[Averti$ingGuru]

This was a terrible plan. Your behind in the fourth quarter you have to go bold in your play calling. So who do you pick a boring white guy. Ryan maybe smart but Americans have an attention span of a squirrel, do you really think they are going to pay attention when he pulls out his charts and graphs?

Ryan is only boring to you because he's white. Your slip is showing.

[Qesomud]

Thats the best line I have heard from anyone ...

"we promise equal opportunity....not equal outcome".
Liberals should learn from that one.

I can just hear the social engineers pulling their hair out every time they hear that quote.

[VrQsgM7c]

This was a terrible plan. Your behind in the fourth quarter you have to go bold in your play calling. So who do you pick a boring white guy. Ryan maybe smart but Americans have an attention span of a squirrel, do you really think they are going to pay attention when he pulls out his charts and graphs?

What is boring about Ryan? His inclusion brings an awful lot to debate and talk about. You may not agree with his budget but at least he has some substance. This is Mitt stepping up his game, and Obama is going to have to step it up too. The election isn't just about bullet points and perceptions anymore.

[quorceopporce]

Vice President candidates don't win elections.

Although they can help lose them from time to time. Or do you think that's also just a myth?

[seodiary]

More for those who think that ryan is actually a radical: Reports show that under the ryan plan, the gov't will collect 37 trillion in taxes. In the same period under Obama's plan the government will take in 39 trillion in tax revenue.

Is there really a difference?

Just $2 trillion.

[Podborodok]

Vice President candidates don't win elections.

But they sure can lose an election; just ask John McCain

[Licacivelip]

But they sure can lose an election; just ask John McCain

laff if you think mcpain didn't lose the election. Palin saved it and actually made it close

[!!Aaroncheg]

laff if you think mcpain didn't lose the election. Palin saved it and actually made it close

Agreed. Palin brought out people against her, but without her the conservative base would have abandoned McCain.

[thehhhyips]

Although they can help lose them from time to time. Or do you think that's also just a myth?

But they sure can lose an election; just ask John McCain

The chance of a negative effect is much greater than the positives, but overall, I don't think anyone can point out a VP pick that lost, or won, a modern election.

[QQ9ktYrV]

Agreed. Palin brought out people against her, but without her the conservative base would have abandoned McCain.

I truly believe the conservative base would have voted for McCain no matter what -- anyone but Obama. I guess no one will ever know how many votes McCain lost from folks like myself who were seriously considering voting for him until he picked Palin as his running mate. Do you think that if McCain could turn back time, he'd still pick Palin?

[AdobebePhoto]

I truly believe the conservative base would have voted for McCain no matter what -- anyone but Obama. I guess no one will ever know how many votes McCain lost from folks like myself who were seriously considering voting for him until he picked Palin as his running mate. Do you think that if McCain could turn back time, he'd still pick Palin?

In the scheme of things, that isn't the relevant question. The relevant question is, if he would have picked someone different, would he have won?

No.

[KukkoDrukko]

The chance of a negative effect is much greater than the positives, but overall, I don't think anyone can point out a VP pick that lost, or won, a modern election.

I'll give it the old college try. Lodge, '60: a halfhearted campaigner who went rogue on racial issues, unilaterally deciding Nixon would be an integrationist candidate (Southern white voters were less than pleased). Nixon, furious, had to rein him in and re-burnish the ticket's impressive racist credentials (Southern black voters were less than pleased). They ended up losing four southern states, worth 53 electoral votes, by two points or less (including Texas, even though LBJ had supposedly "balanced" the Kennedy ticket).

There have been far worse running mates since then—Eagleton (grand prize), Ferraro, Stockdale, Palin—but they were all on tickets that would have lost anyway.

[12Dvop4I]

What is boring about Ryan? His inclusion brings an awful lot to debate and talk about. You may not agree with his budget but at least he has some substance. This is Mitt stepping up his game, and Obama is going to have to step it up too. The election isn't just about bullet points and perceptions anymore.

Hopefully not. Additionally, I don't really think there was anyone who was going to join Romney's ticket and bring over enough swing voters to truly make a huge difference. To me, this is the Republican party bringing forward someone who can elucidate their stance on key issues. While he may be not bring new votes to this election, he's well spoken and may solidify the R base for post-2102 elections. He looks to be a player going forward.

[chujwduperjadzi]

I'll give it the old college try. Lodge, '60: a halfhearted campaigner who went rogue on racial issues, unilaterally deciding Nixon would be an integrationist candidate (Southern white voters were less than pleased). Nixon, furious, had to rein him in and re-burnish the ticket's impressive racist credentials (Southern black voters were less than pleased). They ended up losing four southern states, worth 53 electoral votes, by two points or less (including Texas, even though LBJ had supposedly "balanced" the Kennedy ticket).

Giving the benefit of the doubt that it may have cost him the election (which I would argue it didn't since Nixon was pro-civil rights himself and he would have had to sweep the south to get the 50 extra electoral votes he needed, which was even tougher since Byrd took 14. In addition, Lodge was a highly respected and competent politician.), we're still talking 1 election in 52 years and the first election in what I would consider the "modern era" of Presidential elections (I use the first televised debate as a watermark). Plus, it wouldn't have been his background and history and experience that was the controversial point, but a comment on a policy issue during the campaign.

Which is more so the point. You want a VP that doesn't screw something up, can stay on message and is a team player.

There have been far worse running mates since then—Eagleton (grand prize), Ferraro, Stockdale, Palin—but they were all on tickets that would have lost anyway. Correct.

[payowlirriply]

Hopefully not. Additionally, I don't really think there was anyone who was going to join Romney's ticket and bring over enough swing voters to truly make a huge difference. To me, this is the Republican party bringing forward someone who can elucidate their stance on key issues. While he may be not bring new votes to this election, he's well spoken and may solidify the R base for post-2102 elections. He looks to be a player going forward.

How the GOP May Have Just Lost the Election and Won the Future | Observer

[inchaaruutaa]

Giving the benefit of the doubt that it may have cost him the election (which I would argue it didn't since Nixon was pro-civil rights himself and he would have had to sweep the south to get the 50 extra electoral votes he needed, which was even tougher since Byrd took 14. In addition, Lodge was a highly respected and competent politician.), we're still talking 1 election in 52 years and the first election in what I would consider the "modern era" of Presidential elections (I use the first televised debate as a watermark). Plus, it wouldn't have been his background and history and experience that was the controversial point, but a comment on a policy issue during the campaign.

Which is more so the point. You want a VP that doesn't screw something up, can stay on message and is a team player.



Correct.

I'm not suggesting Lodge was a poor choice, or that he even did all that poorly as a running mate. It's just the only case I can think of where it's conceivable that a Veep candidate definitively influenced the outcome the election.

[posimoka]

Ryan is:
Pro: a good communicator, more charismatic than Romeny, dynamic and a draw for (most) fiscal conservatives

Con: an idealogue (though a substantive one), doggedly tied in very specific ways to unpopular policy positions, did I mention dogged?

So thus far its seemed like Romney was running a referemendum on the economy., with Ryan it becomes a serious discussion of fundamental policy issues.

[MightyMasc]

How the GOP May Have Just Lost the Election and Won the Future | Observer

Whoa. Thanks for posting that.

[lomonel]

I truly believe the conservative base would have voted for McCain no matter what -- anyone but Obama. I guess no one will ever know how many votes McCain lost from folks like myself who were seriously considering voting for him until he picked Palin as his running mate. Do you think that if McCain could turn back time, he'd still pick Palin?

Do you think if the GOP could turn back time they'd still pick McPain?

[shinesw]