• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2016 Republican Vice Presidential Primary (Hypothetical)

Your choice for Republican Vice Presidential Nomination, 2016

  • Bobby Jindal

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • John Thune

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Rob Portman

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mary Fallin

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jeb Bush

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • John Kasich

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    12

Tothian

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
555
Reaction score
104
Location
New Jersey, United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Alright, so I know that there is no official Vice Presidential Primary. Presidential Nominees traditionally select a running mate and they are officially nominated at the Convention, either by a vote from the delegates or sometimes a voice vote for quicker nomination.

There is or was something called the Vice Presidential Straw Poll. I don't think it was official and people would vote for all sorts of unusual choices like a U.S. President who had been dead for several decades, or for Mickey Mouse.

It might have either been in New Hampshire and/or Minnesota.

ANYWAY, I'm gonna try something different with this poll. Again, it's just for fun. I already have the GOP Presidential Primary for 2016 poll thread here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/181089-2016-republican-primary-28.html

Here's one for the VP Nomination. I'm not going to add any of the candidates that I put in the Presidential Primary Poll, but I will again leave the "Other (Please specify)" option.

Please don't put the "It's too early to decide comments". Sure, it's your right to say what you wish if you really feel that way. But let me explain the reason I ask that. Partially it's because they're fun to see what people would think, assuming it were the time to decide that. OR, which potential VP candidates they think go best with which candidates. I just want to know which one you would prefer to run with your preferred candidate.

I personally don't believe it's ever too early to discuss. Sure, your opinion can change. But if you know what you think now and why, then you'll better understand what you think then, and why.
 
I voted Scott Walker. He's part of the Tea Party and he does have experience, both as a Governor, and also before being Governor, he was originally a member of the State Assembly - elected in his late mid 20's, served 9 years, then has been a County Executive for over 8 years. Assuming he is re-elected in 2014 - in which he does lead - despite slim lead it is a consistent lead - he will have been Governor for 6 years by the 2016 election.

Ted Cruz is actually my top choice for President. So to balance my ideological favorite with someone who has executive experience, I think that would be good too.

Cruz/Walker 2016.
 
Whoever makes speeches that dont resemble a Monty Python speech, or who does not make me fear that WW3 is right arround the corner.

Dont you have another 3 years until election?
 
Whoever makes speeches that dont resemble a Monty Python speech, or who does not make me fear that WW3 is right arround the corner.

Dont you have another 3 years until election?

Yes. And I knew that people would ask that. That's why I wrote what I wrote. Please read- and vote!
 
Yes. And I knew that people would ask that. That's why I wrote what I wrote. Please read- and vote!

You do know that in these 3 years alot of things can happen?

The nazis might launch an invasion from their secret moon base.
 
I already answered the question before you asked it.

No you didnt.

You merely wrote that you wrote something, your motivations are unclear.
 
None of the above. First of all, you have to be from a different state as the Presidential nominee, so if Paul Ryan is nominated, Walker is right out.

But all of the names there are "names." The last thing you want as a Presidential candidate is a VP who draws attention away from you. It has to be someone without a lot of negative baggage - again Walker is out. Also Jeb Bush & Jon Thune. Jindal and Bush are more likely to be at the top of the ticket. A good VP nominee is also someone that meshes with the Presidential nom - you don't want ideological distance.

Cruz/Walker? You really don't want to win do you? That would be like the Dems going with a Pelosi/Reid ticket.
 
None of the above. First of all, you have to be from a different state as the Presidential nominee, so if Paul Ryan is nominated, Walker is right out.

But all of the names there are "names." The last thing you want as a Presidential candidate is a VP who draws attention away from you. It has to be someone without a lot of negative baggage - again Walker is out. Also Jeb Bush & Jon Thune. Jindal and Bush are more likely to be at the top of the ticket. A good VP nominee is also someone that meshes with the Presidential nom - you don't want ideological distance.

Cruz/Walker? You really don't want to win do you? That would be like the Dems going with a Pelosi/Reid ticket.

