get inside the Democrats' heads if they think that Romney choosing a candidate from an essentially non-winnable state will mean to them that he made the choice without giving consideration to the "sort of home state boost others might provide." I just don't get that one! The other part of the argument is that because Pawlenty is boring, it will likely afford Romney the added benefit of minimizing the possibility of the Vice-Presidential choice being used by the Democrats to change the subject from the economy. That one is at least understandable, if unconvincing. They are going to try to change the subject regardless. While Karl did bring up Senator Rubio and Bobby Jindall, he neglected to mention one of the top three candidates, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. Lots of people say he's boring too, although he has been a proven vote getter in every federal race he's run in, including in his recent Senate race. He held his opponent to 39% of the vote in Ohio, a state which is essential to a Romney win in the fall. In my view, not mentioning Portman was the only way Karl could come up with the thin gruel on which this post is premised. It doesn't matter who Romney picks because he's still at the top of the ticket. I don't trust him, have no reason to trust him, and honestly can't imagine how the Republican party survives as a viable political entity after this, whether or not Romney wins.