Talk Elections

I know it's 2014, and the 2012 election was two years ago, and I know that Romney-Ryan lost the election, but will historians rate Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as a good vice presidential pick? When he was first chosen, he was hailed as "the son of the Midwest", the "next big thing", and today, he has diminished his profile. Was Ryan a good pick or not?

No. I remember reading in Double Down that the Obama camp were puzzled by the Ryan pick because he was an obviously bad choice due to his link to House Republicans, but I don't think Romney had very many credible alternatives and Ryan was seen as the person most compatible with Romney. There was a list of eleven (Kelly Ayotte, Chris Christie, John Cornyn, Mitch Daniels, Bill Frist, Mike Huckabee, Bob McDonnell, Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan) that was then reduced to a shortlist of five (Christie, Pawlenty, Portman, Rubio and Ryan). Of those five, only Portman and Rubio seem like good choices to me.

He wasn't that bad in a "rising star" sense, but considering that Edwards and Palin were also rising stars he probably should have picked someone else.

Honestly, I don't see what he brought to the ticket at all. From what I can tell, picking him had 3 objectives:

a) Mollify the conservative base over Romney's "RINO"ness
Verdict: Failed. Most conservatives had already accepted they were going to vote for Romney by late August anyway, and of the very few that didn't, Ryan didn't change their decision to not vote for "the UnChristian Mormon" anyway.

b) Help in the swing state Wisconsin
Verdict: Failed. Wisconsin voted pretty much exactly how you'd expect it to without a Wisconsinite on the ticket.

c) Crush Joe Biden in the debate with his "wonkishness"
Verdict: Failed. Speaks for itself. Biden easily could've been exploited and made to look like an idiot in that debate, but Ryan wasn't up to the task. He got taken to the woodshed instead.

I think he was a better pick that Palin, Cheney, Kemp and Quayle, but not a "good" one. I decided to vote "Yes" because he wasn't bad either and the problem of the GOP in 2012 was Mitt Romney, not Paul Ryan.

Terrible pick. Did nothing for the ticket.

Would've preferred McDonnell, heck, maybe Cornyn or Ayotte probably would be better, but he wasn't as bad as some say he is.

Rubio would have been the best.

He needed someone who could bring energy without risking the Palin critique about not being ready for the job. THe best one who could hold that down would be Condi and I don't buy the notion that she would have provoked a right wing revolt. Rubio would be risk obviously of course, but he wouldn't have gotten embarrased the way Palin did.

I really don't see the benefit afforded by Portman. The man is a first term Senator with low numbers and from the part of the state where Romney was already going to do well in (Ubber Republican Cincy burbs and surrounding rural counties). Chances are Portman would have done the same for Romney in OH that Ryan did in Wisconsin. Romney needed help in Cleveland and Toledo metro areas and Portman wouldn't have provided any assistance there.

If you want a bland Senator, the better pick would have been North Carolina's Richard Burr, who whilst also somewhat anonymous, he woudl have been a two termer who won reelection by double digits; had a record on military and defense issues, which is a nice compliment to Romney's economic focus; has a personal connection to Virginia; and finally a record of collaboration in the Senate.

He was surprisingly ineffective and terrible. I thought we was an attractive pick for the conservative base but he ended up being bland and a talking point politician. But its not like there were that many better choices.

I remember being surprised and disappointed that he was chosen, I had wanted Rubio.

He didn't do much good, but I don't think he could have made it any worse. Portman or Rubio were the best choices, as already noted.

No, he was too extreme, and he couldn't have swung Wisconsin to Romney, because he has never been  elected to a statewide office in Wisconsin.

A puzzlingly bad VP pick for Romney because the Romney campaign clearly never intended to deploy him effectively. Why pick the policy wonk whose known for crunching numbers and pointing at graphs if you're just going to muzzle him by making him keep everything vague as possible?

I was not a fan of this pick at all. I remember my friend texted me when he heard the news, and I didn't believe him.

Someone brought this up earlier, but I actually thought Bob McDonnell would have been a fantastic pick until the Ultrasound Bill in the General Assembly. He was a very popular Governor (his approval rating was mid-60% for a long time), he had campaigned on downplaying social issues to focus more on the economy and jobs, and he would have pacified the base without embarrassing the ticket. I know plenty of Democrats here who had very little to no objection with him. I think he could have at least provided a small bump in Virginia.

After McDonnell went downhill, I thought Rubio should have been the pick -- this was still when Rubio's stock was high. It would have been a fairly exciting pick, and probably not destructive a la Palin. Rubio probably helps some in Florida, and Rubio might have been better in that debate against Biden.

