Why would it be a problem for Romney to have a non-southerner as his VP? I think that would be an assset. The only place I see it counting against him that matters would be North Carolina. But it could work to his credit in New Hampshire and the West to have no association with the southern wing of the GOP.
Can't agree. Ideologically, the Mountain West portion of the party is closer to the South than the North. The old-school "Yankee Republicanism" was one of fiscal conservatism and pragmatism. The Republicanism of Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. They're the odd ones out in the new GOP, not the anti-immigrant, anti-gay, theocrats that you see in both the Deep South/Southeast *and* in places like Arizona and Colorado. A NH veep (and a woman, no less) places the whole ticket squarely in that throwback school. Which might actually help them in the general election, but it'll cost them some base support.
There's not a lot of upside to being the VP pick in a losing campaign. Think Dan Quayle, think Admiral Stockdale, think Sarah Palin, think Geraldine Ferraro.
Three nobodies and Sarah Palin could hardly be expected to have bright political futures were it not for the VP nominations. And Sarah Palin could have remained governor of Alaska if she'd actually wanted that and invested a minimal effort into it. Compare them to Bob Dole who went on to become Senate majority leader after being on a losing ticket and FDR who became freaking FDR.
[/quote]
Lot of difference between then and now. Back then, being a veep pick was a great way to get your name recognized at the national level. But with the 24-hour news cycle you have people like Michelle Bachmann, who by all rights should be mostly unknown outside of her district, becoming a national figure. And once you're known, people expect you to do things. If all you're known for is being "that other guy/gal who lost", it doesn't translate into strong support in the next electoral cycle.