does VP matter?

**R1D2** · 08-11-12, 07:31 AM

Sat Aug 11 2012
Today at 900am the vice president selection to republican front runner Mitt Romney was supposed to be announced.
My wife has informed me that she has heard that it will be Paul Ryan of Minnesota.

Is Paul Ryan a good selection for Mitt?
What is the opinion here on weather he is the right choice?
How would he impact the U.S. Presidential race?
Does this help or hurt the republican chances of winning the presidency?
Let's try keeping this going...

**R1D2** · 08-11-12, 07:45 AM

Please vote in the poll.

**joepistole** · 08-11-12, 07:53 AM

It only matters to the extent it reflects the candidates judgement/decision making skill or lack thereof (e.g. Palin 2008).

**R1D2** · 08-11-12, 08:05 AM

I am asking a moderator. If you could add this poll to my thread. Vice president an add the comment from joepistole. I had a glitch an had to post the poll separate.
Thank you.

**Grumpy** · 08-11-12, 08:36 AM

Paul Ryan, more than any other Congressman, is responsible for the current debt and the inability of Congress to get anything done in the last three years. He proposed that we cut Medicare and Social Security while also cutting the taxes of the "job creators" who have yet to create any jobs(except in China and India). It is the same failed Bush policies that led to the 2008 meltdown in the first place. Ryan may be popular with the conservatives, but the rest of us won't be voting for him. The Repubs have a floor of about 45%, and that is all they will get if their efforts to either buy(Sheldon Adelson, et al)or steal this election(through voter suppression)are unsuccessful. At least Ryan is an honest pick, putting the course the American people want to go down in a clear choice. Austerity isn't working in Europe, it won't work here(read Paul Krugman), and the wealthy, who have done so well while the rest of us have done so badly are going to have to step up and pay their fair share, voluntarily or not.

Grumpy

**superstring01** · 08-11-12, 09:17 AM

IT will matter this year. Romney wasn't delivering on his base: Fiscal Conservatives, Social Conservatives and Policy Wonks. Ryan delivers that. Apparently the Romney camp assessed his volitals and decided that his presidency depended far more on shoring up the base than picking a woman, a minority or someone from Ohio or Florida. It's not a bad choice as presidential Veep selections go. Keep in mind that there's no way in hell I'd ever vote for Romney. Ryan changes that not one bit.

I wrote this on Quora today:

Originally Posted by Dan Holiday

It's gonna take me a while to figure out the exact details and read between the lines.

I do know one thing up front: Romney's biggest issue now (even bigger than picking someone from a battleground state like Ohio or Florida) is inspiring and capturing the conservative christian vote. This is his base and without them, no amount of attention to minority or women voters will help him. No amount of campaigning in Ohio or Florida will work. Always start with your base and work outward from there. This accomplishes that task.

Romney has to start moving to the left before election day. This guy allows him to move to the left to capture moderates without abandoning his Christian, conservative voters. I think it's a good pick.

I have all my pet theories, but apparently Romney assessed his volitals:

Minorities
Women
Swing States
Social Conservatives
Fiscal Conservatives
Moderates

And apparently the camp came to the conclusion that the most important thing was to shore up the base and have (and don't discount this) a "young, attractive guy" in the race. This is NOT to say that Ohio, Florida, Women and Minorities aren't important, but in terms of "make or break" Hispanics or Blacks weren't going to be his lynch pin.

And while Ohio and Florida ARE, it was determined that his best chance at capturing those voters wasn't just picking someone from their state, it was to pick someone that delivered on three critical factors that Romney himself just isn't delivering:

Fiscal conservatives
Christian conservatives
Policy wonks

Paul Ryan delivers a lot in those areas.

There may also be extenuating circumstances with the other candidates. Portman, Rubio, Rice, Christie, Jindal, Paulenty, (and some others) may all have had "something" in their past that couldn't be risked. It's reported that Rubio has financial issues, Christie is too much of a social moderate (like Romney) & is overweight (don't ever discount that as a factor, though it offends some people) and Rice is conspicuously a single female with gay friends and is soft on abortion.

