uninsured-cps/index.htm
Bruno
July 18th, 2012
1:14 pm
Back in a flash….
the cat
July 18th, 2012
1:16 pm
Bruno-you lack compassion. Why on earth did you decide to become a doctor? I hope you don’t see patients.
There is also no need for the condescension. We disagree is all.
JohnS
July 18th, 2012
1:28 pm
Sarah Palin because she did such a great job last time. Or Michelle Bachman if Sarah is too busy peddling her books.
SBinF
July 18th, 2012
1:28 pm
“Doctor” did you read anything in the link before you sent it??
“While the income distribution of the uninsured is skewed toward those with lower incomes, Figure 2 shows 27% of the uninsured have incomes above 300% of poverty, with one-in-ten (11%) uninsured above 500% FPL.(4) That the uninsured comprise non-trivial percentages of middle and upper income individuals is surprising. Those with incomes above 300% of poverty should generally find employer insurance affordable. Data from employers shows that average single coverage premiums for employer sponsored insurance represent 2.0% of income at 300% FPL, and average family coverage premiums represent 4.7% of income for a family of four at 300% FPL (with a higher percentage for smaller families).”
Or do you not understand what “non trivial” means?
Bruno
July 18th, 2012
1:32 pm
Pretty impressive credentials. Great for you and your work effort to obtain all that education.
Thanks, YDS. I racked up over 500 credit hours in college, but enjoyed it all, despite being on my own financially. My main claim to fame is scoring a “10″ on each of the parts of the Actuarial Exams which I sat for. Check with any actuary, and they will be impressed.
Bruno-no, not knew to the blog. I’m a doctor and an actuary as well. What a coincidence, huh? We just happen to disagree.
cat–You can believe as you wish, since it is an anonymous blog. If it makes you feel any better, I know a few of the Bookman regulars outside of the blog, they can vouch for me. But, most importantly, I can prove my qualifications through my arguments, something you haven’t done. the only thing you’ve proven to me so far is that you’re an Obamabot.
I assume you are in the “medical” field. How do you see Obamacare impacting your practice?
YDS–I’m slightly outside of the medical mainstream, so it’s hard to say how it will impact my specialty. It will probably lead to an increase in business due to insurance equality laws. On the consumer side, I choose to self-insure, so will have to start paying fines in 2014.
SBinF
July 18th, 2012
1:32 pm
And there is nothing in the link that mentions illegal immigrants. They are only delineated by citizen and noncitizen.
You can’t interpret a simple bar graph? I’m calling shenanigans your your medical credentials.
SBinF
July 18th, 2012
1:33 pm
Well, either you can’t read a graph and comprehend what it says, or you’re lying to make your point. Either way, bad form.
the cat
July 18th, 2012
1:39 pm
Bruno-I am surprised you got a 10 on your exams if you can’t read a graph correctly. Methinks you are lying about your credentials. Perhaps you have a PHD in some obsure field?
You don't say
July 18th, 2012
1:40 pm
Bruno
Thanks for the exchange and congrats again on the hard work and effort.
the cat
July 18th, 2012
1:41 pm
Bruno-the “diploma” you ordered and got in the mail may not be realz. LOL
SBinF
July 18th, 2012
1:47 pm
Far be it for me to question his claims to be a doctor. It just seems that if you’re going to appeal to appeal to authority, at least make certain the link you post actually supports your claims. Not everyone on the internet is impressed by a link. Some of us actually click it, evaluate it, and note if it indeed supports the claim.
I’m but a lowly teacher, but they did teach us a little critical thinking in graduate school. . . and at least how to read and interpret a graph.
SBinF
July 18th, 2012
1:48 pm
I should proofread a little better. They also taught us that one, though I obviously don’t adhere to it!
@@
July 18th, 2012
1:56 pm
New thread, people. It addresses Pat Murray (D), terrorist extraordinaire.
Bruno
July 18th, 2012
1:56 pm
Figure 2 shows 27% of the uninsured have incomes above 300% of poverty, with one-in-ten (11%) uninsured above 500% FPL.(4) That the uninsured comprise non-trivial percentages of middle and upper income individuals is surprising. Those with incomes above 300% of poverty should generally find employer insurance affordable
SBinF–My statement the the vast majority (approximately 75%) of the uninsured are poor is confirmed by these stats. And, if you think about it, the other 27% aren’t automatically “free riders”. I have self-insured my whole life, which simply means I have paid for all of my medical expenses out-of-pocket. Nothing “free” about that in my book.
Which, of course, begs the question, should I be responsible for other’s health care?? Personally, I say no, especially given the fact that I take good care of myself, while the average person doesn’t. Having said that, if “universal coverage” is the goal, then single-payer is the only way to go. Using private insurance as the vehicle is just plain stupid. Unfortunately, the Dems didn’t have the political cojones to put single payer up for a vote.
Bruno
July 18th, 2012
2:03 pm
Still catching up from earlier:
Just like Reagan and Carter, the last month it moved from a small Carter victory to a Reagan landslide. People finally decide that a change has to be made and do it decisively, momentum builds and polls shift and everyone joins in.
Rafe–I get your point about the unreliability of pre-election polls, but there’s one glaring difference from this election to that of 1980. To borrow a line from Lloyd Bentson, Romney is no Reagan.
