The columnist suggests Nikki Haley, and it makes sense in may ways.
Sarah Palin? No. Tired of TV reality garbage. Already have a tv show host for our nominee.
I was trying to think of a woman who had government experience, somebody with class, conservative, could hold their own in a debate, would be a decent president if the need arose, etc. Michelle Bachmann came to mind. The Left hates her & tried hard to beat her when she was running for office .... a lot of the Repubs hate her because she was Tea Party. Now, would she agree to running with Trump? No telling. She’s probably TOO conservative for many. There were some potential campaign ethics issues that went away when she retired. I like her better than Haley who I liked a lot when she first took office & spoke up frequently against Obama, but my enthusiasm for her has gradually drained off - her reply to the SOTUS pretty much killed off what was left.
Haley? Omg. You gotta be kidding. Did you see the victory speech after SC? Jeb ? would have s better chance.
I agree. Nevertheless, this is a fun game we get to play every election, so let's have at it!
It's the old dichotomy between what the candidate needs in order to be elected and what he or she needs to run the country. Those are two very different objectives, and help to explain why Reagan ended up with Bush I, for example, or Kennedy with Johnson.
First, to get elected, it's helpful to have a VP pick that can help win a major demographic, a major state usually but not always, sometimes an entire region, sometimes another demographic entirely such as women or minorities. For this reason I don't think Giuliani is high in the running just because he's from New York. Can Ted Cruz deliver Texas? Maybe, maybe not. What about big swing states such as Florida (Scott, Bush) or Ohio (Kasich)? Is California even a possibility? Those are big prizes. They're awfully tempting.
If you make the decision based on that, though, are you going to get the sort of chief of staff that the actual job requires? Cheney delivered Wyoming to Bush II, and you can't actually find a state with fewer electoral votes, but he was a superb chief of staff. Agnew for Nixon. A President such as 0bama might well provide a chief of staff another way, but part of the monumental incompetence his cabinets have revealed are due in part, IMHO, to his Vice President not filling that function. The system can work, and when it doesn't there's a price to pay.
So, who for Trump? Anyone he damn well pleases. He has no real obligation to set up an heir apparent, a third criteria of office (neither does Sanders and for the same reason), but I'd still like to see Cruz. I just happen to like the guy and see him as a better long-term anchor for the party. YMMV.
“The columnist suggests Nikki Haley, and it makes sense in may ways.”
She has dissed Trump a couple of times that I am aware of. I don’t thing it would be her.
After her performance in SC why would Trump back this back stabbing B$tch.
Nikki Haley? Uh uh. She didn’t endorse Trump and went with establishment guy Rubio.
Is she even eligible to be President? She was born in SC, but both parents were born in India, then went to Canada, then to S. Carolina. Don’t know when/if they became US citizens. (Somewhat like Rubio’s background.)