GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
CQ politics has a wonderful bracket style poll running with 32 potential VP’s. The first round has already passed, but make sure to vote in future rounds. Here’s the link.
Update:
Here are the standings from our Veep polls about a month ago, for comparison sake. I’ve bolded the folks that are also on CQ’s list.
1. Mark Sanford: 6.53
2. Tim Pawlenty: 5.88
3. Mitt Romney: 5.64
4. Sarah Palin: 5.56
5. Rudy Giuliani: 5.48
6. Chris Cox: 5.10
7. Donald Carcieri: 5.05
8. Tom Coburn: 4.94
9. Condoleeza Rice: 4.91
10. Bill Owens: 4.87
11. Jon Huntsman Jr.: 4.79
12. Colin Powell: 4.52
13. Frank Keating: 4.44
14. Tom Ridge: 4.16
15. Mike Huckabee: 3.25
16. Joe Lieberman: 2.69
May 8th, 2008 at 7:26 am
I voted Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty, Ridge, Brownback, Jindal, Portman, Thune.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:27 am
There apparently was no thought to seeding….or was there? They match up two of the strongest candidates in the second round, and if you notice only the winner moves forward….Sanford and Romney. With seeding they would both be near the end.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:53 am
I think it’d be more interesting if they allowed the already eliminated competitors to face off (a loser’s tournament). My guess is, we’ll see these semi-finals: Pawlenty vs. Sanford and Palin vs. Crist. I expect Palin to triumph over Crist, but I’m not really sure about the Pawlenty/Sanford matchup. Probably Sanford, because he beat Demint by a whopping 69 points. Pawlenty beat Gramm by 65, but I think Demint is a stronger opponent. I also tend to think that Romney would be a mildly stronger opponent then Powell, and Pawlenty is beating Powell by just 7, while Sanford is topping Romney by 11. I’m going to go out on a limb and predict something like a 53-47 Sanford victory over Pawlenty, and something like a 54-46 Palin victory over Crist. I’d then guess that Sanford wins the whole shebang by around 59-41.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:55 am
In this new poll on CQ, Sarah Palin is the top choice in head-to-heads. She’s got like 64%.
McCain needs to do something dramatic. He can’t risk going with a safe choice like Pawlenty or Ridge. He needs to hit it out of the park with his VP choice. It needs to be one of those picks where people just go “Whoa…”.
I’d even take it a step further. Sarah Palin is my first pick, but there’s also California Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia (Palm Springs). How about an Hispanic female from California on the ticket? Now that Hillary has lost, McCain could make a major play for that Hispanic vote with Garcia. And he’d put the Dems on the defensive in their own backyard of California.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Gosh, I really hope it’s not Pawlenty. What a boring pick. The guy’s so ho hum. Total white bread, mid-western, blue suit and tie sort.
Think Insurance Salesman.
He’d be the worst of all possible picks for McCain. If McCain makes that choice, watch a good chunk of GOP voters wanting someone exciting attractive and even sexy, stay home or vote 3rd party.
Surely, he’s not that stupid.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:58 am
I don’t think he has to hit it out of the park. He needs to come across as a safe alternative to Obama, and I think Pawlenty would do that.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:00 am
I am not suggesting Pawlenty is the best pick, but he would be a safe pick. I can’t comment much on him though. I have never even heard Pawlenty talk. Picking Palin may help the ticket, but that is unfair to her kids and unfair to the country to have a mother of a young baby as Vice-President.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:03 am
IllinoisGuy,
I think they do take into account seeding. Notice all the heavyweights had cakewalks in the first round. Romney got Blackburn. Pawlenty got Gramm. Crist vs. Watts. Sanford’s matchup actually should have been somewhat competitive, because Demint is a stalwart conservative, but obscurish figures fared poorly across the board in the first round. In the second round, some of the frontrunners actually get serious matchups. Sanford v. Romney. Pawlenty vs Powell (who just triumphed over Petraeus). Crist vs. Thune. It makes sense to me, though I think the bottom half of the bracket is a smidgen weaker then the top.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Clarence, if you have the means, you can do both. Palin isn’t the first governor to be pregnant in office.