I have repeatedly said that I want Cruz to win. I don't care about the gop 'label' winning. I want someone of my ideology to win. Ted Cruz is that. Stop being deceived and stop hating Ted Cruz. He's the best choice there is.

I hate it when people say something so stupid "oh you want Ted Cruz to win? I guess you don't want to win." that's the stupidest thing anyone could ever say to me. If you nominate Christie for President for the sake of electability, it isn't really winning because then I wouldn't have someone of my ideology winning. People need to elect defenders of freedom.

I don't think Paul Ryan would be nominated and win nomination. But it is possible.
 
I have repeatedly said that I want Cruz to win. I don't care about the gop 'label' winning. I want someone of my ideology to win. Ted Cruz is that. Stop being deceived and stop hating Ted Cruz. He's the best choice there is.

I hate it when people say something so stupid "oh you want Ted Cruz to win? I guess you don't want to win." that's the stupidest thing anyone could ever say to me. If you nominate Christie for President for the sake of electability, it isn't really winning because then I wouldn't have someone of my ideology winning. People need to elect defenders of freedom.

I don't think Paul Ryan would be nominated and win nomination. But it is possible.

Sure, we've already had 2 failures this century, why not make it 3?

Ted Cruz sends moderates and actual libertarians running for the hills.
 
Sure, we've already had 2 failures this century, why not make it 3?

Ted Cruz sends moderates and actual libertarians running for the hills.

Alright, so the moderates don't have to vote in 2016 if they don't want. Or they can vote for a third party.

The libertarians will vote for Ted Cruz, because he supports freedom.

Ted Cruz won't be a mistake. He has the potential of being a successful two term President.
 
9 votes.

Scott Walker 33%
Nikki Haley 11%
Kelly Ayotte 11%
Jeb Bush 11%

Come on people more votes! So far last I checked the Presidential Primary poll, 63 voted, and Rand Paul was the frontrunner.

So according to the members of this forum, we would have a Rand Paul/Scott Walker ticket in 2016. Or so it seems so far, until more people vote!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/181089-2016-republican-primary.html
 
Plus also, the more people vote in these polls, I can make fun hypothetical 2016 general-election matchups. I might do temporarily polls on them, while allowing the consideration of the possibility that the primary poll numbers in these polls will change. So they could be like weekly or monthly polls or something like that.
 
Alright, so I know that there is no official Vice Presidential Primary. Presidential Nominees traditionally select a running mate and they are officially nominated at the Convention, either by a vote from the delegates or sometimes a voice vote for quicker nomination.

There is or was something called the Vice Presidential Straw Poll. I don't think it was official and people would vote for all sorts of unusual choices like a U.S. President who had been dead for several decades, or for Mickey Mouse.

It might have either been in New Hampshire and/or Minnesota.

ANYWAY, I'm gonna try something different with this poll. Again, it's just for fun. I already have the GOP Presidential Primary for 2016 poll thread here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/181089-2016-republican-primary-28.html

Here's one for the VP Nomination. I'm not going to add any of the candidates that I put in the Presidential Primary Poll, but I will again leave the "Other (Please specify)" option.

Please don't put the "It's too early to decide comments". Sure, it's your right to say what you wish if you really feel that way. But let me explain the reason I ask that. Partially it's because they're fun to see what people would think, assuming it were the time to decide that. OR, which potential VP candidates they think go best with which candidates. I just want to know which one you would prefer to run with your preferred candidate.

I personally don't believe it's ever too early to discuss. Sure, your opinion can change. But if you know what you think now and why, then you'll better understand what you think then, and why.

My first choice would be Susanna Martinez, the governor of NM especially if Christie was the presidential nominee. I am sure she could deliver NM and possibly be enough to swing Colorado into the GOP column. Second choice would probably be either Kasich or Portman from Ohio, a must win swing state regardless of who was the presidential nominee. I do not think Jeb Bush or Rubio would settle for number two so I discount them. I would also discount all those on your list from a reliable red state. I am a numbers guy so in choosing a VP I would want him/her to be able to deliver either a swing state or a reliable blue state.
 
