Romney Chooses Paul Ryan for VP

Ryan

Mitt Romney announced today that he had chosen his vice presidential running mate: Paul Ryan, the U.S. House member from Wisconsin and current chairman of the House Budget Committee. The selection of Ryan came as a surprise to most observers. While Ryan had some supporters, most viewed Tim Pawlenty or Rob Portman as more likely choices. Recall that just yesterday, Intrade gave Ryan a less than 15% chance of being picked, while Portman was at 34.9% and Pawlenty was at 20%. After Intrade confidently, wrongly predicted that Obamacare's individual mandate would be overruled by the Supreme Court, one must continue to be skeptical about Intrade's ability to predict "secret" decisions.

In previous examinations of the VP decision-making process, we noted two popular theories: The first was the "first do no harm" theory that a "safe" choice should be made because a VP can hurt but not really help a ticket. The second theory is that a VP can help by broadening the appeal of the ticket.

The Ryan decision is perplexing in some ways, because he seems to be the worst of both worlds. On the one hand, he was widely regarded as a "risky" pick because of the big negative he carries: Ryan is associated with a very unpopular budget plan that involved privatizing Medicare. Indeed, "associated" may be an understatement, since it was known as the "Ryan Plan." Thus, Ryan fails the "do no harm" test. But on the other hand, he doesn't seem to have many qualities that would broaden the appeal of the ticket. Unlike Marco Rubio, who would have appealed to many independents (particularly Hispanics), Ryan would tend, if anything, to alienate independents.

It might also be noted that Ryan is young and looks young, and that his highest elected office is that of a U.S. House member--which does not require winning a state-wide election. However, since Ryan has held that office since 1999, he is less vulnerable to criticisms of being inexperienced, despite being about the same age as Rubio.

So why was Ryan chosen? There are a number of factors that likely weighed heavily in Romney's mind. First, the trial balloons on Romney and Portman earlier this summer fell flat. Second, polls have suggested that Barack Obama has held a slight lead over Romney throughout the race. Such polls are of registered voters rather than likely voters, but perhaps Romney's campaign is as led by the RealClearPolitics average as Intrade is. Also, some very recent polls show Obama with a bigger lead. Putting these two things together, Romney may have been persuaded that he needs a "game changing" VP, just as John McCain concluded four years ago.

Then there are the attributes that favor Ryan. Among Tea Partiers and hardcore conservatives, Ryan is considered a genuine conservative, not a "RINO." No doubt Romney chose Ryan in part to balance the ticket and energize his base. Unlike many on the far right, Ryan is not considered a "kook," but an intelligent and articulate, hard-working legislator. Ryan's youth and energy would also be seen as qualities that help balance the ticket. Though it's unlikely to make much difference, Ryan provides geographic balance as well: He's from Wisconsin, a Midwestern swing state. Finally, Ryan would probably have little difficulty beating Joe Biden in a debate.

The irony of the Ryan selection is that during the Republican primary, Romney went out of his way to avoid appearing too aggressively conservative on fiscal issues. Recall that for a long time, Romney avoided endorsing tax cuts for the rich; he only changed his mind when his campaign appeared vulnerable later on, when he needed to appeal to conservatives. The selection of Ryan is a full embrace of fiscal conservatism, including its most unpopular elements. Yet Romney may have felt that since he already spoke favorably of the Ryan Plan, he was stuck anyway.

Putting it all together, how will Ryan's selection impact the dynamic of the race? On balance, it will hurt Romney. By choosing Ryan, Romney has played directly into Obama's current strategy of class warfare. The Obama campaign can go on the offensive, claiming that a Romney/Ryan victory would result in the end of Medicare. By contrast, Ryan doesn't carry any constituency of his own to counter his downside. Arguably he could help energize the base, but there is historical evidence to suggest that the base turns out anyway, and candidates win the presidency by winning independents. On the surface, it appears Ryan will hurt rather than help with independents.

It will be some time before we can fully determine how a Ryan VP candidacy will play, and how Americans respond to him. For the moment, it is Elephant Watcher's determination that Romney's odds of winning the presidency have declined modestly.