Pawlenty is an insurance salesman. The guy is dull.
Palin has everything you could want. Looks, personality, conservative convictions that she can actually articulate, executive experience.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Eric,
That’s absolute nonsense. Pawlenty is the furthest thing from an insurance salesman. He’s whitebread only in the sense that he’s a white male, with no scandals, and a pleasing mien. I know that’s pretty out of fashion these days, but it hardly makes him boring. I continue to contend that Pawlenty is the best political talent in either party; his gifts sneak up on you. He has a remarkable way of making rhetorical concessions, without actually giving anything away, and while leaving you with a feeling that he agrees with you, whoever you are. It’s lawyerese filtered through a blue-collar lense. Lawyerese without the smarm or condescension.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Look, I like Palin, and it seems like I’ll be voting for her in every round until the finals (when I’ll either go with Pawlenty or Sanford, whichever one made it). But, I’m just a smidgen worried about selecting a VP with two years as Governor of Alaska (a state utterly removed from national issues), and who’s previous claim to fame politically was a two-term stint as a Mayor of a town of like 4000 people. She seems like too much of a lightweight. She wouldn’t be a bad pick, but we can do better.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Yeah, a mother of five is a lightweight. She took on the entire entrenched political establishment of Alaska and won.
There is a lot of laten sexism going on here if you ask me.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Clarence, Mark Sanford is FAR more conservative than Romney and you know it.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Some folks confuse nice with boring on first glance. But, oddly enough they’re not actually synonyms. Among actual Minnesotans, Pawlenty’s known as “nice” but “hip”. He makes pop culture references all the time; he talks about the Stones and ACDC like they’re his best buds, he’s constantly trying to bring young people into the process, and has had some success. I’d be exaggerating if I called Pawlenty “exciting”. He doesn’t give fiery speeches; he’s more low-key. But, low-key, humble charm might be just what the doctor ordered after 20 months of high-flying, arrogant, rhetorical flourishes from Obama.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Joel,
Mother’s of five can be political lightweights, same as anyone else. Ann Romney’s a political lightweight. As far as taking on the entrenched political establishment, it seems to me that Palin wanted to be a part of that establishment (her failed bid for Lieutenant Governor), was spurned by the Murkowski when it came time to appoint his replacement in the senate, and decided that if she couldn’t be on the inside, she’d settle for the outside. And then everything collapsed for Murkowski, and an opening came down from heaven tailor-made for her. That’s not to say it didn’t involve some political gifts, or some courage, or some integrity; I
May 8th, 2008 at 8:29 am
How much do you all think VP choice matters? And does it matter more in 2008 because we suspect that McCain would be a one-term president?
May 8th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Joel,
Mother’s of five can be political lightweights, same as anyone else. Ann Romney’s a political lightweight. As far as taking on the entrenched political establishment, it seems to me that Palin wanted to be a part of that establishment (her failed bid for Lieutenant Governor), was spurned by the Murkowski when it came time to appoint his replacement in the senate, and decided that if she couldn’t be on the inside, she’d settle for the outside. And then everything collapsed for Murkowski, and an opening came down from heaven tailor-made for her. That’s not to say it didn’t involve some political gifts, or some courage, or some integrity; I actually think she has terrific potential. But, it’s not like she tore down the Berlin Wall. It collapsed and she, fortuitously, stepped over it into the sunlight.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:32 am
12, Joel. I’m sure there are lots of tough aspects about living in Alaska. But the “entrenched political establishment” is not one of them. Palin may be a great politician, but she has NOT proven herself to the nation as a whole. They say greatness need not be explained. In her case, she needs to be explained because no one has heard of her and no one has watched her govern.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:04 am
The mother of a newborn child with medical condition that requires extra care and attention is not going to be the Veep. Period.
Come back to us on Planet Earth folks…
May 8th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Sampo, I never said that Mark Sanford was more liberal than Romney. What are you talking about?