My first choice would be Susanna Martinez, the governor of NM especially if Christie was the presidential nominee. I am sure she could deliver NM and possibly be enough to swing Colorado into the GOP column. Second choice would probably be either Kasich or Portman from Ohio, a must win swing state regardless of who was the presidential nominee. I do not think Jeb Bush or Rubio would settle for number two so I discount them. I would also discount all those on your list from a reliable red state. I am a numbers guy so in choosing a VP I would want him/her to be able to deliver either a swing state or a reliable blue state.

Susana Martinez wouldn't do it because she has a disabled sister to take care of so she wouldn't want to be too far from her state.

Jeb Bush or Rubio I don't think would be against it. After all, Jeb Bush's father was the VP for 8 years, which helped get him elected to the Presidency in 1988. And as for Marco Rubio, he was the #3 man in Florida from 2007 - 200, and was almost going to drop out of the Senate race in 2010 to run for State Attorney General instead, but because Charlie Crist's campaign people were going to try to talk Rubio out of the race, he stayed in out of spite. I would not want either of them on the ticket.

John Kasich I don't think is too bad of a choice, but that's only from the very little bit I know about him.
 
Susana Martinez wouldn't do it because she has a disabled sister to take care of so she wouldn't want to be too far from her state.

Jeb Bush or Rubio I don't think would be against it. After all, Jeb Bush's father was the VP for 8 years, which helped get him elected to the Presidency in 1988. And as for Marco Rubio, he was the #3 man in Florida from 2007 - 200, and was almost going to drop out of the Senate race in 2010 to run for State Attorney General instead, but because Charlie Crist's campaign people were going to try to talk Rubio out of the race, he stayed in out of spite. I would not want either of them on the ticket.

John Kasich I don't think is too bad of a choice, but that's only from the very little bit I know about him.

2016 is really far way, at least in political terms. I really am concentrating on next years elections. I didn't know about Martinez's sister. Even so, I think she would be ideal. But I am not one to tell the Republicans anything as I am not one. I still claim the Reform Party although I am probably the only member left in Georgia to do so. For some reason neither Jeb Bush or Rubio strike me as someone who would accept number two. More of a gut feeling than anything I know.

You know JFK battled LBJ for the Democratic nomination back in 1960 and JFK choose LBJ to be his VP against the wishes of most in the JFK camp. In 1980 Reagan and Bush I squared off and Reagan choose Bush I to be his VP. I have always wondered why that doesn't happened more often. I suppose after a rough primary season there is too many hurt feelings.
 
Susan martinez
 
2016 is really far way, at least in political terms. I really am concentrating on next years elections. I didn't know about Martinez's sister. Even so, I think she would be ideal. But I am not one to tell the Republicans anything as I am not one. I still claim the Reform Party although I am probably the only member left in Georgia to do so. For some reason neither Jeb Bush or Rubio strike me as someone who would accept number two. More of a gut feeling than anything I know.

You know JFK battled LBJ for the Democratic nomination back in 1960 and JFK choose LBJ to be his VP against the wishes of most in the JFK camp. In 1980 Reagan and Bush I squared off and Reagan choose Bush I to be his VP. I have always wondered why that doesn't happened more often. I suppose after a rough primary season there is too many hurt feelings.

It is not as far as we think. Sure, a lot can happen. But these polls help people better understand how people think now - considering how things are going now at the moment - so it'll better help candidates and voters then.

Bush less likely, since he had been a Governor, and was out of the loop for so long. 10 years out of office. Marco Rubio is a Senator and a lot of them are more likely to accept VP Nomination as it's an easier path to the Presidency for them.

I do remember that about JFK & LBJ. How JFK offered it to him hoping he would not accept it - for hopes that LBJ would help JFK win. There were rumors he was going to pick either Florida U.S. Senator George Smathers or North Carolina Governor (and future U.S. Senator) Terry Sanford.