Intrade's Obama vs. Romney, Holding Steady

Despite the heat taken by Mitt Romney from all the Bain Capital attacks, the Intrade market on the 2012 race is holding steady, almost unchanged over the last two weeks. The market gives Barack Obama a 56.2% chance of winning reelection, with Romney at 43% to win. This margin of 13.2 points is actually narrower than the 14.9 point lead enjoyed by Obama when we last checked in, at the beginning of July.

How can we explain the Intrade investors' behavior? The numbers appear to confirm the hypothesis that this particular Intrade market reacts almost exclusively to the polls, specifically, the RealClearPolitics average of national polls. The RCP average is similar to what it was earlier this month--perhaps even showing a slightly closer race. This shouldn't imply that the Bain narratives will have no effect, however: Little polling has been done since the latest Bain attacks captured the headlines.

The power of the RCP average rests in the fact that it is widely read and very simple: It's just an average of the most recent national polls. RCP does nothing to account for the difference between registered voter and likely voter polls, though it does limit its use of daily tracking polls.

If the RCP hypothesis is correct, we can expect that big campaign stories will have minimal impact until they are reflected in the poll average--and poll averages necessarily lag behind events. Only a truly obvious shift in the campaign should be able to overcome this, such as a clear win in the debates or a massive scandal.

Meanwhile, the Intrade market on the Republican VP nominee has changed in the past two weeks. Rob Portman still has the lead at 29.1%, but Tim Pawlenty has made a comeback to 23.8%. Pawlenty's comeback appears to have been triggered in part by an item on The Drudge Report about Romney having already made his VP decision; the headline linked to a story about Pawlenty.

Minor players in the VP market have also shifted. Marco Rubio is down to 9.1%, while Bobby Jindal and Paul Ryan are up to 7.2% and 6.9%. Condoleezza Rice has jumped from almost nothing up to 6.0%. It's likely that Rubio's fall was the result of the gain by the latter three contenders, who may be viewed as sort of "risky" picks, like Rubio.

As with Pawlenty, the Rice gain was driven by an unsourced item in Drudge suggesting that Rice was a surprise frontrunner among the potential VPs. The Rice market went to 15% before the storm died down. The Intrade market remains skeptical about Rice because she has so many weaknesses: She is associated with the George W. Bush administration, especially its most unpopular policies (the war in Iraq, torture, etc.).

Chris Christie, who once had been one of the frontrunners on the Intrade VP market, has completely collapsed to 1.8%. In part, that may be due to the fact that others have been speculated about in the media more than Christie has of late. The most recent crash was probably also precipitated by yet another item in Drudge, which showed Christie in an angry altercation with a random passerby on the New Jersey boardwalk. Christie's chief weakness, particularly from a "Romney perspective" has always been his perceived volatility.

Intrade Odds: Barack Obama Rebounds

The Intrade market for the presidential election gives Barack Obama a 57.2% chance of winning reelection, while Mitt Romney has a 42.3% chance of victory. This suggests a relatively close race at the moment, but Obama's edge in the Intrade odds has widened since our last review a few weeks ago. Obama now has a lead of 14.9 points; that's almost double the 8.1 point lead he enjoyed in mid-June. Obama's lead had been narrowing until recently.

The shift likely reflects the attitude that the Obamacare ruling will affect the election, and that Obama benefits from his signature program being upheld. Before the ruling, most Intrade investors had assumed the individual mandate would be ruled unconstitutional.

In addition, there has been some slight movement toward Obama in the national polls. That shift is more apparent in the Elephant Watcher average of general election polls, which takes into account the difference between registered voter and likely voter polls. The poll average had shown Romney with a nearly 3-point lead in late June; Obama now has a slight lead for the first time.

The Republican VP Intrade market has also seen some movement since the aftermath of the rumors about Tim Pawlenty for VP. Rob Portman is back on top at 25.3%. Pawlenty is still in second, but has dropped to 14.5%, just ahead of Marco Rubio at 13.7%. Some new players have risen: John Thune, a U.S. Senator from South Dakota is at 7.5%, and Paul Ryan, a U.S. Representative from Wisconsin is at 6.2%. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is tied with Chris Christie at 5.0%.

