Who will be Mitt's running mate?

Surprised Bobby Jindal's name is not being mentioned. He. Has the conservative credentials, good backstory and would help lock up the South for Romney IMO.

He also seemed to be out in front of the BP disaster (at least he handled it much better than Blanco handled Katrina). Again, just a thought

 

And what a speech giver!

 

A funny semi-dark-colored fella is not going to "lock up the South" for anybody.

 

I like Jindal, but what does he bring to the ticket? It's not like Romney is going to struggle to deliver Louisiana and Mississippi.

The last article I read about who Romney might pick did mention Jindal, but it also said that his popularity was waned a bit in the last year or so and he has taken (maybe not by choice, I don't know) a much lower profile.

Does serving in Bush's cabinet hurt Portman?

I don't know where Christie sits in all of this. I saw some interview recently where he seemed to warm to the thought of being on the ticket, which was the first time he seemed to be that way.

 

Also, Jindal professes to be a Shiite Catholic pretty much in the Santorum mold, which will NOT help with the yee-hawww southern evangelist wing.

Plus there's the exorcism thing.

 

To be honest, I think you're forgeting about that whole - surprisingly influential - Flannery O'Connor block.

 

I don't think he's been as vocal on the Catholic stuff as Santorum, but yeah, I think there are enough issues with Jindal that Romney won't consider him.

Rubio makes sense. Portman makes sense. McDonnell makes some sense. Paul Ryan would be interesting from a "This is going to be all about the economy" standpoint, but his hardline stances on certain issues would hurt Romney in some key states.

I like Christie more than any republican out there, but I would be curious how much of a boost he would give Romney. He might be too moderate for some of the base.

If he picks someone like Pawlenty, or goes the "safe and boring" route, he deserves to lose.

 

Shiite Catholic might be the dumbest of the terms you've coined.

Shiites are members of one of the two main branches of Islam. There is nothing in the term to indicate a stricter adherence to doctrine or radicalism.

 

In all honesty - I'm not sure there is any VP candidate who will help Romney out - he is just not a likable person, he has nothing new or fresh to offer and "outrage and hatred" of Obama is nowhere close to the level it would need for it to be in order to have people voting for Romney just to get rid of Obama.

 

He's used it many times before.... Yes, it is offensive, but remember who we're talking about...

 

I still expect Obama to win in November, but it does say a lot that Romney has been consistently gaining ground over the last month. As I've said before, I don't understand it, but that's what the polls say.

If the election really came down to one or two percentage points, I think the right VP choice could make a difference. I think a lot will depend on whether Obama's gay marriage stance hurts him in a couple states that he won in 2008 like North Carolina.

 

The term "Shiite Catholic" is particularly fun because one of the main cornerstones of their agenda is hysterical anti-Islamic rhetoric and it drives them (even more) batshit berserko to be compared to any brand of Muslims in any way.

And yeah, it's offensive. It's fully intended to be. To a group richly deserving plenty of offense, and spectacularly unconcerned about the offense they monotonously dish out themselves.