The Thurston Mittens the 3rd Veep Megathread

[derspiess]

Fox News has him down 9 points. Mitt's campaign really sucks. If you can't do better than that against a president running with our economy, you are entering "worst candidate ever" territory.

Oh yeah, *now* you guys take something seriously from Fox News.

Rasmussen has Romney up by 4 among likely voters.  Gallup has them dead even.

[Razgovory]

CNN also has him down.

[Razgovory]

I was thinking more about how he's too afraid to run on his record right now, but yeah.

I haven't been following it that closely, but from what I've seen Obama is running on Obamacare, repealing DADT, the bailout of the auto industry and getting bin Laden amongst other things.

Is he not in fact running on those things? Or are they not his record?

He mentions those things when he goes & speaks with particular interest groups, but makes no mention of them in his campaign ads.  Those are 100% negative Romney attacks.

If I were Obama I wouldn't run on my record, either.

C'mon, you know I could find one positive ad just for the joy of proving someone wrong, don't open yourself up like that.

[alfred russel]

Well, our economy hasn't really been doing all that well since 2000.

2000-2008 was  , 2008-2012 has been .

Not really all on Obama, but I don't know how many voters will make the distinction.

[alfred russel]

Fox News has him down 9 points. Mitt's campaign really sucks. If you can't do better than that against a president running with our economy, you are entering "worst candidate ever" territory.

Oh yeah, *now* you guys take something seriously from Fox News.

Rasmussen has Romney up by 4 among likely voters.  Gallup has them dead even.

I don't know if we should take Rasmussen seriously, but the others make sense--Obama has a decent but not overwhelming lead. Intrade has Romeny's odds just under 40%. I guess it depends on where your expectations are, but I think if the Republicans had a better candidate he would be up right now.

[garbon]

Well it isn't like it is news that Romney isn't the ideal candidate.

[Phillip V]

Romney has been laying low since securing the nomination, giving no clear message, just raising money (beating Obama in the money race). Voter attention is still utterly low now compared to 2008. Let's see what happens when Romney has the Republican National Convention and picks his running mate. Then we will see if he tries to "change" as voters finally tune in.

For perspective, here is the tracking of average polls from 2004: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_vs_romney_compared_to_bush_vs_kerry.html
and 2008: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_vs_romney_compared_to_obama_vs_mccain.html

Both races did not decisively turn until September/October.

[alfred russel]

Romney has been laying low since securing the nomination, giving no clear message,

No kidding.

If things start to cement in September, that is less than a month than now. A lot of money isn't going to do much good without a message.

[derspiess]

I don't know if we should take Rasmussen seriously, but the others make sense--Obama has a decent but not overwhelming lead. Intrade has Romeny's odds just under 40%. I guess it depends on where your expectations are, but I think if the Republicans had a better candidate he would be up right now.

Rasmussen was on the money in 2008, and it only surveys likely voters.  Obama wins nearly every poll that surveys registered voters.  That's great for him & all, but he is going to need to convince some of those people to actually get out and vote.  There's no denying that enthusiasm for Obama is less in 2012 than it was in 2008.

Now obviously the Likely Voter demographic isn't as important now as it will be in October/November, but I still think it's worth paying attention to.

And if it makes you feel any better, my gut at this point is still that Obama gets reelected.

I guess it depends on where your expectations are, but I think if the Republicans had a better candidate he would be up right now.

I think Romney is a good enough candidate to win and Obama is vulnerable.  As long as Romney doesn't bungle the Veep choice and the GOP doesn't step on its crank with the convention (which otherwise I think should be a net gain for Romney between the two conventions), I think we'll see a very tight race by the last month or so.

[alfred russel]

For what its worth, I put the most weight on the betting odds at this point, which have Romney as a decided underdog but with a punchers chance.

I don't think that Romney will get much of a bounce from a VP pick, because he doesn't have any good options. The talent in the Republican Party just isn't there. I don't think I have partisan blinders on when I say that: I think the depth among VP capable democrats is poor too.

[derspiess]

For what its worth, I put the most weight on the betting odds at this point, which have Romney as a decided underdog but with a punchers chance.

I don't think that Romney will get much of a bounce from a VP pick, because he doesn't have any good options. The talent in the Republican Party just isn't there. I don't think I have partisan blinders on when I say that: I think the depth among VP capable democrats is poor too.

I think the race is still tight enough that *any* bounce would be helpful.  And I think Romney has some good choices for VP, just as Obama had before it became too late to dump Crazy Joe.

[alfred russel]

I think the race is still tight enough that *any* bounce would be helpful.  And I think Romney has some good choices for VP, just as Obama had before it became too late to dump Crazy Joe.

I'm curious which ones you are thinking of....

Petreaus I'd say would be one, but I doubt he is in play. He is the only one that isn't going to seem a bit flaky or scare people.

[MadImmortalMan]

Good choices policy-wise from his perspective maybe.

I think AR is right that neither side have anyone in the bullpen who would excite people.

[Eddie Teach]

And I think Romney has some good choices for VP,

They're all keeping their powder dry for 2016.

[derspiess]

I think the race is still tight enough that *any* bounce would be helpful.  And I think Romney has some good choices for VP, just as Obama had before it became too late to dump Crazy Joe.

I'm curious which ones you are thinking of....

Petreaus I'd say would be one, but I doubt he is in play. He is the only one that isn't going to seem a bit flaky or scare people.

Petraeus would be a home run but obviously he's a longshot.  He's the only game-changer, so if that's what you were saying I agree with you.  But I think Rubio, Pawlenty, and Mitch Daniels would be net positives.  Portman would be a safe, boring pick if Mitt isn't willing to roll the dice.

For Obama, Hillary would've been a great VP pick this go-around.  I think anyone who can keep his/her mouth shut sometimes would be an improvement over Crazy Joe.