The VP shuffle suggests Intrade investors have soured a bit on the Pawlenty rumors. Apparently, they perceive that the news about Pawlenty was not met with much enthusiasm, so Romney's campaign is looking for another "safe white guy" to pick. Like Pawlenty, John Thune could fit the bill. Paul Ryan is less "safe," but Pawlenty's loss is presumably Ryan's gain. The same could be said for Bobby Jindal, another of the "young guns" of the party. Rubio has recovered somewhat from the news report that he wasn't being vetted for the position, but it's unlikely he'll rise to his former heights without assistance from another news report.

2012 Election in Review: June 2012

Each month, Elephant Watcher recaps the activity that occurred in the general election during the previous month. Follow these links to read recaps from the Republican primary: May 2011, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, January 2012, February, March, April.

Generally speaking, the presidential campaign was quiet during the month of June. Each candidate toured the country, raised money, and plotted out his strategy. Mitt Romney's strategy, essentially unchanged since the Republican primary, was to attack Barack Obama's handling of the economy. Throughout the month, Romney gave few hints that he would pursue a different direction. With no economic news indicating a robust recovery in the works, Romney had little incentive to abandon his original plan.

In the absence of real campaign news, much speculation swirled about concerning Romney's choice of vice presidential running-mate. U.S. Senators Rob Portman and Marco Rubio remained favorites on Intrade, but Tim Pawlenty stepped into focus amidst rumors that Rubio was not even being vetted. Romney later denied the report, claiming Rubio was, in fact, being vetted for the position. But at the end of the month, the identity of the VP was either securely under wraps or still undetermined.

Obama, for his part, skirmished with Romney by criticizing Romney's actions while head of Bain Capital. These attacks backfired after prominent Democrats--including an Obama surrogate--defended private equity firms in general. Though Obama experimented with accusing Romney of wanting to return to Bush-era policies, he tended to favor the "class warfare" line. By June's end, the Obama team's strategy did not yet appear to be fixed.

On June 28th, the Supreme Court ruled Obamacare constitutional--by declaring it a tax. Romney responded by attacking Obamacare, repeating his calls for "repeal and replace." For the first time, Romney was able to say that only by voting Romney could America avoid Obamacare. In the days following the decision, it became apparent that the country could become engaged in a lengthy debate over Obamacare for a second time. Polls suggested that the healthcare plan had not become any more popular since it was passed in 2010.

Will Tim Pawlenty Be Romney's VP?

Pawlenty

Though it may be several weeks before Mitt Romney officially announces his selection for vice president, rumors abound that Tim Pawlenty will be chosen. The increased buzz about Pawlenty has been driven by a new report from ABC News that the Romney campaign is not putting Marco Rubio through the vetting process. According to the report, Rubio has not been asked to complete questionnaires or provide basic information to the Romney campaign. If Romney's campaign were even considering Rubio, these would be the first steps they would take; since they aren't taking these steps, the conclusion being drawn is that Rubio is not in the running for VP.

The Intrade market on the VP choice has reacted swiftly to the news. Only a few days ago, we reviewed the latest Intrade odds for president and VP: Rob Portman was at 23% for VP, with Rubio at 19%, and Pawlenty at 8.2%. Now, Portman is trading at 24% (little change), but Pawlenty has skyrocketed to 19.9% and Rubio has crashed to 6.8%.

But why is it Pawlenty in particular who would benefit from a Rubio crash? During our review of the Intrade markets last week, Elephant Watcher detected some slight upward movement in the Pawlenty for VP Intrade market and offered an explanation: Pawlenty may be viewed as an even "safer" version of Portman, given that Pawlenty doesn't have ties to the George W. Bush administration.

This month, we thoroughly examined the reasoning behind the "do no harm" theory for VP, the same theory that had brought Portman to the top of the Intrade market. Pawlenty is the epitome of the "do no harm" candidate, as he has no offensive qualities and (presumably) no skeletons in the closet. During the 2012 Republican primary, he had the opportunity to become the consensus candidate, exciting no one but alienating no one, either. But Pawlenty ran a terrible campaign, and he senselessly dropped out of the race early.

