US elections: why Paul Ryan wasn’t a sensible pick for Romney
9:15 am - August 14th 2012
| Tweet | Share on Tumblr |
contribution by Tim Wigmore
In the two days since Paul Ryan was selected as Mitt Romney’s running-mate there’s been a lot of analysis about what this means for the race.
With the strong caveat that vice-presidential picks are seldom crucial in the final analysis, Romney’s isn’t a sensible selection. Here’s why not:
Ryan is very extreme
Conventional wisdom dictates that being inoffensive is the most important quality in a vp pick. It’s wisdom Romney has ignored with his selection of Ryan – a man whose ‘Path to Prosperity’ budget advocates reducing the top rate of income tax to 25% and sweeping cuts on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Rightly, Ryan is strongly identified with the current, and deeply unpopular, Congress.
Not swinging to victory
A big attraction of any potential VP pick (admittedly not Joe Biden, who hails from uber-Democratic Delaware) is to try and pick up their state. In the case of Ryan, his state of Wisconsin is an important swing state. The trouble is it’s one the Republicans are highly unlikely to win, even with his help – they trail by 6% in most Wisconsin polls and, historically, running mates rarely bring a ‘home state’ boost of more than 2%. Ohio’s Rob Portman would have been more likely to swing a state Romney’s way.
Already fired up
Ryan’s selection has been compared to Sarah Palin’s in 2008, in that both were picked with the Republican base in mind. If this was an important factor in Romney’s choice it is badly flawed. Whereas in 2008 conservatives were disillusioned by eight years of the Bush presidency and needed a reason to go out and vote, one person – Barack Obama – has given them all the motivation they need this year.
So Romney should have been bold, and realised that Obama’s mere presence on the ballot paper had shored up the Republican base for him. Romney in fact had an opportunity to pick a running mate who would allow him to claim the centre ground over Obama – something that Ryan’s history means is now impossible.
A missed opportunity
Ultimately Romney’s selection is a missed opportunity to alter the dynamics of the race. Obama is already comfortable talking about economics, and everything indicates that, in a battle between Obama and Ryan’s economic vision (which Romney has now signed up to), it is Obama’s that is more popular. Indeed, this helps explain why the polls have been much less volatile than normal: it is an economics election, and most Americans have already made up their minds on which vision they prefer.
Romney could have picked a candidate to change the direction of the race – but it had to be a centrist. While some have lauded him for a rare display of audacity, in reality Ryan’s selection merely reaffirms that Romney retains concerns about the Republican base.
As it is, Romney’s campaign echoes John McCain’s in 2008. Both renounced earlier positions to swing to the right in the primaries, before picking running mates designed to appease the Republican base rather than reinforce their own strengths. To the degree Paul Ryan does influence the race, it will be in helping Obama secure a second term.
| Tweet | Share on Tumblr |  |
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by Guest
Story Filed Under: Blog ,Foreign affairs ,United States
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reader comments
I agree that it was probably not a smart pick.
But here is what Romney had been thinking: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2012/08/12/why-did-romney-pick-paul-ryan/ (excerpts from an internal Romney campaign memo about the VP pick).
Romney could have picked a candidate to change the direction of the race – but it had to be a centrist.
By the standards of the Republicans, Romney is a centrist. That’s why he struggled so much during the primaries.
By the standards of the Republicans, Romney is a centrist.
You mean Mitt “I’m a severe Conservative” Romney?
Young, engaging and likely to wipe the floor with Biden in a debate. Good pick.
The distinctions between the respective platforms of the Democrats and the Republicans are now very clear and stark. The downstream implications for the Republicans if Romney and Ryan fail to win the Presidency are also stark. The influence of the Tea Party faction will have been conspicuously rejected.
I’m reminded that the interstate highway system, originally created during the Eisenhower administration, has been variously dubbed as the largest public works programme ever and the largest public works programme since the building of the pyramids. Whichever: politics in those times was a good deal less partisan than lately.
“Young, engaging and likely to wipe the floor with Biden in a debate. Good pick”
You left the “r” out of your last word.
You mean Mitt “I’m a severe Conservative” Romney?
I mean Mitt “former Governor of Massachusetts” Romney. What does it tell you that the leading primary candidates were Romney/Gingrich and then Romney/Santorum?
From where you are Sunny (hell, from where I am) the Republicans are so far over to the right that they all sort of blur, but there really is a difference between the Romney/Pawlenty/Huntsmans and the proper right of the party. If you class Romney as a right-wing Republican then you’ve been swallowing your own propaganda.
A while back, the FT reported that European centre-right parties were keeping low profiles on support for the Republicans, their traditional allies, in the coming Presidential election in November. That might account for Romney’s ill-judged comments about the London Olympics on his recent visit to London just before the start of the games. In the event, Romney emerged looking rather silly and without any boost to the foreign affairs dimension of his platform.
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
-
Liberal Conspiracy
US elections: why Paul Ryan wasn't a sensible pick for Romney http://t.co/ao9XpN7I
-
Tim Ireland
US elections: why Paul Ryan wasn't a sensible pick for Romney http://t.co/ao9XpN7I
-
Jason Brickley
US elections: why Paul Ryan wasn’t a sensible pick for Romney http://t.co/DXUFTNwH
-
Bob Castle
US elections: why Paul Ryan wasn't a sensible pick for Romney http://t.co/ao9XpN7I
-
Patrick Hadfield
US elections: why Paul Ryan wasn't a sensible pick for Romney http://t.co/ao9XpN7I
-
leftlinks
Liberal Conspiracy – US elections: why Paul Ryan wasn’t a sensible pick for Romney http://t.co/dOmujMEW
-
BevR
US elections: why Paul Ryan wasn't a sensible pick for Romney http://t.co/ao9XpN7I
-
Tim Wigmore
US elections: why Paul Ryan wasn't a sensible pick for Romney http://t.co/ao9XpN7I
-
Tim Easton
US elections: why Paul Ryan wasn't a sensible pick for Romney http://t.co/ao9XpN7I
-
Eugene Grant
Why Paul #Ryan wasn’t a sensible pick for #Romney | http://t.co/LPoaSR4m via @libcon > concise and considered piece. Worth reading.
-
BevR
US elections: why Paul Ryan wasn’t a sensible pick for Romney | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/WXLpd2gO via @libcon
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
