Which party is likely to name their VP first?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

Is it more of an advantage to announce first or second?

[LiberalFighter]

1. There are pros and cons either way.

If the candidate doesn't have anything in their background to worry about then there shouldn't be any negatives. Hopefully the campaign has thoroughly vetted everything to avoid any possible surprises that the media might discover.

[InNeedOfUserName]

2. "Which party is likely to name their VP first?" normally 1st conv. = 1st pick

that is normally how it works...

However, normally one of the conventions is held before the Olympics, and the other convetion after.

[ErinBerin84]

3. I flipped on David Gregory for a second yesterday

and DG said that "according to his reporting" (yeah, whatever, David), the GOP wants to wait and see who Obama picks as VP, and take that into consideration when they pick their VP second. But yeah, it's David Gregory, and I don't exactly trust his scoops.

[Yupster]

4. The advantage sems to go with picking last

You get to see what the other guy's planning before making your plan.

You can also use your announcement to squash the first guy's momentum coming out of his convention.

The only time it would make sense to go first would be if you have a person picked and it won't surprise anyone. Then you might as well pick (Romney/Hillary) right now and let them start campaigning and raising money. Every day counts with less than 100 days left.

[Marrah_G]

5. None of it matters or needs to be discussed. GoBama!