The basic problem with the "do no harm" theory is that choosing a VP is a trade-off. If Candidate A helps the ticket, Candidate B hurts the ticket, and Candidate C does neither, both Candidates B and C do harm, because they represent a missed opportunity to help the ticket by choosing Candidate A. Thus, choosing Pawlenty would harm Romney's ticket even if Pawlenty doesn't offend anyone, if Romney loses the opportunity to help the ticket by choosing someone better able to attract votes.

Another way to judge the impact of a Pawlenty VP selection is to consider the reaction of Democrats. If Pawlenty were chosen, how would Democrats feel when they heard the news? Most likely, they would be delighted. Democrats do not fear Pawlenty because they know he will not energize Republicans or broaden the appeal of Romney's ticket.

Is there anything positive about a Pawlenty vice presidential nomination? To the extent that the "do no harm" path should be followed, he fills the role well. It's unlikely that anyone will have real misgivings about Pawlenty or question whether he is qualified for the job. Pawlenty's selection would not help Barack Obama attack Romney as "Bush's Third Term." Pawlenty is not a conservative firebrand, but he will not be seen as a RINO except to the most extreme elements of the right. Nor is Pawlenty too old.

Even so, the selection of Pawlenty would leave many conservatives cold. Pawlenty may not be a RINO, but he will not inspire anyone. Conservatives' lack of enthusiasm for Romney is a problem, one that the VP slot is needed to fix. Pawlenty would not fix the problem. A cautious approach is not always the safest one.

Intrade Odds: Romney Closing on Obama

The Intrade market on the presidential race shows a tighter contest than it did when we last looked at Mitt Romney and Barack Obama's Intrade odds. Obama currently stands at 53.9%; Romney is at 45.8%. Obama retains the edge, most likely because he retains a small lead in unadjusted registered voter polls (a closer look at the Obama vs. Romney polls suggests a slight Romney edge).

Intrade is basically declaring the race a coin flip today, with neither candidate far from the 50% mark. For the last several weeks, the trend has been in Romney's favor: Two weeks ago Obama's lead was 12.7 points, and now it's down to 8.1 points. Until late May, Intrade had the race stable with Obama enjoying a greater than 20 point lead. The race could continue to narrow on Intrade, but it's difficult to see Obama going below 50% any time soon.

The Intrade market on VP nominee has changed a bit. Rob Portman and Marco Rubio are still in first and second, far above the rest of the pack. But in the last two weeks, they have both fallen. Portman is at 23% and Rubio is at 19%; Portman's fallen by 4.5 points and Rubio by 3.

The second-tier is comprised of Tim Pawlenty at 8.2%, Chris Christie at 6.9%, Mitch Daniels at 6.7%, and Bobby Jindal at 5.8%. Can anything explain these numbers? It's likely based on rumor and speculation, because the Romney campaign has not yet released any hints on the identity of the VP pick. One possibility is that Pawlenty and Daniels are viewed as substitutes for Portman. Earlier, we wrote about the possibility of Rob Portman being chosen as Romney's vice presidential nominee. The reasoning behind a Portman pick is that he is bland, but safe. But given Portman's ties to the George W. Bush administration, he's not necessarily safe, because his presence on the ticket would aid Obama in making the "Romney is Bush's Third Term" attack.

If Romney is looking for a bland, safe pick, he might go with Pawlenty or Daniels as substitutes. He might also prefer them because they are former governors, while Portman is a senator. But this is simply Intrade reasoning; Daniels couldn't run for president because of family issues, so those issues ought to make him "unsafe." Pawlenty is the more logical choice, if one buys into the notion of choosing a a placeholder VP.

Marco Rubio's Effect on the Hispanic Vote?

Rubio

In Part III of our series on Mitt Romney's potential choices for vice president, we examined some of Marco Rubio's strengths and weaknesses. The most conspicuous advantage Rubio would bring to the ticket is his appeal to Hispanic voters. But whether and to what degree Rubio would bring in Hispanic voters is open to debate. The Democratic Party's coalition relies on securing a very high percentage of the Hispanic vote. Many Democratic political analysts place their hopes for a future Democratic majority on demographic changes (i.e. a rise in the Hispanic percentage of America's population). The rise of Hispanic Republicans like Rubio would undermine all of that--if they are, in fact, better equipped than white Republicans to attract Hispanic voters. How would Rubio's inclusion on the Republican ticket alter the equation?