On a personal level, it was Reagan who changed me from a liberal to a conservative. Prior to the 1980 election, I heard a lot of scare talk about what might happen if Reagan was elected. The only thing that actually happened was that he helped got our economy on track and helped restore our pride as Americans.
SBinF
July 18th, 2012
2:09 pm
“Also, cat, one of the pseudo-arguments that proponents of the ACA keep pushing is the “free-rider” argument, believing that adding millions of people to the insurance pool will somehow magically spread the costs around.”
Let’s assume there are somewhere around 50 million uninsured Americans. If 27% of them can afford insurance but choose not to, that’s around 13 million. You then go on to imply that the vast majority of the folk are poor and won’t be paying anyway as proof that millions of new insurance customers will never materialize.
“Since you’re such a fan of research, you might want to take a gander at this chart which gives the demographics of the uninsured in this country. As the charts show, the vast majority of the uninsured are either very young, very poor, or illegal immigrants. As such, they won’t be paying for their care once ObamaCare kicks in.”
Now, if my math is right, 13 million is millions. So the pseudo-argument by ACA proponents is quite correct.
And just to point out, forgive me doctor, but your use of the term “begging the question” is completely incorrect. You are only raising the question. “Begging the question” is a fallacy where information which requires proof is posited without proof. That is, you make assumptions, then use your assumptions to make statements which support your assumptions.
East Lake Ira
July 18th, 2012
2:23 pm
Please tell me Palin won your little poll!
Please?
Measure
July 18th, 2012
2:23 pm
Not sure how Piyush Jindal will attract minority voters. Indians are less than one percent of total US population, most of which can not vote because they are either illegal or on work/student visa. Also the majority of Indians will not vote for a republican anyway.
Using Christian name and pretending to be a Christian does not mean that Jindal can change what he really is.
Bruno
July 18th, 2012
2:23 pm
sfd– Shrug. In my case, it’s certainly not for lack of an opinion over how the right wing jumped on that statement–although in Kyle’s defense, I think he formulated a decent piece based around it.
cat– Bruno-explain to me how to grow a business on an island by yourself.
JDW– It was clear from the beginning that the entire point of the President’s remarks was to note that entrepreneurship does not happen in a vacuum. Every successful business owes its very existence to a variety of factors including employees, government and customers.
In case any of you missed my response to Kyle’s column, here it is:
http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2012/07/16/mr-president-when-will-somebody-else-build-my-business/?cp=8#comment-128428
As I stated at that time, it takes both opportunity AND individual effort to be successful. As much as you Lefties want to claim that Obama’s statement was similarly balanced, it isn’t. He basically dismisses individual effort out-of-hand and gives ALL of the credit to the contribution of society. To argue otherwise is to blatantly disregard his own words.
Bruno
July 18th, 2012
2:27 pm
hahahahaha, Romney paid a higher tax rate than obozo’s whole entire white house staff did, hahahaha, aahhh, does it git any better dan dis?
shhhh, Reporter. The Libs seem to live in some fantasy world in which only rich Republicans benefit from our current tax laws. We need to shield them from the truth.
JDW
July 18th, 2012
4:26 pm
@Bruno…”As I stated at that time, it takes both opportunity AND individual effort to be successful. As much as you Lefties want to claim that Obama’s statement was similarly balanced, it isn’t. He basically dismisses individual effort out-of-hand and gives ALL of the credit to the contribution of society. To argue otherwise is to blatantly disregard his own words.”
Really…then ’splain the summary of his comments…those Kyle conveniently left out…
“The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
FED Up
July 19th, 2012
12:13 pm
Let’s see…
Jindal – Boring
Pawlenty – Does he have a pulse?
Portman – Who?
Come on!!! Romney needs to wake up and take a little risk. Rubio can bring the young vote and the hispanic vote (not to mention the possibility of Florida). He is a very popular well spoken individual with a great life story. Why does Romney not listen to the wave of voices screaming for a Veep that can excite voters?
kelly
July 19th, 2012
1:19 pm
Because Romney saw that Rubio’s press-clippings were bad enough. Only the tea party is excited about him. And hispanics do not vote as a monolith; there are not enough Cubans in the US to make Rubio relevant.
L. Lotta
July 20th, 2012
6:56 pm
Best choice would be Rubio, wish he would reconsider. 2nd choice Jindal. We need a sure deal or Obama will be in for another 4 years. God help us all
john
July 21st, 2012
7:35 pm
i think sarah palin should run
Chrissy
July 22nd, 2012
3:30 pm
RUBIOI!!
My goodness with him on the ticket it brings interest from people and they would feel good voting for him like they did with Obama!!!
Geez!
Robme/Plenty would be the cry from liberals and Romney needs an attack dog more than ever. The Democrats are running extremely nasty campaign.
RUBIO Romney will win over women and hispanic voters who he is weak with.
RUBIO.
Pawlenty, Portman will do NOTHING to bring voters across NOTHING to draw interest NOTHING to fight back against the attacks.
RUBIO RUBIO or Romney will lose I think and our country will lose.
I am starting to second guess Romney if he goes with safe and boring and nothing right now…he needs to listen to politically savvy folks if he wants to win.
UGH.
Andy Halverson
July 22nd, 2012
10:25 pm
NOT Paul Ryan