New Stanek poll: Who should Romney choose as his running mate?
I have a new poll question up:
Who would you like to see Mitt Romney pick as his running mate?
Vote on the lower right side of the home page.
Obviously, no one in the world guessed Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would be the deciding vote in favor of Obamacare. And only 11% of you thought the court would decide as it did…
As always, make comments to either the previous or current poll here, not on the Vizu website.
Jul.22, 2012 9:33 am |
Polls |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I think he should unite the Ron Paul supporters with his campaign by choosing Ron Paul. Don’t think that would ever happen but I think it would be a smart move.
I got the previous poll correct – do I win a prize?
Romney should choose Portman – he’s from a state Romney has to have.
I choose Congressman Paul Ryan. The key issues in this race are fiscal, and Congressman Ryan is better on those issues than anyone else. He is also solidly pro-life, and a good communicator. He has been in Congress for more than a decade, and currently has a prominent leadership role; also, to my knowledge, he doesn’t have any baggage.
None of the possible running mates listed in the poll would be unacceptable from a pro-life perspective except former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has described herself as “mildly pro-choice.” While Secretary Rice has many admirable qualities and credentials, she would not make a suitable running mate for Gov. Romney. There is simply no such thing as “mildly pro-choice.” There is pro-life, and there is pro-choice. Calling someone “mildly pro-choice” is like saying someone is “a little bit pregnant”; either you are, or you’re not. I am not sure where the 7+% of people on this blog who chose Secretary Rice in the poll are coming from; I am guessing that they are unaware of her position.
I would be somewhat concerned about Sens. Ayotte, Paul, or Rubio being chosen, simply because they are on the inexperienced side. The same could be said for Govs. Christie and McDonnell, who have not yet served a full term in either of their respective positions. There are also some concerns about Gov. McDonnell’s cave on the ultrasound bill, and Gov. Christie’s infamous temper.
I would rate the candidates in the following order of preference:
Ryan
Pawlenty
Portman
Jindal
McDonnell
Christie
Rubio
Ayotte
Paul
Rice
There are several other viable candidates who could be mentioned, including Sen. John Thune, Gov. Scott Walker, and former Gov. Mike Huckabee.
On second thought, I would drop Sen. Portman down a spot. Gov. Romney should be very careful about choosing a senator from a swing state as his running mate, because the ensuing special election could complicate GOP efforts to take control of the Senate.
It’s “whom”, by the way. :)
Grammar Nazi moment over…
Someone who doesn’t mind the remainder of whatever political career they have being defined by their status as a failed vice presidential candidate.
I would love to see Rick Santorum as his VP candidate
Anyone willing to get down into the gutter where Obama resides and fight tooth and nail with the monster.
ALLEN WEST! ALLEN WEST! ALLEN WEST!!!
“Someone who doesn’t mind the remainder of whatever political career they have being defined by their status as a failed vice presidential candidate.”
Good idea, after all if someone is psychologically prepared to lose victory will seem all the more sweet.
Xalisae, yes, Allen West is the best fighter. He wouldn’t let Obama get away with his constant sliming. I would pick West for VP.
West, Paul, Santorum, Rubio …. Yes!
Please don’t take my Ryan away!!!! =)
(shakes head)
I don’t understand y’all. The VP job is useless. Read up on it sometime. It’s a non-job. The VP has no power of any kind. He’s just a “spare.”
Why on earth would anyone want to remove Ryan from his relatively powerful position, and dump him in Joe Biden’s high chair? Dittos for anyone else you respect in their present capacity.
I’d say the Peter Principle was in play, but going to the veep slot isn’t a promotion of any kind.
The best pick for Romney would be anyone just one IQ point brighter than Biden. That’s all he needs for his pick to be non-controversial. With that in mind, I believe 80% of the country’s citizens would qualify.
“The best pick for Romney would be anyone just one IQ point brighter than Biden. That’s all he needs for his pick to be non-controversial. With that in mind, I believe 80% of the country’s citizens would qualify.”
If the threshold is just one IQ point above Biden, you’re surely low balling the percentage. I’m sure at least 95% of the country’s citizens would qualify.