It's not hard to understand why many believe Rubio would offer Romney a boost in the Hispanic vote. In the country's entire history, no major party ticket has ever included an Hispanic candidate as the presidential or vice presidential nominee. When Barack Obama defeated John McCain in 2008, McCain got only about 33% of the Hispanic vote; George W. Bush had won about 44% in 2004. Thus, there's plenty of room for improvement--a Romney/Rubio ticket would only need to get back to 44% in order to give Obama a major headache. And Romney himself is not particularly repulsive to Hispanic voters: Romney won the Hispanic vote overwhelmingly during the 2012 Republican primary.

However, there are many skeptics. Among Democratic analysts, the conventional wisdom is that Rubio would have a negligible effect on the Hispanic vote. Their argument is essentially as follows: While Rubio is Hispanic, he is Cuban-American rather than Mexican-American. Mexican-Americans comprise roughly two-thirds of America's Hispanic population, while Cuban-Americans account for about 4%. Rubio would influence the Cuban-American vote, but they already lean Republican. According to Democratic analysts, Mexican-Americans (and presumably other Hispanics) have a negative attitude toward Cuban-Americans and do not consider that group "one of them." They argue further that Hispanics are not monolithic and would not vote based on ethnicity anyway.

The skeptics' analysis, while a source of comfort to many Democrats, contains a number of major flaws. First, there is a basic misunderstanding of what Rubio would need to do in order to help Romney win the election. Rubio would not need to replicate Obama's 2008 feat of capturing more than 90% of his ethnic group's vote. As mentioned, Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote, which is roughly the point at which Obama's coalition would begin to collapse. Rubio would simply need to peel off a small chunk of Obama's Hispanic vote share--including many who voted Republican in prior elections.

Next is the question of whether non-Cuban Hispanics would be influenced by Rubio's presence on the ticket. An analogy might be drawn to what occurred during the Democratic primary in 2008. Initially, polls showed black voters supporting Hillary Clinton over Obama by a wide margin. Analysts--especially those supporting Clinton--offered many reasons why black voters would prefer Clinton to Obama. They claimed that while Obama was black, he was not considered "black enough." Obama was biracial; he was raised by his white grandparents; he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia rather than a big city; he had a privileged background; his father was an African immigrant rather than an African-American; he was not descended from slaves, etc. At that time, analysts also remarked upon the fact that the black vote is not monolithic, and that black voters would not vote based solely on ethnicity.

Polls continued to show Obama trailing Hillary Clinton; the Clinton family was always well-received by black voters. But after Obama won Iowa, it became clear that Obama had a real chance to become the first black president. At that point, everything changed. The black vote unified behind Obama, who frequently defeated Clinton among that ethnic group by margins of 10-to-1. The Clintons even found themselves repeatedly accused of racism when they criticized Obama. Evidently, there was no longer a perception that Obama was not "black enough" to attract black voters. Obama may not have been born to African-American parents, but he was the "most" black candidate who had ever made a serious run for the presidency.

Similarly, Rubio would be the "most Hispanic" candidate to appear on a presidential ticket. He would not need to cause a mass defection of Hispanic Democrats the way Obama caused nearly all of the black Clinton supporters to switch sides; Rubio would merely need to regain the Republicans and some Independents who voted for Obama.

While voters may not vote solely on ethnicity, it's difficult to argue that the first Hispanic VP wouldn't draw the attention of Hispanic voters and cause them to consider the Republican ticket on a more serious level. In addition, for those who avoid voting Republican for fear of anti-Hispanic bias in that party, the mere presence of an Hispanic on the ticket would have a real impact.

