When VP Picks Matter

[Honeycombe8]

Pretty good analysis of the Ryan pick, I thought. Verrrrry interesting. And true.


http://markamerica.com/2012/08/11/confessions-of-an-electorate-when-vp-picks-matter/

Confessions of an Electorate: When VP Picks Matter

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 11th, 2012 at 13:00 and is filed under Election 2012, Featured, History, Mitt Romney, News, Politics.

When VP Picks Matter

(snip) In 2012, Mitt Romney has chosen Paul Ryan in an attempt to ignite the base, but I’d like you to consider the nature of the picks and their relative importance to their respective campaigns, and what they confess to the electorate about their candidates: Only when the party’s nominee is a weak candidate does the Vice Presidential pick matter much at all.

The elder Bush could have won having picked Mickey Mouse when running against Michael Dukakis in 1988, and Ronald Reagan could have picked Caspar Milquetoast in 1980(and in fact, some say he did.) The salient point to take away from the excitement about the Vice Presidential pick by Mitt Romney isn’t that he chose Paul Ryan, so much as it is the fact that it matters who he picked. Think about it: Vice Presidential picks only matter when the Presidential candidate is desperately weak. It’s why Biden doesn’t matter. What this entire episode should tell you is what most conservatives will have known already: Just as in 2008, we have a weak presidential candidate, and the importance of the Vice Presidential pick has grown only by way of compensation.

(snip)

Observe the hysteria of Saturday morning after it went out via the Romney-app that Paul Ryan would be the pick. Consider that there had been such an application for smart-phones at all. What does this tell you about the relative importance of the Romney VP pick? It was crucial. It’s Romney’s last big push to bring resistant conservatives along, and this matters. It doesn’t matter, however, because it’s a good choice or bad choice, but only because the fact that it matters at all reflects the weakness of the top of the ticket. (snip)

(snip) In 2000, when Cheney had mattered more than a little, and Lieberman had mattered also, it was predictable that we would see a campaign fought out between two inferior candidates, with the victor being the candidate whose VP pick mattered least. Advantage Bush.

This should give conservatives and Republicans a moment of pause. History’s formula is clear: If the VP pick matters, it is only because the Presidential nominee is weak, and weak nominees generally beget defeat. Jack Kemp was a great guy, and Sarah Palin really is a phenomenon, and Paul Ryan seems to be a decent politician, so this isn’t really about them, as the bottom of their respective tickets. It’s about the top of the ticket, and the problem is the same in all three cases. When there comes to be this much focus on who the Vice Presidential candidate will be, it is as good as a confession by the campaign and also by the electorate on the weakness of the top of the ticket. Republicans may go to Tampa with their heads in the clouds if they like, buoyed by the selection of Paul Ryan, but if you’re serious about winning, you’ll take the time to confess at least to yourself what all of this chatter of the importance of the VP pick really means. It isn’t good.

[Whisp]

1. interesting, yes. but man, is this person's name Mr or Ms. Redundant?

the same thing was said many times with just slightly different words.

[Honeycombe8]

2. LOL. I noticed that, too. But there were words in between the redundancy that I snipped out,

so in the original article, it's not as noticeable.

I take it he's really serious about the meaning of the Ryan pick being important is that it means Romney is a weak candidate!