I don’t understand y’all. The VP job is useless. Read up on it sometime. It’s a non-job. The VP has no power of any kind. He’s just a “spare.”
The first and only job the VP candidate has is to get Romney elected simply by being someone others perceive to be less of what concerns them about the presidential candidate – in this case, less Mormon and less super rich, white guy-like, which to your point, rasqual, probably includes a large majority of the population. As usual, the identification with the VP has little to do with actual politics.
That first part in my comment above is credited to rasqual. #tootiredtoaddquotationmarks
How about this: select a veep who discloses all his academic transcripts and asks Obama whether that record is, in Obama’s opinion, less stellar than that of recent presidents?
Paladin,
I love grammar too. Please don’t use the word “Nazi” in any capacity other than its historical one. It’s offensive and minimizes the horror the Nazis perpetrated upon innocents. “Femi-Nazi” is another word I find equally offensive, even if I sometimes sympathize with the sentiments behind its use.
On the other hand, I think “holocaust” (lowercase “h”) is not an overstatement when referring to the current mass killings of innocents through abortion.
rasqual: “How about this: select a veep who discloses all his academic transcripts and asks Obama whether that record is, in Obama’s opinion, less stellar than that of recent presidents?”
Are you suggesting the election have something to do with qualifications (or intentional lack thereof, ha) ? “That is too bold!” Are we asking Obama with or without his tell-lie-prompter?
“I love grammar too. Please don’t use the word ‘Nazi’ …”
That’s not a grammatical issue, it’s a lexical one.
Normally I don’t nitpick, but a true grammar lover will enjoy the correction. :-D
rasqual-
VP can infrequently have the job of casting the tie-breaking vote in the senate, and sometimes, that is a very important job. See: Al Gore casting the tie-breaking vote which mandated ethanol be added to fossil fuels, which raised food prices, limited our food contributions overseas (sorry Haitians!), and added to pollution. Simply so he and a few other politicians could line their pockets with money collected from stock revenues generated by the ethanol companies of which they owned shares.
Col. Allen West. Hands down the best fighter and very articulate and intelligent and solidly a constitutional conservative. As for the usefulness of VP, the most important use is the one right now, to get Obama out and Romney in. As a campaign asset he would be very valuable. In addition, the VP is also often talked about as being “one heartbeat from the presidency” especially during a campaign. However, I hold out small hope that the GOP or Mitty have the gravitas to pick West. A sad fact but especially in the elections since Reagan, a fact regardless.
Rubio is, by far, my first choice. He is the most articulate, energetic, & he can appeal to demographics Romney needs: Hispanics and youth.
Since I’m a pro-life voter, I can’t vote for either candidate.
At Cranky Catholic; My dilema as well, Mitt claims a pro-life stance, but worships a foreign god, if Mitt takkes on an out spoken pro-lifer and a man that serves the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob then I can with good conscience vote for them, otherwise it will be choosing between the lesser of two evils, and no vote is a vote in itself. can’t wait to hear from the grammar fanatics on this one.
Cranky: So if two bears are chasing you and one is much closer than the other, you look at a good gun in your hand that has exactly one bullet in it, and say “I can’t shoot either of them because they’re both chasing me.”
Great logic.
Rasqual –
I’d rather die at the hands (well, paws) of two bears quickly than one bear slowly.
:-)
x: Yeah, but you don’t have to be a Ryan-class dude to cast the proper vote in such an instance. You only need to be a good conservative (coming from my political point of view). OK, so that reduces the proportion of qualified Americans having an IQ of at least Biden+1 to 49%. ;-)
The rest of you, I guess, want Rubio, West, Ryan — any of those guys would be fine — to interrupt their seniority ascent in the bodies that actually make our laws, and reduce them to having a non-job in an administration whose job is supposed to enforce them and not regulate everything amok like this admin is doing.
Where’s the logic, folks? You don’t NEED the best conservatives as veep pick to win this election. You don’t need quality to galvanize the conservative base. Loathing of the current administration is sufficient to galvanize all conservatives. Heck, loathing of the president is sufficient to galvanize independents, at this point, with the news getting no better for the economy.