If Rubio were on the ticket, we might expect a parallel to Obama's experience in the Democratic primary to play out as follows: Rubio is announced as the VP nominee. Threatened, Democrats attack the choice as "cynical." Early polls show little movement toward Romney among Hispanics; Democrats declare that Rubio has failed to have an impact. Democrats then hone in, attacking Rubio's lack of experience. Over time, as the possibility of an Hispanic vice president becomes more real, and as Rubio makes his case, things begin to turn. Hispanic voters slowly shift toward the Republican ticket. Failing to notice this, the Democratic attack machine overreaches--they are unable to resist comparing Rubio to Sarah Palin. This backfires.

Rubio is viewed as intelligent and passionate about the American dream. By claiming Rubio is unintelligent, Hispanic voters feel the Democrats have treated Rubio unfairly. They don't agree with Rubio on everything, but the Palin comparisons are insulting and suspicious. Dangerously, signs of anti-Hispanic prejudice leak among some less-disciplined Democratic surrogates. As the VP debate approaches, expectations for Joe Biden are inexplicably pumped up by optimistic Democrats who temporarily forget his history of gaffes. Rubio crushes Biden in the debate. Biden responds with increasing condescension toward Rubio, and it doesn't have the desired effect. Only after election day do Democrats realize how large a share of the Hispanic vote the Romney/Rubio ticket has managed to get.

Romney's Pick for Vice President? Part III

Christie

In Part II, we discussed the possibility of Rob Portman being chosen as Mitt Romney's VP. The conventional wisdom is that Portman would be a "less risky" option, and that Romney hopes to avoid a repeat of the Sarah Palin debacle. But as we explained, none of Romney's choices carry similar risks to Palin--because they will all be fully vetted and have all participated in numerous televised interviews. But what are the potential upsides and downsides to potential VPs like Marco Rubio and Chris Christie, and what other options are available?

According to the Intrade odds on vice presidential nominees, the next most likely option after Portman is U.S. Senator Marco Rubio from Florida. Rubio served in Florida government for a little over a decade, rising to the office of Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives. In 2010, he ran for the U.S. Senate against the Republican governor, Charlie Crist. Rubio was viewed as the Tea Party challenger in the race, and he won overwhelmingly.

There are a number of reasons why Rubio is presumed to be high on Romney's list of potential VPs. First, Rubio would be the first Hispanic ever to be on a major party presidential ticket. The question of what effect this would have on the Hispanic vote in the general election is very controversial (and very important), and will be addressed in a future post. For now it's enough to say that Rubio would help Romney's ticket appeal to the Hispanic vote, a demographic where Romney is currently weak.

Rubio is from Florida, the nation's largest swing state. Unlike Romney, Rubio represents the conservative or Tea Party wing of the Republican Party. At age 41, Rubio belongs to a younger generation of Republicans, while Romney would return the presidency to the first wave of Baby Boomers. And while Romney was raised in a wealthy background, Rubio has working class roots.

In all of these important ways, Rubio would balance the ticket. The downside to Rubio is that he has only been a U.S. Senator for about a year and a half. According to conventional wisdom, Rubio's inexperience will undermine Romney's central theme, which is that Barack Obama had too little understanding of the economy before rising to the presidency. To be sure, this is Rubio's biggest weakness; if Rubio had been elected to his current office a few years ago, he would be guaranteed the VP position.

On the other hand, Rubio was in an important office in Florida prior to his being a U.S. Senator. And Rubio's intelligence, along with his strength in interviews and debates, will greatly--or entirely--offset his lack of experience, even if it doesn't stop Obama's attacks. Indeed, if the Obama campaign overreaches by comparing Rubio to Palin, it may backfire terribly, offending many Hispanic voters. In addition, Rubio's youth helps reinforce the idea that Romney will take the country in a new direction, rather than being a return to the days of George W. Bush.

What about Chris Christie? Christie served as Attorney General for the District of New Jersey during the 2000s, until he was elected New Jersey Governor in 2009. Christie considered running for president in 2012, but he had been governor just a bit too briefly. Though somewhat new to the national scene, Christie would not be vulnerable to claims that he lacks experience; he is several years older than Rubio and has accomplished much during his two and a half years as governor.