Reagan picked a liberal Republican Senator Richard Schweiker to be his running mate in 1976 - if he were to win the nomination - even though he didn't win the nomination. So it isn't a surprise that he chose the moderate former CIA Director (& also former Congressman, former U.S. Senate Nominee, former RNC Chairman, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) George H.W. Bush in 1980.

It was interesting that the moderate - or liberal - Republican John McCain chose the conservative Republican Sarah Palin to be his running mate in 2008 - although she was considered to be a "high risk, high reward" choice for VP.
 
I will go for Jindal - he has the best SNL potential.
 
Really? How do you figure? He seems like a pretty average guy.

I don't know...he has a "Mister Rogers Neighborhood" kinda vibe.
 
It is not as far as we think. Sure, a lot can happen. But these polls help people better understand how people think now - considering how things are going now at the moment - so it'll better help candidates and voters then.

Bush less likely, since he had been a Governor, and was out of the loop for so long. 10 years out of office. Marco Rubio is a Senator and a lot of them are more likely to accept VP Nomination as it's an easier path to the Presidency for them.

I do remember that about JFK & LBJ. How JFK offered it to him hoping he would not accept it - for hopes that LBJ would help JFK win. There were rumors he was going to pick either Florida U.S. Senator George Smathers or North Carolina Governor (and future U.S. Senator) Terry Sanford.

Reagan picked a liberal Republican Senator Richard Schweiker to be his running mate in 1976 - if he were to win the nomination - even though he didn't win the nomination. So it isn't a surprise that he chose the moderate former CIA Director (& also former Congressman, former U.S. Senate Nominee, former RNC Chairman, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) George H.W. Bush in 1980.

It was interesting that the moderate - or liberal - Republican John McCain chose the conservative Republican Sarah Palin to be his running mate in 2008 - although she was considered to be a "high risk, high reward" choice for VP.

I have been told that a presidential nominee when picking a VP to run with him looks toward someone who might deliver a swing state or a state that the nominee might not take without him. Then there is also the ideological balance of the ticket and I think this is what McCain looked at. To appease the hard line conservatives with the added plus factor Palin was a woman.

The choice of Palin shocked me as it came out of the blue. McCain had Alaska won and its 3 EV were insignificant in the grand scheme of thing. So the choice had to be IMO that she was a woman and her ideological views would balance the ticket. I do not think whoever McCain would have picked would have made any difference, the electorate were just tired of Bush II and Republican rule and any Tom, Dick or Hillary the Democrats nominated would have won. But being a numbers guy, that choice made no sense.

Ryan made no sense to me last year either. Romney had 3 swing states in the East he had to win to have a chance, Virginia, Ohio and Florida. Better he picked someone from one of those three states that might have swung that state into his column. Wisconsin was pretty much always listed in either the likely or solid column for the Democrats. But Romney had a trust factor with many conservatives within the Republican party and he probably choose Ryan to help him there. I do know Georgia Republicans were very unenthusiastic with Romney. Yeah they voted for him, but you never did see the amount of bumper stickers like for Bush II or the campaign signs or any type of real backing for Romney.

As I look at the electoral map for 2016 I can fill in the blue and red without knowing the candidates pretty easily except for the following states, NH, VA, NC, FL, OH, NV and perhaps IA. This means whoever is the Democratic nominee is probably starting out with a 256-191 advantage. Without going into this this real deep, this is where Christie as the GOP nominee has a great advantage, number wise that is. He take his NJ's 14 EV away from the Democrats and puts them in the Republican Column and may place DE, CT, and PA into the swing state column, putting those states into play subtracting their EV from the Dems leaving the starting point at 212-205 or almost even.

Now you add a John Kasich or a Bob Portman from Ohio as his VP which would help Christie swing also PA into the republican column you would have a 243-212 advantage for the Republicans and even without PA it would be 232-222 advantage. No regional balance I know, but remember the Democrats were very successful in this strategy with Clinton/Gore back in 1992. A Northeasterner and a Midwesterner. Crazy, not for a numbers guy.
 
