While Mitt Romney spends this week overseas, there is considerable speculation about who he will select as his Vice Presidential running mate.  There are many considerations that factor into this selection, especially in a race that is expected to be very close.  In the old days, a presidential candidate looked for a VP who could provide balance – this could be regional, ideological, or even demographic.  A VP candidate from a state with lots of Electoral College votes was a plus.

Who can provide the most effective balance for Mitt Romney?  In order to answer that, we need to ask what kind of possible vulnerabilities Mitt Romney has that will matter in November’s election.  For one, he could use someone to bolster the Republican party base, which probably means someone who is either a fiscal or social conservative – or ideally, both.  At the same time, he would like to appeal more to independent voters (can you find a VP candidate who appeals to both independents AND your base at the same time?).  What about women and Hispanics, both of whom haven’t been huge fans of Republican party presidential candidates in the past.

With many different factors possibly influencing Mitt Romney’s decision, I’ve tried to identify some likely candidates from what is a fairly large group of prospects.  First, I don’t think any of Romney’s primary opponents will be selected.  There’s too much bad blood with some of them, or they just don’t bring enough to the table for a general election campaign.  Of all the primary candidates, I could see only Tim Pawlenty as a possible choice, but I see him as a long shot.

Beth Myers, head of the VP selection committee for Romney, recently publicly praised Bob McDonnell from Virginia (a battleground state), but I rule him out for that reason alone.  Chris Christie from NJ has excited some voters, but he has moderate views on gun control and immigration, so I think he’s out too.

Ohio Senator Rob Portman could help win an important battleground state, and he would add some gravitas to the Romney campaign (Portman was former chief of the Office of Management and Budget). I read somewhere that he is fluent in Spanish – if true, that might help in key states such as Florida.

There’s lots more possible selections, but I’ll end this by mentioning Florida Senator Marco Rubio.  There’s been lots of positive buzz about Rubio so far.  He’s from Florida (a battleground state with lots of Electoral College votes), and he has a good reputation with senior voters. His Hispanic background could appeal to Hispanic voters in other key states too.  He and Romney haven’t seen eye-to-eye on immigration, but immigration is a party-wide problem.  With Hispanics, Rubio might help the overall Republican brand by joining the ticket.

Of course, Romney could pick someone who will be a huge surprise – did anyone predict that John McCain would select Sarah Palin in 2008?

What other choices would help bolster the Romney campaign?

John Klemanski

It’s seemingly more difficult than ever to track one of the most important aspects of presidential campaigns – fundraising. With the advent of Super PACs and joint fundraising ventures, it can be difficult to see which side has an advantage. Thankfully, there are organizations like the Campaign Finance Institute. CFI has been around for a while and does great work analyzing information submitted by the campaigns to the FEC so we can see the bigger picture.

Today, CFI released a report on presidential fundraising based on the last reporting period for the campaigns. There is a lot of great information in this report and others, but one piece of information stands out – the available cash on hand for Romney and his allies vs. Obama and his allies. Here’s the CFI figure depicting the state of the money chase as of the end of June.



It’s clear that President Obama remains a strong fundraiser as his campaign committee outraised Romney’s. However, as CFI notes:

Romney will be helped by the fact that the Republican National Committee did better than its Democratic counterpart, and the SuperPAC supporting Romney did better than the one supporting Obama. Particularly relevant for looking forward is the amount available in cash on hand. Romney, and the committees supporting him, had $181 million in net cash on hand on June 30. This compares to $139 for Obama and the committees supporting the President.

This is critical for several reasons. First, Romney and his allies clearly have the funds (and fundraising power) to compete with Obama. Second, and this is related to the first point, Romney is not likely to be in the same position John McCain was in 2008 when he was vastly outspent by Obama (see here and here for only two examples). Romney may be able to make some states that were not competitive in 2008 more competitive this time simply because he has the financial resources to do so. This includes Michigan where, in 2008, McCain pulled much of his staff and financial resources out of the state long before Election Day. While we in Michigan haven’t been inundated with ads like those in some other states like Florida or Ohio, we’ve started to see these financial resources impact our TV screens. With fundraising figures like this, we’re likely to see this continue.

An important caveat from CFI, however:

Romney’s joint fundraising committee (Romney Victory Inc.) lists the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee as partners in the joint fundraising venture. While the joint committee showed $57.7 million cash on hand on June 30, we cannot yet know how much of this will be used to support the congressional campaign committees.

That’s important to be sure. But, even if those funds were to all be designated for the NRSC, Romney and his allies would still be on par with Obama and his allies. Not only do the polls show this to be a tight race, but the money chase is close as well.

DD

A recent poll by Mitchell Research puts Mitt Romney slightly ahead of Barack Obama in Michigan – 45% to 44%.  Since the margin of error is 3.4%, this result shouldn’t be taken literally.  However, what we’ve seen in the polling over the past few months is the gap between the two candidates has been closing, and the trend isn’t a good sign for the president. 

While we still have over three months left until the November election, the general election campaign already seems to be in full swing.  Both candidates – and their Super PACs -- have aired lots of TV ads, especially in battleground states.  Part of the lesson of this poll is that while Michigan wasn’t necessarily considered to be a battleground state earlier this year, it’s now close enough for both candidates to put more campaign resources into the state.

I’ve been following some of the other polls too, and while they vary a little, most have the two candidates within 5 percentage points of each other in Michigan, as of either June or July.  If we see more advertising in Michigan, I wonder what message each candidate will focus on.  We assume that the economy is the major issue of this campaign, and especially so in this state.  That would seem to give Mitt Romney an advantage, since many voters will likely blame the president for our economic problems.  However, Romney has needed to spend lots of his time defending his record at Bain Capital, downplaying his “wealthy elite” status, and explaining why he won’t release more tax return information. 

John Klemanski