On the surface, Christie does not appear well-positioned to balance Romney's ticket. They are both from the Northeast; there is little hope of bringing many Northeastern states into the Republican fold. Though considered more conservative than Romney, Christie does not represent the Tea Party wing of the party in the same way that Rubio or a traditional conservative would. The fact that Christie is from the Northeast tends to amplify conservatives' concerns. And, of course, Christie is another white male.

Upon closer examination, there is a case to be made that Christie would balance the ticket. While Romney exudes wealth and privilege, Christie appeals to the common man. In New Jersey, Christie has been unusually effective in winning over working class voters--essentially the "Reagan Democrats" that Romney had trouble with during the Republican primary. Christie has unique rhetorical gifts. Unlike Romney, he is charismatic and adept at talking tough while sounding reasonable enough to persuade. Christie's aggressiveness on particular issues (taxes, spending, teachers' unions) has gone a long way toward persuading conservatives that he is one of them. Like Rubio, Christie represents a new direction and a genuine effort toward limiting the size of government.

There are a number of other potential VPs Romney could pick. If Romney is inclined to pick someone who is not a white man, it's likely that his options are "preempted" by Rubio. For example, the 2010 midterm saw the election of several women and minorities, but they would be vulnerable to the same criticism about inexperience, while lacking Rubio's strengths. Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal has a bit more experience, but is also young. An Indian-American, Jindal wouldn't appeal to an extra ethnic group with many votes; he is not nearly as effective a communicator as Rubio. (Jindal also endorsed Rick Perry for president.)

Finally, Romney could go with "none of the above," picking someone at the top of nobody's list. But Portman, Rubio, and Christie each make sense from different perspectives. In Elephant Watcher's view, either Rubio or Christie would help boost the Republican ticket in 2012, while Portman would do it some harm.

Romney's Pick for Vice President? Part II

Portman

In Part I, we considered who might be quickly eliminated from Mitt Romney's list of potential vice presidents. In this post, we will take a closer look at some of the "frontrunners" for the VP pick, and how Romney might choose among them.

The Intrade market on Romney's VP selection has Rob Portman and Marco Rubio far above the rest. After eliminating Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty, Chris Christie holds a slight edge among those who remain. What's the reasoning behind the perception that Portman has the best chance, and why is Rubio ranked so high? Is Christie a reasonable option, or would he fail to balance the ticket?

The conventional wisdom is that Portman, a U.S. Senator from Ohio, has the best chance of being picked because he is not a "risky" option. Portman is an experienced politician who long served in Ohio government. He also served as the U.S. Trade Representative for a year under President George W. Bush, and another year as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Consequently, he has a reputation for being knowledgeable about the economy. He is not associated with any scandals.

According to conventional wisdom, Portman would not really add anything to the ticket, though he hails from an important swing state and would reinforce Romney's campaign theme of economic expertise. He would be described as "another boring white guy" and would not add charisma to the ticket, but at least he would not harm it. The idea is that Romney may be receptive to a boring, safe choice after John McCain's disastrous experience with Sarah Palin in 2008.

Though Romney may in fact be thinking along those lines, Elephant Watcher believes that it would be a mistake to do so. The analysis of why Portman carries less risk is based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of how Palin was chosen and why she carried risk. In 2008, McCain made a last-minute decision to consider Palin for VP. There was no time to conduct a normal vetting of Palin. According to those who conducted the vetting, the McCain team only had time to do some light research on Palin, mostly on the Internet. They did not travel to Alaska or interview Palin's colleagues. This was risky, because they simply didn't know much about Palin before choosing her for VP.

By contrast, each of Romney's potential VP candidates will be thoroughly vetted. If they find skeletons in a candidate's closet, he will be eliminated from consideration. If not, they will go forward. In either case, Romney won't be taking a risk on an unknown candidate.

In addition, Palin was risky because she was untested by the media. She had not been grilled by liberal interviewers or appeared on Meet The Press. (Indeed, after all these years she still hasn't been on Meet The Press.) Since no one could guess how Palin would perform, McCain took a risk. It proved to be a catastrophic mistake, as the interviews revealed she was unprepared for the office.