The Ryan pick was just bad for a variety of reasons. I know he was trying to make inroads in the Midwest, but Ryan has never won a statewide race. Not to mention, the association with House Republicans and the Ryan Budget was an easy campaign target for Democrats. I remember reading that the Ryan pick scared off many Senior voters in Florida, especially. I also need to add that I think Ryan is frankly very awkward and not particularly charismatic. He reminds me of that nerd in high school who would know an ungodly amount of facts about something, and would constantly drone on about it, to the point where people didn't really understand what his point was.

All in all, it wouldn't have been a perfect pick either, but I think I would have picked Rubio, and then Portman or Pawlenty.

Well Romney would have lost regardless. Now I think Gore / Graham could have won Florida by an unstealable margin and therefore the election. Lieberman was a piss poor choice by Gore.

Yeah, I agree with you that he would have lost regardless. I just think Ryan was a bad pick from the start.

Portman/ Romney, Gore/Graham or Kerry/Warner would have been stronger tickets.

I think so.

Romney did show significant improvement in Wisconsin from McCain's 2008 results, so the pick likely helped there.

The main conversation about the ticket was that they got along well, so there wasn't much drama. And Ryan didn't make any serious gaffes, or face any major scandals. The top task of a veep is to do no harm, and Ryan succeeded there.

Well, he failed to win a Debate against Biden when the time was ripe, and the Medicare cuts sure came up, and the Soup Kitchen incident.

It wasn't significant when factoring in the nationwide swing.

Yes, for the same reasons I gave 2 years ago. Harping on WI is silly.

He had never won a statewide election in Wisconsin, and by October he was defending his House seat.

I agree. As Congressman, Ryan lacked a statewise base. Expecting him to bring Wisconsin would be like expecting Michele Bachmann to bring Minnesota.

Also, the party base was already fired up and rallying behind Romney. He should have picked someone to broad the ticket appeal instead.

Paul Ryan wasn't that great of a choice mostly due to his lack of charisma and controversies over his budget plan. In retrospect, Rob Portman or John Thune might have been the best choices for Mitt Romney's running-mate.

No. Rubio probably would've been a better choice. Or Portman or Pawlenty (in that order) if they wanted to play it safe.

I checked "no" because a mere Representative doesn't have the prestige to bring in a state, unless he is in his/her party's leadership.  Then, the candidate drags the ticket down by attaching the negative's of their party's Congressional leadership to the national ticket.

If I were Romney, I'd have picked Portman; he would have, IMO, made just enough difference to bring in Ohio.  That's if I limited myself to guys Romney was considering.  If I wanted a guy that would have added gravitas to the ticket, I'd have gone for Tom Ridge, and I'd have not backed down from the Tea Party types.  Ridge had stature and would have helped Romney carry PA. 

This. Paul Ryan was a low-risk choice in a decision where a low-risk choice is nearly always the best choice.

Here's the issue

Kelly Ayotte - Too inexperienced (had only been in the Senate for 1.5 years); too similar to Romney
Chris Christie - Too inexperienced (had only been Governor for 2.5 years); too brash; would upstage Romney
John Cornyn - Senate leadership; boring white guy
Mitch Daniels - Boring white guy; had job at Purdue lined up; probably would have declined for same reasons he didn't run for President
Bill Frist - Boring white guy; out of Senate for too long; doing other things and probably wouldn't have been interested
Mike Huckabee - Boring white guy; too socially conservative; too controversial; wrapped up in other pursuits
Bob McDonnell - Corrupt
Tim Pawlenty - Incredibly bland; no advantages that Ryan doesn't bring
Rob Portman - Endorsed SSM and would have done so even had Romney not picked him; boring white guy; bland
Marco Rubio - Too inexperienced (had only been in the Senate for 1.5 years); would not have performed well on national stage
 

...and Paul Ryan. The best choice? Certainly was never realistically going to deliver Wisconsin or beat Biden in the debate, would repel older voters due to Medicare and the Ryan budget, and had unfortunate ties to the House leadership, but was also young, handsome, solidly conservative without being a scary firebreather, wonkish, and reasonably accomplished

Romney really didn't have any good choices.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody knew at the time McDonnell was corrupt. And nobody knew that Portman would endorse SSM either. So those two were easily better choices than Ryan.

Although very bland, Pawlenty may have made a difference in Iowa and Minnesota, Cornyn would have made Romney stronger in the South

But Romney won in the South. Unless you are implying that Cornyn would have flipped Virginia and Florida, in which case you are wrong.

Romney knew Portman would endorse SSM at some point after the campaign. Portman told the campaign that during his vetting as a possible VP candidate. Portman has said all of this publically since then and informed Romney so Mitt would know ahead of time and not be blindsided. It's entirely possible would have picked Portman otherwise, but we'll never know.

I'd say he did, by bringing the association with the GOP House and his widely disparaged budget plan, further painting Romney as out-of-touch and giving Democrats tons of ammo to attack Romney with.