I'd vote For Chris Christie being the VP He would make a great #2 behind a Paul Ryan. I'd even be excited about a Chris Christie with Paul Ryan again the VP nominee, though I doubt Mr. Ryan is interested in being #2 again
 
I have been told that a presidential nominee when picking a VP to run with him looks toward someone who might deliver a swing state or a state that the nominee might not take without him. Then there is also the ideological balance of the ticket and I think this is what McCain looked at. To appease the hard line conservatives with the added plus factor Palin was a woman.

The choice of Palin shocked me as it came out of the blue. McCain had Alaska won and its 3 EV were insignificant in the grand scheme of thing. So the choice had to be IMO that she was a woman and her ideological views would balance the ticket. I do not think whoever McCain would have picked would have made any difference, the electorate were just tired of Bush II and Republican rule and any Tom, Dick or Hillary the Democrats nominated would have won. But being a numbers guy, that choice made no sense.

Ryan made no sense to me last year either. Romney had 3 swing states in the East he had to win to have a chance, Virginia, Ohio and Florida. Better he picked someone from one of those three states that might have swung that state into his column. Wisconsin was pretty much always listed in either the likely or solid column for the Democrats. But Romney had a trust factor with many conservatives within the Republican party and he probably choose Ryan to help him there. I do know Georgia Republicans were very unenthusiastic with Romney. Yeah they voted for him, but you never did see the amount of bumper stickers like for Bush II or the campaign signs or any type of real backing for Romney.

As I look at the electoral map for 2016 I can fill in the blue and red without knowing the candidates pretty easily except for the following states, NH, VA, NC, FL, OH, NV and perhaps IA. This means whoever is the Democratic nominee is probably starting out with a 256-191 advantage. Without going into this this real deep, this is where Christie as the GOP nominee has a great advantage, number wise that is. He take his NJ's 14 EV away from the Democrats and puts them in the Republican Column and may place DE, CT, and PA into the swing state column, putting those states into play subtracting their EV from the Dems leaving the starting point at 212-205 or almost even.

Now you add a John Kasich or a Bob Portman from Ohio as his VP which would help Christie swing also PA into the republican column you would have a 243-212 advantage for the Republicans and even without PA it would be 232-222 advantage. No regional balance I know, but remember the Democrats were very successful in this strategy with Clinton/Gore back in 1992. A Northeasterner and a Midwesterner. Crazy, not for a numbers guy.

Palin was somewhat of a surprise choice because she was never listed on McCain's short list. But names like former Homeland Security Secretary/former Gov. Tom Ridge, then-Connecticut U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and then-Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. BUT, he did suggest that Obama should have picked Hillary as a running mate. So obviously he wanted to pick a woman himself.

Not always do the poll numbers stay the same. They change with the candidates each election - as younger people who were 14 in the previous election are now 18 and can vote. And not to sound negative, but as older people and other people tend to die, or even people who are either busy or forget to or don't care to vote, the numbers change. We never get 100% of registered voters to vote. A lot of it is the campaign itself, for the undecided voters. Some are unwaveringly supporting their own party. But we can't think that someone is automatically just gonna win a state.

Some think LBJ helped JFK win Texas. But, it should be known that that doesn't always work, considering that the 2000 Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee, then-Vice President Al Gore - lost his own state of Tennessee.

2004 Democratic VP Nominee, North Carolina U.S. Sen. John Edwards lost his own state.

House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan the 2012 GOP VP Nominee lost his state of Wisconsin.

So that's an outdated theory. Just like not all incumbent Governors and Senators win re-election in their states.

Chris Christie is not even worth nominating. He's just a moderate. I don't care about catering to voters. Yes, I want my candidates to win. But my candidates are not defined by a title. They are defined by ideals. I care about educating people about why my ideals matter and they work better in practice, not just sound nice in theory.

If it's Hillary VS. Christie - realistically it could go either way but if they win I would possibly support former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson. He sought GOP Nod in 2012 but instead won the Libertarian Nomination. He was an effective two term Governor. Went into office in 1995 with a huge budget deficit, and left office 8 years later with a huge budget surplus. And he wants to legalize marijuana.
 
Back
Top Bottom