May 8th, 2008 at 9:16 am
As far as Palin, I have nothing against working mothers, but the Vice-Presidency is not a regular 9-5 job. She would get very little time to spend with her newborn babies. They would be raised by a nanny or something. What is “conservative” about that? I was in a poly sci class once in college where Mike Dukakis spoke. He said that his children were grown up when he ran for President, and if one of them had told him not to run, he would not have. He even said he would not have run when his children were only 12 years old like Bill Clinton did because it wouldn’t be fair to put a child through that. I think the Presidency is a job for people whose children are already grown up or close to it. It is a personal decision though, and every case is different, but picking a mother with newborn children would like very dubious for the “family values party”.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Clarence, what does having a nanny or a working mother have to do with being “conservative” or “liberal”? That sounds like a silly comment that would be uttered by a liberal comedian.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:17 am
I don’t care one way or another on Palin, but I believe her husband is a commercial fisherman. Not sure how much of that they have in DC. He can probably do quite a bit of parenting whilst in the White House.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:53 am
#4: Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina may be the surprise pick.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:03 am
While Democrats Fight On, McCain Has Biggest Fundraiser Yet http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/08/politics/fromtheroad/entry4079995.shtml
May 8th, 2008 at 11:04 am
MCCAIN BAGS $7M BUSHEL IN APPLE
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05082008/news/regionalnews/mccain_bags_7m_bushel_in_apple_109886.htm
May 8th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Every time someone advocates for a true conservative on this site (like a Thompson or a Palin), editors come out of the woodwork to dismiss/denounce it on pragmatic grounds. It’s pathetic, and it’s everything that’s wrong with today’s GOP.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:41 am
eric, conservatives would be more likely to say a mother should stay home with their kids whereas a liberal would say that was discriminatory and that it’s not fair that men get to work and women don’t.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Joel, the interesting thing is that the “electability people” on this site want to compromise on a number of things, but the area where they don’t seem to want to compromise is on Iraq. They give McCain credit for saying he’d rather lose the election than lose the war, but on other issues they want the GOP to compromise because they say a generic Republican can’t win. Why is it okay to compromise on other things but you can’t compromise on Iraq?
May 8th, 2008 at 11:58 am
It’s more like conceding a point than compromising that I take issue with. We accept liberal premises and try to be Dem lite and fool ourselves into thinking that is compromise, it’s a sure fire way to lose.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
#29 Because Iraq is life or death, quite literally, and is essential to this nation having any remaining deterrent effect against the enemies of freedom.
And social conservative issues are fantasyland that serious people don’t take seriously. They’re just scare tactics used every 4 years.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Why in gods name is Rob Portman on the V.P. list? Yeah, great ticket McCain/Portman! Two open border loving politicians! That would really secure the Conservative vote. How ridiculous.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I guess Metro is suggesting I am not a serious person. This does raise a question as to whether our nominees and a lot of our party’s supporters really care about these issues or whether they just use them to get certain people to vote Republican.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Clarence, just look at what conservative talking heads talk about. Do you see Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, et al, harping on gay marriage and abortion on TV? Very rarely. It’s all economics and national security.
If you ever convinced we libertarian Republicans anyone in positions of power DID take those issues seriously, we’d be voting Democrat until you learned your lesson. So I wouldn’t try to hard to convince anyone.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
A question for so-cons out there, do you think that what Metro says is true that Republicans only use social issues as scare tactics. If so, do you think we should withdraw our support of Senator McCain and come up with some alternative strategy? I’m looking for suggestions.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Well I don’t like Bill Kristol anyway, but the fact that talking heads don’t talk much about issues like that further underscores why we should perhaps pursue an alternative strategy. As far as Fred Barnes, he is a Fundamentalist Christian, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. They perhaps don’t talk much about it on TV though because truly religious people don’t wear it on their sleeve.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Clarence some Republicans use social issues as scare tactics. If I thought that’s all there was to it, I’d leave the Party. The amendments to protect marriage actually passed. Scare tactic or not, I got what I wanted.