Once again, by contrast, even relative newcomers like Rubio and Christie do not carry this risk. Within months of becoming a U.S. Senator, Rubio had already appeared on Meet The Press; Christie has been on the show multiple times. Both have been on countless other televised interviews--by friendly and hostile interviewers--and have acquitted themselves well.

The alternatives to Portman may not be "risky," but what about the idea that Portman has no drawbacks? This, too, is untrue. As we explained in an earlier post on how VP nominees are chosen, choosing among potential VPs always entails trade-offs. If Christie or Rubio have upsides that Portman doesn't, then the lack of those upsides is, in effect, a downside for Portman.

More importantly, Portman does have one major weakness: His association with the economic policies of the Bush administration. Since Portman served as the OMB director while Bush was president, it would be easier for Barack Obama to characterize Romney as a Bush retread. As we explained in the Candidate Rankings, Obama's odds of winning reelection are highest if he is able to convince voters that Romney would simply repeat Bush's economic policies. For that reason, Portman must be considered a VP pick with a dangerous flaw--not a "safe" option.

What about Christie and Rubio, and other potential VP picks? We will continue our examination in Part III.

Intrade Odds: Barack Obama in the Lead

As with the Republican primary, which has essentially concluded, Intrade has a market for the presidential race. There are actually two markets for the general election at Intrade: One for which party will win the presidency, and one for which individual will win the presidency. It's better to look at the party market than the individual market; the individual market will always have a few percent floating around for remote possibilities like Barack Obama or Mitt Romney not winning their party's nomination.

Intrade currently posts a 55.9% chance for the Democrats to win, and 43.2% for the Republicans. Intrade has always been skeptical of the Republicans' chance of beating Obama in 2012. Intrade only briefly gave the Republicans as much as 50% to win, in early October last year. That moment of optimism was likely triggered by the downfall of Rick Perry in the polls at about that time. Intrade felt confident Romney would win the nomination, and obviously felt he would be a stronger general election candidate. But the long primary season seems to have worn away their confidence, such as it was.

In spite of this, Intrade's view of Romney's chances has gone up slightly in the last few weeks. For months, they had the Republican Party in the upper-'30s. Apparently a few weeks of watching close poll numbers between Romney and Obama has caused them to give Romney more credit.

Also of note is the Intrade market for Republican vice presidential nominee. U.S. Senator Rob Portman from Ohio currently leads with a 27.5% chance of being selected. U.S. Senator Marco Rubio from Florida is second with 22.1%. Everyone else is far below; there's a huge pack of potential candidates in single-digits. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is at 6.8%, and somehow Tim Pawlenty is in fourth at 6.2%. Rubio was once the clear favorite on Intrade, running in the '30s. But since April or so, his numbers have gone down in favor of Portman.

How should these numbers be interpreted? Intrade is a pretty good indicator of conventional wisdom. Intrade investors tend to lean left and reflect the opinions of Washington, D.C. Democrats. Very often the investors are not Americans (American law related to Intrade makes processing payments more cumbersome). They would tend to be influenced by their home countries' media, which is usually even farther-left than American media.

Therefore, unlike the Republican primary Intrade markets, in which the investors had less emotional stake, we can expect that Obama's odds will be inflated relative to what they probably ought to be. Democrats tend to overestimate their chance of victory in presidential elections: In every recent presidential election aside from 1984, Democrats have been confident of victory. (Republicans, if anything, tend to be more pessimistic than circumstances warrant.)

What about the VP nominee market? Portman's rise (at the expense of Rubio) has come from increasing buzz out of Washington political commentators. Unless the Romney camp is deliberately leaking information about their selection process--which is unlikely at this stage--the buzz around Portman may not actually reflect Romney's decision-making. In fact, it may be an attempt to influence it.

Left-leaning Intrade investors may be acting out of optimism even in the VP market. As we explained in the Candidate Rankings, Obama's most likely scenario for victory is one in which he successfully paints Romney as a retread of George W. Bush in terms of economic policy. The selection of Portman as VP would be very advantageous to Obama for this reason. By contrast, choosing Rubio would reinforce the idea that Romney intends to take the country in a new direction--while harming Obama in Florida and among Hispanics.