The pan in this balance is already tipping because Obama is being understood by more and more people, with each passing month, as a lightweight. Romney himself needs to be heavyweight material. We’re at the point where the electorate couldn’t care less whether a veep candidate has weight, because knows the veep slot is a non-job. The electorate is looking for strength and competence in the candidate himself, and if you have that you could have a moron as your veep pick and it wouldn’t matter. Note the last election. :-/
Seriously, what the heck?
EG: Yeah, but in your case you’re willing to shoot the bear that’s furthest from you. Not appreciably more sensible, dude.
“The pan in this balance is already tipping because Obama is being understood by more and more people, with each passing month, as a lightweight.”
– Over the last month, according to 538’s modle, Obama’s odds of winning has gone from 62% to 68%.
– Favorability rating has stayed pretty steady
Question – is this view supported by actual numbers, or is this something you just feel in your soul?
I’m not talking about the polls, EG. I’m talking about economic measures.
Keep whistling past the graveyard, turncoat.
(since you like polls, though: http://goo.gl/u3H6z)
Okay rasqual
And is this view supported by actual numbers – the feelings towards Obama – or is this something you just feel in your soul?
EG: Actual numbers, EG. Get out of whatever echo chamber of bliss feelings you’re occupying and read the news. A good aggregator for you to consider would be the libertarian blog Instapundit. Glenn misses few news items on the economy — good or bad.
But it does tell me something that your intuition leads you first to suspect that anyone deeming Obama vulnerable is likely to be merely indulging a gratuitous feel-bad vibe of some kind.
Sure you’re not projecting a reciprocal of your own gratuitous, head-in-the-sand feel-good vibe for your man?
I mean, here’s yet another interlocutor on this board who uses the word “feelings” instead of “thoughts.” Is this because in your mind, anyone opposing Obama can’t possibly be doing so on the merits of reason — only emotion?
I apologize rasqual – maybe I’m going about it wrong.
if I wanted to know the weather, I would simply look at weather.com and see the forecast in my area. I guess I should be calling a random person and seeing their thoughts.
If I wanted to know if my Chiefs were doing well, I’d look at the standings – maybe I should just find a drunk fan somewhere and ask.
And if I wanted to see if people were indeed becoming less enamored with Obama, I’d look at the widely available statistical measures out there. I guess I should just ask you.
A quick note – you didn’t say he was vulnerable (the statement I was questioning) – I would agree with that, and have agreed with that.
You said - “The pan in this balance is already tipping because Obama is being understood by more and more people, with each passing month, as a lightweight.”
Hmmm….so Rasqual, you’re equating Romney to a ravenous bear? And yet you think we should elect him to power? Interesting.
See here’s the thing, I’d rather not elect anyone who isn’t 100% pro-life and who isn’t 100% in support of the Constitution. But as long as we are willing to settle the GOP will keep handing us these types of “conservatives” and we will keep sliding down the slippery slope to tyranny.
Tyranny under Romney will be no better than tyranny under Obama. Stop pretending there is a difference between the two! there isn’t! They are both puppets of the same nwo.
Why isolate the paragraph? The opening of the second was a synthetic addition to the assertion of the first:
You don’t need quality to galvanize the conservative base. Loathing of the current administration is sufficient to galvanize all conservatives. Heck, loathing of the president is sufficient to galvanize independents, at this point, with the news getting no better for the economy.
The pan in this balance is already tipping because Obama is being understood by more and more people, with each passing month, as a lightweight.
My whole rationale for claiming Romney doesn’t need a stellar veep pick is that the threat posed by Obama is not great enough that Romney needs to reach deep into a bag of Awesome Tricks. Yes, that’s “saying” Obama is vulnerable. O’s vulnerability means you don’t need to waste a Ryan by veeping him.
If you’re clinging only to the polls, that’s fine. That’s today’s indicator. But economic (and other news) that benefits no one — non-partisan bad news, right? — will fund tomorrow’s polls, and next week’s polls, and next month’s polls. If you want to know what people will think in a couple months, take care to understand that news today that will be consequential for voters in coming weeks, and will have their attention.
I’m trying to think, EG, not just stare at someone else’s poll work.
How does that make you feel?