Scare tactic or not I got Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court.
If Republicans stopped delivering on social issues I’d probably stop voting.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Doug, not voting is not an option. It is one’s patriotic duty to vote, and there are other issues to vote on besides social issues. I just wonder sometimes whether we should all join the Democratic party en masse and make them a conservative party and let the people like Metro have their party back.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Clarence, I guess the Amish are unpatriotic.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
[...] of social issues. Well, MetroRepublican confirmed a fear that a lot of these voters have. He said the following: And social conservative issues are fantasyland that serious people don’t take seriously. [...]
May 8th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Doug, they decline to vote for religious reasons. I disagree with their decision. I do think it makes little sense to not vote, but it’s their religion, so it’s not up to me to say.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
#38, if we left the GOP to people like Metro and the other 9iu11ani supporters, the GOP would revert to its pre-Reagan roots–socially liberal and only economically moderate. It’s interesting that most of the pro-abortion Republicans are also most of the economically moderate to liberal Republicans. Mark Kirk is the only pro-choice Republican who’s mostly conservative on economics–the rest are squishy. (Hutchison, et al are porkers). In a way, Bush has done more for social conservatives then econ conservatives. If Roberts and Alito turn out to be good, then we’ve got solid judges who’ll be on the court for a very long time. The Bush tax cuts are scheduled to sunset in 2010. The fact that Bush didn’t even make the tax cuts permanent to begin with speaks volumes. I want them to be made permanent, even lower the some more.
Clarence, while the inside the beltway Republicans are pro-choice, the vast majority of the party is pro-life, pro-family. After 9iu11ani, there will probably never be another real pro-choice GOP contender. Take heart in that. Also, about Palin, the fact she’s doing so well in the vp madness tells me she’s strong with the base. There are numerous reasons to take here, especially since she just had a baby. I disagree with Kavon, having a baby won’t be a total hindrance. Family leave is only 18 weeks. She can run an effective vp campaign and she’ll be the gamechanger the GOP needs. Fiornia and Whitman won’t be considered. The public won’t stomach corp CEOs as running mates. Fiornia and Whitman are only good for raising money, that’s it.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Bush has done nothing but use social conservatives. Roberts and Alito is all. Also, if it were not for Brownback and others Harriet Miers would have been on the Supreme Court. Bush has done nothing for economic conservatives or social conservatives. I fear the same from McCain.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
IR-MN, no, we libertarians are economic conservatives. Think Goldwater, not Rockefeller.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Jaco, Harriet Miers actually was pro-life, contrary to conventional wisdom. His father did appoint one liberal judge and two of Reagan’s three judges were moderate.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Libertarianism is to economic conservatism as socialism is to communism.
Libertarianism is simply too radical and unrealistic to ever successfully be put in practice. Economic conservatism is more realistic and could work under the right conditions.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
#46, great argument.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Matthew, on the seeding I was talking about the first round seeding so much. I’m saying with any sensible seeding you would never have had Romney going up against Sanford in the second round. It makes the loser appear to be a lightweight when in fact they may very well have been 2nd, or 3rd if seeded properly. I’m not crying about it, but if we are going to do something like this, the least they can do is put some thought into it to make it fair….unless they purposely chose not to.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
first sentence - *was not
May 8th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
The seeding, if it was there, is rubbish. Second round match-up between Romney & Sanford is a worthy semi-final at least, while Steele vs Jindal is a joke. They compete for the title of “most-inexperienced”. I ended up not ticking either of them.
Honestly, if McCain is going to argue Obama has no experience he can’t pick Steele or Jindal (or Crist, for that matter) as VP. Its just dumb.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:42 am
At long last, Rudy Giuliani made it to the frontrunner status. As events seem to be pointing,
Obama will get the Democratic nomination, so to garner votes from Hillary, we have to have
Rudy in the ticket, who attracts the same voters as Hillary–independents, moderate democrats
moderate republicans from the swing states Ohio, Pennsylvania, Ca as well as the Northern
sector ,MA, New Jersey , New York as well as Florida.