Ron Paul takes the lead in Iowa.

[Dinner]

Irrelevent. The intention is to provide the most effective attack dog (thus fortifying Mitt's hands off let others take the attacks to Obama approach) . And while Rubio can fill that role, Christie would be much better at it, and has shown time again a love of the stage and zinging soundbite.

I agree with this completely. Romney is going to want an attack dog so he can keep looking "presidential" even though his running mate relentlessly goes after Obama.

Appearances do matter, however. VPs are not merely attack dogs, but also to shore up some weakness the candidate has.

This is also true. A good candidate needs a partner who balances out one of his weaknesses but the problem is finding someone who fills both roles and, hopefully, can help deliver a swing state. I can't think of anyone who does all three of those things.

[DaShi]

No potential 2016+ runner would attach their name to Romney.

[Hauldren Collider]

I think that there's probably around an 80% chance that the VP nominee is (in order of likelihood) Marco Rubio, Bob McDonnell, and Chris Christie.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Disagree. Romney has the south regardless of whether he had Satan as his VP pick. No way in hell they vote for Obama and moreover will come out in droves because it is Obama regardless of who the GOP candidate is. Battleground NE read Pa and Oh is where Christie helps.

Assuming Romney gets past the primaries and is in the general election he can essentially say "piss off" to the evangelicals as long as his VP pick is charismatic. Christie fits that bill. He gets the more important undecided independents to swing to Romney's side.

Consolidating the base and motivating the base in the general is not as necessary in this election (as the base will be electrified regardless of who the GOP nominee is) as getting the undecideds. Romney needs star power to provide oomph to his decided blandness, likewise a role that Christie provides (IMO moreso than Rubio).

I think this misses quite a bit. Evangelical Conservatives are not a big fan of Romney. He's going to have massive base problems, even though he's running against Obama.

[Uncle Sparky]

True but who would make a better VP for Romney? Rubio?

Let's ask Palin: actual footage from FOXNews

[Dinner]

She and her followers won't even get the irony of that. You can tell the thought never even entered her empty little head.

[Uncle Sparky]

She and her followers won't even get the irony of that. You can tell the thought never even entered her empty little head.

I was in tears laughing the first time I hear it.

I sincerely miss Palin. She was ideally suited to be pointed and laughed at. It was so effortless for her: you didn't need to mock her, she was a caricature of herself.

[Wezil]

Trump/Palin 2012 dammit!!

[molly bloom]

Let's ask Palin:

She seems to be one of those politicians who are free from exhibiting or understanding shame or irony for some strange reason...

[rah]

I actually can't believe she said that with a straight face. Hilarious.

[Boris Godunov]

How anyone can say Romney would have a lock on the South is beyond me. This completely ignores the fact that evangelicals and the Tea Party-types absolutely *loathe* Romney, while the South also has significant African-American populations that are going to be enthusiastic for Obama. Bear in mind that Obama won North Carolina and was pretty close in Georgia. Underestimating the ability of his campaign to get AAs to the polls while overestimating the ability of Romney to draw white Southern evangelicals is not smart.

[DaShi]

Ron Paul starts off in a respectable third place.

[giblets]

Newt Gingrich is falling behind? Maybe there is a god

Thank you Zeus

[giblets]

Wait, Google only says 2% of precincts have reported in but people seem to be certain that Gingrich won.

[Zevico]

[QUOTE=Boris Godunov;6076968]How anyone can say Romney would have a lock on the South is beyond me. This completely ignores the fact that evangelicals and the Tea Party-types absolutely *loathe* Romney [quote]
Do they though? I know they're looking hard for an alternative to him, but compare Romney to Gingrich. Gingrich is well-spoken and often a spontaneous font of ideas. But in terms of their actual politics and principles what's the difference between them? Romney calls Gingrich a rhetorical and political bomb-thrower, but most of the political points they're campaigning on are quite similar. Some may loathe Romney but it is possible that some see him as the milk toast candidate.