VEEP selection

Has the selection of a candidate's running mate become watered down?

It seems like anymore the selection of a person for a running mate has become entirely political. Selecting a person because they appeal to a certain demographic, women, hispanic, even a white male, seems to have less to do with doing the job and more with trying to pander to a certain portion of society. Just like McCain's campaign selected a woman to pull some of Hilary's supporters over to the Republican side, it seems to me that President Obama selected Biden to show that at least one of the team was still a white male to push back at the fear of a black man running for the White House. Has the choice of a running mate always been completely political? Are running mates chosen for their ability to attack the other campaign so the candidate can stay somewhat above the fray?

It seems like Cheney, and to a lesser extent Gore, had a lot more influence than who is chosen these days. Biden, maybe he's a behind the scenes guy, but it doesn't seem like he has that much influence and Palin was frozen out by McCain's campaign pretty quickly after she was selected.

I believe you're right... it is TOTALLY political. And the problem?

I believe it has a lot to do with the ego of the candidate. Some have huge egos, others don't. I think Bush chose Cheney because he wanted experience in a certain area. He didn't have an ego problem. McCain chose Palin for the "new idea, outside establishment, and a woman" vote.

I believe Obama chose Biden for 2 reasons. First, Biden is such an idiot that he makes Obama look very polished and intelligent. Obama can't stand anyone who outshines him, so he had to choose someone from the bottom of the list. Second, Biden had the unions in his back pocket.

We'll see what Romney does. I've heard he doesn't have a huge ego like Obama, so he has the ability to choose who he wants. A guy like Christie would outshine him...but might be useful to have a bulldog to send out.

It has always been political. LBJ to balance out Kennedy. East coast Bush I to balance out Reagan.

Biden with his foreign policy experience to balance out a guy with no experience.

But it looks like Romney is leaning torward a boring white guy with less charisma than himself like Rob Portman as opposed to Rubio who might steal the limelight.

Mrs Romney is hinting the VP nod might go to a woman ----

My bet is a lady from New Mexico named Martinez.

One of the reasons the 12th Amendment should be repealed IMNTBHO. Why we ever allowed a political party to come up with a way to narrow our choices down to a single person from that party is beyond my comprehension. We're much more likely to get the best person for the job instead of the best politician occupying the office when we don't allow political parties to constrain our choices before the election is actually held.

PrintSmith wrote: One of the reasons the 12th Amendment should be repealed IMNTBHO. Why we ever allowed a political party to come up with a way to narrow our choices down to a single person from that party is beyond my comprehension. We're much more likely to get the best person for the job instead of the best politician occupying the office when we don't allow political parties to constrain our choices before the election is actually held.

Don't agree. Instead of electing for VP someone who can work with the President and be up to date. Under your scenario, after Lincoln was shot, Douglass, supported by the South, would have become President at the end of the Civil War. Think slavery would still have been repealed as quickly? Or repealed at all?

I heard the Martinez pick won't happen. Too inexperienced.

I heard the Martinez pick won't happen. Too inexperienced.

Maybe Hillary, then........

FredHayek wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: One of the reasons the 12th Amendment should be repealed IMNTBHO. Why we ever allowed a political party to come up with a way to narrow our choices down to a single person from that party is beyond my comprehension. We're much more likely to get the best person for the job instead of the best politician occupying the office when we don't allow political parties to constrain our choices before the election is actually held.

Don't agree. Instead of electing for VP someone who can work with the President and be up to date. Under your scenario, after Lincoln was shot, Douglass, supported by the South, would have become President at the end of the Civil War. Think slavery would still have been repealed as quickly? Or repealed at all?

I heard the Martinez pick won't happen. Too inexperienced.

That didn't keep them from cynically choosing an empty-suit like Palin before...Why should it be different now?

Democracy4Sale wrote:

FredHayek wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: One of the reasons the 12th Amendment should be repealed IMNTBHO. Why we ever allowed a political party to come up with a way to narrow our choices down to a single person from that party is beyond my comprehension. We're much more likely to get the best person for the job instead of the best politician occupying the office when we don't allow political parties to constrain our choices before the election is actually held.

Don't agree. Instead of electing for VP someone who can work with the President and be up to date. Under your scenario, after Lincoln was shot, Douglass, supported by the South, would have become President at the end of the Civil War. Think slavery would still have been repealed as quickly? Or repealed at all?

I heard the Martinez pick won't happen. Too inexperienced.

That didn't keep them from cynically choosing an empty-suit like Palin before...Why should it be different now?

I think it is precisely because of Palin that they won't make a similar choice now.

Even though the choice of Vice President hardly ever affects the vote.