Sydney: No, it’s analogy that accepts for purposes of making it, the terms of my interlocutor. That’s how reason works. I don’t affirm, myself, the interlocutor’s beliefs. I speak from those beliefs in order to point out a problem with their implications. This is called reductio ad absurdum.
Either Obama or Romney will be president. And for many Congressional districts, the coattails of an electorate galvanized for Romney would get conservatives you’d like into office. But if your attitude’s infectious, a lot of conservatives in those districts might just stay home.
Imagining that some third party or third candidate would usher in the millennium is just more Obama-style idolatry. There IS no alternative to “lesser of (n) evils.” The premise of our entire Republic is that we can’t trust anyone. But we still have to actually elect someone. People who can’t live with this existential problem end up either entertaining delusions that the system’s broke because vunderful people can’t get into office (it’s not broke — there ARE NO PERFECT CANDIDATES), or . . . or something.
Frankly, you seem to be falling into the hope and change trap. If there were just a perfect candidate, everything would be fine!
Wake up. Be an adult. This is the real world. And our Constitution was created by adults to deal with this real world — not a world that’s always putting its responsibility to vote on hold until Mr. Perfect comes along.
There are allies and then there are cobelligerents. If you can’t deem someone an ally, you may need to count on them as cobelligerents. If you can’t even admit that they’re capable of that, then you’re just swallowing the koolaid of your own unreasoning conceits.
In short, folks, it’s not as important to be attracted by Romney as to be repulsed by Obama. That’s where the energy is — that Obama’s done badly. That negative on Obama obviates star power on the Republican side (and these are the only “sides” that matter in this election, sorry folks). Romney doesn’t need to be a hero. He doesn’t need to be perfect. And that’s a good thing, because we’re as delusory as hopenchange loons if that’s what we think candidates need to be. Especially if we’re Christians. We might as well just say “Caesar is Lord” now, if what we’re about is expecting politicians we can praise at every turn.
Vote the worst rascals out and hold the ones we prefer on a short leash we can yank on. That’s the best we can do this side of the eschaton. Nationally, keep their power to a minimum. Keep the control of your life — and of other citizens — at your and their local level. You should be able to march a mob to the nearby home of pols who most affect your life. Don’t place your hopes on those who spend their time in the loony bin that is distant Washington — a center of power that corrupts beyond belief.
Well said rasqual. It’s very simple for me. Obama is an evil man. That we know. Anyone other than a Hitler, a Stalin, or a Pol Pot would be more acceptable as president.
rasqual
This is EXACTLY what Democrats were saying in 2004…they hated the current president so much, they thought that hatred would carry them to victory. But instead of running a campaign of ideas, they got a flip flopping, elitest northeastern pretty boy who was a career politician, out of step with the mainstream, and lost the election.
Mitt Romney = John Kerry
(ps – I didn’t vote for Kerry)
Sorry EG, poisoning the well won’t work. You’re showing you’re nuts. ;-D
It’s not hatred, EG. You’re just mouthing “the narrative.” Conservatives actually disagree with Obama’s policies. That’s unlike the anti-war loons that “hated” Bush. Accurate, that. Because with Obama doubling down on Bush’s use of the supposed hated executive power, and of drones and the like, it’s become evident that this is all it was for Democrats — not a real policy difference, but mere hatred of Bush. That’s why it was called “BDS”.
There’s really no Obama Derangement Syndrome. There’s mere incredulity that Democrats refuse to acknowledge, from sheer tribal loyalty, that they elected a pantywaist lunatic in the name of a shallow campaign slogan.
Doggoned editing window. I had intended to insult Obama, but didn’t get around to it in that last post.
A pantywaist lunatic FROM CHICAGO.
It’s an insult that has the benefit of also being accurately descriptive. ;-D
Rasqual -
What policies? Has Obama actually been able to do anything economically? With 60 votes needed in the senate, I deem the whole Obama-Senate-House working relationship as utterly dysfunctional. Furthermore, the rhetoric on the right doesn’t match the actual policies. You have right wing nutjobs running around yelling socialist, or that he’s taking guns – it makes me wonder if some of the right wingers understand the actual policies at all?
Regardless, it will be an interesting election. Last time, it was ‘Hope and Change’ vs “We’re a couple of Mavericks”.
