If you look at Romney's history, he seems to like people like himself and I think part of the reason he is so tone deaf is that he likely does NOT pick up on the expectations of others - or assigns them little value. He also likely is not impressed with the flashy options. He might also look and see that the flashy, media loved choices have not been good. (Palin, Edwards, Lieberman (not flashy, but his choice intrigued the media) and Quayle all failed to really help - and in all cases someone more like the candidate, who after all did just win might have been better by reenforcing what was liked in the candidate. An example of this is Gore for Clinton - where the differences were helpful too - Gore's DC experience and his good reputation were pluses.
Portman is "like" Romney and he brings DC experience - even some foreign policy, although just trade policy.
Rumours were that McCain's own choice was Lieberman - and had Lieberman been Republican - or willing to immediately change parties - he would likely have been better than Palin. The fact was that much of the RW base - in 2008 as well as 2012 - would come out to vote just because of Obama. Lieberman and McCain could have run on bipartisanship, part of Obama's message, but arguing they actually lived it for decades.
Kerry's own choice was rumoured to be Durbin. Again, like Kerry, a very accomplished policy wonk, but one with middle class roots and a very affable Midwestern likability. The media would have had a fit that Kerry did not pick their darling, Edwards, but Durbin actually had the record of pushing for good progressive legislation (including the Dream Act) that Edwards only spoke of. One thing it would have echoed is that both Durbin and Kerry are the real deal - they both have careers where they have fought for the things that got them into politics. Integrity and competence. (A different possibility would be Kerry emphasizing his real knowledge of terrorism by picking Gary Hart - who with Rudman wrote the study Bush ignored. Hart is still married decades after the Rice stuff.)
Now, I'm not sure that these alternatives to the flashy objects that both campaigns were prodded to pick because the party and media pushed them would have done any better, but given that the at least Palin and Edwards ended up being primadonnas who were not helpful - and in Palin's case - a major liability, it is interesting to think of whether someone who really did not feel they were entitled (Edwards especially) might be more attuned to the campaign goals and a much better team player.
I think the last VP to really change the winner was likely LBJ. Therefore, I suspect that no VP would have led to a McCain win - they would have led to a campaign he could be prouder of. In Kerry's case, it was incredibly close. Durbin would have been better in the debates (judging by his performance on talk shows) and Ohio is far more "like" Southern Illinois. (Not to mention, Iowa would likely also have been a win as Durbin's home town is basically on the border. ) In addition, he and Kerry genuinely seem to like each other.
= new reply since forum marked as read
