Could Paul/Sanford be a good ticket?

[anaconda]

We're lucky to have Sanford in the U.S. House and, frankly, I think he's lucky to be there...

 

[erowe1]

A female candidate for the Dems is a disadvantage? It's a big advantage to them and gives them a theme to make history with. Dems are suckers for that kind of lack of substance. It's really their only card to play.

The reason it would make history is that out of the 57 or so presidential elections America has had, zero have been won by women. Women have faired little better in most other democratic countries. There's a chance that they'd overcome the political disadvantages of putting a woman on the ticket. But that's no reason for Republicans to take on those same disadvantages on purpose.

I agree that Dems are suckers for that. So we let them do it, pretend we're scared, and then laugh at them when the dust settles and Hillary goes the way of Geraldine Ferraro.

 

[anaconda]

You have to think like a low information voter to win them.

Low information is by far the biggest demographic.

 

[Vanguard101]

Ben Carson. Also, isn't Amash technically a minority?

Lmfao

Get real. Did you already forget about what Sanford did as Governor? The whole Argentina mistress thing?

Thought I mentioned it...

Susana Martinez would be hands down the top VP prospect for all Republicans. She is more on the establishment side so she would balance the ticket with Rand as the anti-establishment nominee. She is a popular Republican Governor in a Democrat leaning state (New Mexico) that could be in play and could help in Colorado, New Mexico, and nationwide.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e-presidential-field-yes-you-read-that-right/

I don't want an establishment choice. It's just in case Rand disappears

If Rand Paul choses John Kasich while Hillary Clinton choses HUD Secretary Julian Castro, Hispanics in Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico might vote for the Democratic ticket. Although Ohio has more electoral votes than New Mexico, Martinez would probably assist the ticket more than Kasich.

I am 100% sure she's not choosing Castro. He most likely is preparing for a 2018 Governor run




There is no way Dems nominating a woman gives them a net loss. Especially if it's a Clinton. In fact, I would argue it gives them a net gain because it continues to make the GOP look like a party that doesn't support minorities. At the same time, if the GOP chooses a minority, it will be considered pandering.

 

[asurfaholic]

I don't think it is politically neccesary to get a woman or minority as VP. A charismatic white man who can completely compliment Rand ideologically is the ticket.

The storyline then can be "we are the party of freedom and American prosperity - unlike the dems who are pandering to groups to try and get votes.

 

[Working Poor]

Maybe John Dennis would be good.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Sanford is out because of his affair; think how that would play in light of Rand's highly publicized comments about adulterer Bill Clinton. Rand would look like a hypocrite. Moreover, Sanford wouldn't get us many votes outside S. Carolina, which is almost certain to go Republican regardless.

I don't think a woman or minority should be chosen, because it'll look like (and indeed be) pandering. The only way GOPers can win the race/gender/etc game with the Democrats is not to play.

As for who he should pick, I think it would be greatly advantageous to pick someone with executive experience (be it in government or business), since they'll be attacking Rand for his lack of the same.

P.S. How about Maine Governor Paul Lepage? He has major executive experience in both business and government, he's one of us ideologically, he's a Republican governor in a State that usually goes Blue in Presidential elections, he's got an extremely compelling life story. He has made a few politically incorrect remarks, but nothing that's a deal breaker IMO.

 

[Vanguard101]

He voted for the EX-IM bank^. Some people here might not like that.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Lepage? How does a Governor vote for or against a federal program?

P.S. Did some googling, I guess this is what you were talking about; he was one of nine governors who signed a letter petitioning Congress to reauthorize the bank. That's unfortunate, but it shouldn't be a deal breaker. Ex-Im bank is terrible in principle, but small potatoes compared to all the other problems we need to address.

 

[angelatc]

With Sanford's philandering as baggage? Absolutely not.

Agreed 100%.

His ex-wife didn't help matters by being a class act all the way through the drama either. And Sanford still hasn't married his soul mate, which makes him look even sleazier.

His personal life combined with his quirkiness makes him a presidential loser. That's the sad fact of electoral politics - it isn't just about the issues. Heck, it's not really about the issues much at all.

 

[angelatc]

There is no way Dems nominating a woman gives them a net loss. Especially if it's a Clinton. In fact, I would argue it gives them a net gain because it continues to make the GOP look like a party that doesn't support minorities. At the same time, if the GOP chooses a minority, it will be considered pandering.

Point of order: Women aren't a minority.

 

[LibertyEsq]

Niki Haley is republican isn't she?

I was also going to suggest Nikki Haley. Could take some the excitement away from the Dem side (namely, from the "we-only-vote-to-make-history" crowd (not talking about women; plenty wouldn't vote for Hillary)), and I think she would be more aligned with Paul than most GOP governors.

 

[Vanguard101]

Point of order: Women aren't a minority.

Yes they are.

 

[LibertyEsq]

Lepage? How does a Governor vote for or against a federal program?

P.S. Did some googling, I guess this is what you were talking about; he was one of nine governors who signed a letter petitioning Congress to reauthorize the bank. That's unfortunate, but it shouldn't be a deal breaker. Ex-Im bank is terrible in principle, but small potatoes compared to all the other problems we need to address.

LePage has also vetoed drug reform bills and has been on the wrong side of many other issues. Not to mention there's probably a majority of people in his own state who think he's crazy/a loose cannon.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

They're a minority in the sense that they're oppressed - or so goes a certain political narrative.

Mathematically, they're in a slight majority.

 

[LibertyEsq]

If not Nikki Haley (who would be my first choice), then in all seriousness, Justin Amash. We know he's trustworthy, he's young, arguably a minority ethnically (?), and we know he can wallop whoever the Dems bring out in a debate.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Amash is too young and too inexperienced.

 

[LibertyEsq]

Amash is too young and too inexperienced.

Yeah that's probably right. I can't really think of anyone else, though. I don't think Martinez would be enough on the same page with Paul politically to nominate either. Besides Haley I'm kinda blanking on a nominee who would meet all the points.

 

[Vanguard101]

That's kinda why I chose Sanford. He's closer to us or is basically one of us. Haley could lean establishment or maybe turn out to be silly like Palin. Amash is too young and I'd prefer he stay in the House. He's the liberty caucus' leader and it's starting to grow.

 

[LibertyEsq]

Haley could lean establishment or maybe turn out to be silly like Palin

I'm assuming there's a basis for saying that? Has she had problematic interviews in the past?