This time, Obama seems all over the place trying to put out fires, and Romney throws every position conceivable against the wall to see what sticks and what doesn’t.
God help our country!
I can agree with one thing you said Ex-GOP. God help our country! Amen to that.
Ex – how about that first 2 year term when your man had both houses of Congress, including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? what exactly did they accomplish then, other than an overbearing health care takeover that will be part of our undoing? what exactly did they do to fix the economy? what did they do for unemployment? oh yeah, a stimulus that they said would stop unemployment from going over 8% – only it actually went over 10 and is STILL over 8
Hey Xalisae, I think your recommendation of Col. Allen West may be the best choice, I have to consider who is fighter enough to take on VP against this administration and strong enough to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. I really had not serously considered him before but you have a very good point (as usual I might add). As I wrote on a different thread, before this election is over Chicago-style thug politics will be played to perfection including the “race card”, they are just “warming up”. The VP candidate has to be a warrior, a true American “no B.S.” hero. They will come after him but I don’t believe he will back down, just like he didn’t when he fought in the Middle East.
Bryan -
It was actually one year – Brown took office in February of 2010 – Obama came in January of 2009 – so 13 months.
But it was a pretty successful 13 months – small business credit lending had all but ceased. The auto industry was on the verge of going under. The global economy was at risk. The actions taken played a part in reversing that.
But you can’t pass a couple of bills, spend a few bucks, and then be done with it – look back at Reagan and congress and all the bills, tax adjustments, etc to get the economy going back in the early 80’s. It would be foolish to suggest that some quick spending, tax cuts, and policy changes – passed once and left alone – that it would be sufficient for a global crisis such as this.
Unless Jesus Himself runs for president, we will always be voting for the lesser of two evils.
Sydney M, Cranky Catholic, and others, I understand – I was of the same thinking years ago – but no more. Now my vote counts.
A pregnant woman is walking towards Planned Parenthood. Do we decide not to give her the option to go to the nearest pregnancy resource center because the counselors there are not 100% effective at helping women to choose life (whereas PP is what, like 90% certain to abort her child?)
A pregnant woman is walking towards Planned Parenthood. Do we decide not to give her the option to go to the nearest pregnancy resource center because the counselors there are not 100% effective at helping women to choose life (whereas PP is what, like 90% certain to abort her child?
You allow her to make her own decision.
There’s two different ways of looking at it:
– In regards to abortion, in a choice between a pro-choicer and somebody who is more moderate like Romney – it is better to go with the lesser of two evils.
– Voting for a lesser of two evils is a signal to the party that this is the direction to move in.
I’ve long said that this election is going to give second birth to the tea party, or kill it. If Romney wins, I think the far right of the conservative party takes a big step back. If Romney loses, the general consensus will be “if they would have picked a REAL conservative…”
Dear cc ~ My scenario was intended as an analogy, but it is indeed more than that, as you have highlighted. So you would advocate giving her information, resources, help, and all options so she could choose among them? You should recommend this approach to your friends at PP.
How about NOBODY! Romney is not qualified to be the Republican Party nominee. His liberal, child-killing, pro-homosexual record isn’t even debatable.
Ahem.
Adult thinking, please.
We have two candidates.
Beating your fists and feet against the floor and demanding that someone give you a better candidate will not make it happen.
Grow up and vote for the least worst candidate. Or just dive into idolatry and leave a place at the table in your mind for whatever Elijah you imagine hasn’t come yet, but is surely just around the corner.
EG: I have no idea why you’d imagine that Romney winning means diminution of the tea party. As a grass roots movement, its influence is greater in local and regional politics.
Seriously, I see so damned much veneration of the presidency in this board it’s ridiculous. Gotta be a perfect candidate! or, The fate of one dude presages the fate of the tea party!
Seriously, are you people nuts?
I’ll ask it again: are you people nuts?
We vote for the least bad or most good candidate. If we lack the latter choice, we automatically have the former. Oh there’ll be the delusional types who claim “they’re both the same!” — which merely indicates someone hasn’t done, and doesn’t want to do, their due diligence in determining the real differences and accepting responsibility for holding their nose and doing the best that can be done far short of ideals they’re delusional to hold out for.
What are some of you people, existential docetics?