Skip to comments.Poll: Christie as VP helps Romney the most, Rubio would hurt candidacy
Posted on 04/20/2012 5:59:13 PM PDT by Bratch
Marco Rubio may not be the dream running mate for Mitt Romney that he has been made out to be. The results of a Public Policy Polling poll released Thursday indicate that with Rubio as a running mate, Romney would actually lose traction against President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.
If he picks Chris Christie, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee or Jeb Bush, however, he becomes a stronger candidate.
In a head-to-head match up against Obama, Romney currently trails the president by a 49-46 margin. But the poll found that the right running mate could boost his chances.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
“Romney and Christie deserve each other.”
Despite many defects, Christie is the better man by far, and actually has opposed leftists on occasion. That said, I don’t think he wants to be copilot on a Kamikaze mission.
Oh. This is the Republican ticket.
Well, I'm going to keep my guns as long as I'm breathing. Might as well keep my vote, too.
What are they going to do? Turn in their CPUSA cards and whine?
Compare him to McCarthy? (who was right!)
Someone with the guts to call it as it is is a good first step to getting America back on the right track. If we can't/won't see where we are, we'll never get the course corrections down.
The problem with Rubio in my mind is that he’s said repeatedly he won’t do it, which suggests to me that he’s got skeletons. The rumor I’ve heard going around the media is that he’s had affairs.
Please feel free to comment on the pros and cons of John Bolton as the GOP VP candidate.
When did Mitt get the nomination? I thought the GOP fix was in on Hussein.
Bolton would add certain strengths, but might have been a better choice for a more conservative nominee than Mitt. Mitt needs someone very much a tea party type - maybe West, maybe Rubio, maybe DeMint, etc.
(Something like a DeMint-Bolton ticket would have been awesome though)
No baggage, smart, appealing, conservative, experienced money man, from a heartland state, energetic, articulate, tough, seasoned campaigner.
Jeb Bush's name was thrown up in the air like a flag to see if anyone will salute. I don't see any big rush to salute. To me, he's warmed-over soup....plus, puh-leez, let's stay outta da bushes.
I’d give Bolton the Secretary of State job.
Well, Bolton would be a good fit with Romney, since he supports homosexual fake marriage.
How about Gen Petraeous as VP? He certainly has seen enough of what Bam has been doing to the country. He is now out of the military and is in charge of the CIA. If he is asked he might consider it and would boost any ticket.
I don't like any of them. I'm so glad I'm not voting for Romney.
I don’t care what flavor of koolaid is offered up with the Romney poison, or even if they try to conceal it in a cup of the finest wine. I ain’t drinking it.
That would be a demotion. We need him in the Congress.
Personally, I don’t think Christie would be an asset to the ticket. He has a tendency to flap his gums like Biden, except in a bombastic way. I would go with Ryan, maybe Bush as a fall-back. Or possibly Portman or Daniels.
Rubio is not sufficiently vetted.
Last time around Mark Sanford seemed like an obvious VP pick but was barely mentioned--we later found out why. Likewise on the Democrat side, why Bill Richardson never got selected.
Whether McCarthy was right doesn’t matter—the public has been indoctrinated for 60 years by the media and the public schools and colleges to think of him as a horrible monster who ruined the lives of innocent people. It’s hard to see much daylight nowadays between the CPUSA and the Fellow Travelers’ Party, otherwise known as the Democrats—so if people are willing to vote for Democrats calling attention to the resemblances to the CP party line is probably not going to have much impact.
I feel like Romney has got to go with vetted choices. The media will have a field day with anyone who’s not completely vetted. That makes Bush the obvious choice. He’s been vetted every way imaginable. But Daniels and possibly Portman might also be sufficiently vetted. Christie has been vetted, but I don’t think we need someone who’s penchant is to insult people in the crowd for saying dumb things. For the most part, your Pres. candidate wants a VP nominee who melds with the crowd and is not controversial. Also someone who looks Presidential in a debate with Biden, but that won’t be hard for any of these guys.
At this point I would probably put Paul Ryan as my first choice--but don't like losing him from the House of Representatives. Whoever the VP choice is, the media will make that person "controversial."
There was an interesting BookTV segment this morning on C-SPAN with a man named Ferris or Farris who has a new book out on men who never became President but changed the country. His choice for the one who had the most impact was Henry Clay--his explanation was interesting. I had heard most of the facts before but he tied them together in a better way than I had heard (like Henry Clay's "national system" being a reaction to the weaknesses the country showed in the War of 1812, and how his creation of the Whig Party gave us the two-party system instead of the multiparty systems that most European countries have developed).
He is a big admirer of Thomas Dewey and thought he would have done a much better job than Truman did after Truman was re-elected. (Truman had some successes but they were mostly in his first term--his second term was largely a disaster.)
I hadn't known that Truman in the 1948 campaign had likened the Republicans to the Nazis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.