But I read in the Romney Readiness Project that the main reason he was picked was because he and Romney went together like clockwork. Ryan was the numbers and data guy like Romney, and would act like "an adviser reporting to the manager". Their personalities clicked.

Of course, in the end Obama was going to win.

Well,
He wasn't bad, he wasn't good. It changed absolutely nothing.

He was a terrible choice, he should've went with Rubio or Pawlenty.

No, because rising stars have historically done worse as VP's.

Should've went with Brian Sandoval.

The Romney campaign seem overconfident they would win. I think they picked Ryan to help them govern, not to put Wisconsin in play or sway undecided voters. Ryan’s influence with house conservatives may have been crucial to easing their concerns, as Romney would have had to comprise with moderate senate dems in order for legislation to get to this desk.

GOP havent successfully picked good VP candidates, Palin, too. Ryan was agsinst Bowles Simpson, Dems wouldnt bite.

He was perfect.

No, because he was a carbon-copy of Mitt.  Picking somebody from the upper Midwest was the right idea, but he needed to go with someone a bit more folksy.  An upper-middle class Randian?  He didn't change anybody's mind in Ohio, which should've been his only strategic concern.  Goes to show how clueless Mitt was.  Probably thought he put Wisconsin in his back pocket in one fell swoop.

At the time it I though Pawlenty would be the VP candidate. The Ryan pick I was not expecting. Maybe Rubio would have been a better fit for Romney than Ryan or Pawlenty looking back on it.

Portman was, in truth, Romney's best choice, in that he could have helped in Ohio more than Ryan could help in Wisconsin.  Ohio is a far more swing state than Wisconsin, which has gone for every Democrat since Michael Dukakis.  His experience with the Bush Administration was, IMO, awfulized; people expect someone on a party's national ticket to have some ties to their party's last Presidential Administration. 

Ryan didn't help him win any states. But when have VP picks ever had such big effect on a race?  People voted for or against Romney / Obama. Ryan (and Biden) didn't sway anyone, for or against.

A good VP selection is one that neither helps nor hurts the ticket. And Ryan fit that category. He didn't embarrass himself or Romney. He appeared intelligent. He gave good speeches.

Romney would have lost with Pawlenty, Rubio, Christie, or Portman too.

He wasn't a bad pick per se, but not a good one either as he did not deliver any states to Romney since we already knew IN and NC would flip

He was a good pick if the goal was to placate the base, which he needed out in droves if he was gonna beat Obama. But that's it, really. Placating the party base with an Ayn Randian fantasy did nothing to stop steering the boat into certain doom as moderates & independents abandoned ship. Ryan didn't help win a swing state, nor did he attract women; if anything, he turned off a lot of old people that rely on Medicare & Social Security. So, on balance, no.

He should've picked Santorum.

Ryan actively harmed the ticket by reinforcing the perception of Romney as a heartless plutocrat. People forget this today because Romney is a relative moderate on the flashpoint issues of the Trump era, but at the time he came across as a cartoonishly extreme Scrooge McDuck type, and Ryan cemented that. "Soothing Midwesterner" was the right instinct but someone with a more "common touch" image, or an image that could conceivably have been "spun" in that direction (which Ryan's couldn't have been in a month of Sundays), would have gone over better.

I still believe that he is a good pick despite many flaws. All people have that so we got to be open with such idea.

Ryan wasn't a bad choice, but Rob Portman or Kelly Ayotte would have been better options.

The McDonnell corruption issues would've come to light with cursory digging, since they mostly were around McDonnell's daughter's wedding in 2011. I don't know if it would've been enough to seriously damage the ticket though.

No.

No, but people are acting like replacing Ryan would've drastically changed the race. He was a 'less bad' pick than Palin (as a candidate) or Lieberman (electoral ramifications).

No. Romney's biggest weakness IMO was his image as a rich guy in a suit who was born into wealth and didn't relate to the economic hardship that middle and working class Americans had felt during economic downturn. A free market fundamentalist like Paul Ryan was hardly going to challenge that perception.

VP picks rarely have a dramatic effect on a campaign anyway. Usually their purpose is to balance out the candidate's weak spots which I don't think Ryan did for Romney, but it's not like Paul Ryan sank Romney's campaign or anything like that.

Ryan wasn't that bad of a pick, but Romney should've picked Rubio to win Latinos (who backed Obama in a landslide in 2012) and to help win FL. Or Portman, who I'm guessing would win over OH. Ryan wasn't a terrible pick but he was too little-known, young and inexperienced and brought very little to the table, electorally speaking, since I doubt even the Romney campaign really thought WI would flip because of Ryan. If I was Romney I'd pick either Rubio or Portman (probably Rubio).

He was pretty much the same as John Edwards...probably didn't hurt anything, but probably didn't help either.