Paul Ryan (and I'm not a fan) is a very VERY safe pick. He communicates well. He's young and obviously attractive (again, never EVER discount physical attractiveness). Ryan is a policy wonk. He's a budget chopper. He's a conservative Christian. He is no dummy. And finally, he apparently has been vetted with great care (unexpectedly far more care than Palin).

So, it appears I missed the mark. But I also have to concede that Ryan was a good choice for Romney. I know my family was cheering at the top of their lungs. I got an immediate call from my cousin who was happy and he was less than happy about Romney being the pick. What that indicates will only be known on Election day.

~String

**superstring01** · 08-11-12, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by joepistole

It only matters to the extent it reflects the candidates judgement decision making skill or lack thereof (e.g. Palin 2008).

Indeed. You can bet the Romney camp vetted the HELL out of this guy. Plus, he's actually a "known" to the party, so there aren't too many surprises.

~String

**superstring01** · 08-11-12, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by R1D2

I am asking a moderator. If you could add this poll to my thread. Vice president an add the comment from joepistole. I had a glitch an had to post the poll separate.
Thank you.

Mod Note: What is it you want?

**Buddha12** · 08-11-12, 09:35 AM

does VP matter?

To me the government is being proliferated by the same types of people so no matter who you vote for you're going to have the same outcome no matter who wins. Have conditions improved with either party running the show in the past 12 years or are things either about the same or worse? So you see who you voted for hasn't got you in mind but only who they want to to help, like the banks, Wall Street and themselves the most.

Ask yourself if you have gotten help or have things stayed about the same or gotten worse. With an 8 percent unemployment rate I can't say, to me, that things are better than 4 years ago with over 5 trillion dollars being wasted in overcoming the recession we are in.

So the way I see it is that no matter who you vote for you're only going to have the same things going on in the future as they have been in the past. Look at the new boss, same as the old boss. Some things never really change for the more things change, the more they remain the same.

If the economy improves somewhat I think Obama will be our next President but if the economy goes down the drain then Romney has a chance to take over.

**R1D2** · 08-11-12, 09:39 AM

Combine the two.. I thought what I said made that obvious.

**superstring01** · 08-11-12, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by R1D2

Combine the two.. I thought what I said made that obvious.

There's a saying from "This Old House" (one of my faves):

"Measure twice. Cut once."

~String

**Syzygys** · 08-11-12, 09:54 AM

If the OP's question is general, the answer is, it depends. If the 2 candidates are close (like the 2 Bush elections) the VP choice can make or break the case, specially if it is a minority, woman,etc. When a candidate like Romney is running such a screwed up race, it really doesn't matter.

String's evaluation was right on the money. It is pandering to the base, rather than trying to switch independents....

Ryan must know they are going to lose. He is building a base for a 2016 run or for a Fox News offer...

P.S.: I didn't vote, because my answer is, it depends...

**superstring01** · 08-11-12, 10:24 AM

That's a good point, Syz. Ryan may just be trying to become a "known" and have a horse in the 2016 race. Good point, indeed.

~String

**R1D2** · 08-11-12, 12:28 PM

So you could have voted not to me in the poll syz. Because to you it don't matter.

**R1D2** · 08-11-12, 12:43 PM

String ... Your picture is not how I thought you would look. I was thinking you had more hair, an no beard.
An I don't think Paul Ryan would be cut out for news. Weather it be CNN or Fox. If he loses he may try running for president.
But Palin did not try. He may just stay in office or retire for a short while. But we are projecting, what other things he may wish to do.
Going back to the op it does matter. Now that Romney picked him to some degree.. Where we are all headed in the U.S.

**KilljoyKlown** · 08-11-12, 01:08 PM

I'm with Grumpy and String on this topic. I wouldn't vote the Republican ticket even if it was the only ticket. Although I do care about who the Democrats run, it wouldn't deter me from voting against the republicans.

**joepistole** · 08-11-12, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Buddha12

To me the government is being proliferated by the same types of people so no matter who you vote for you're going to have the same outcome no matter who wins. Have conditions improved with either party running the show in the past 12 years or are things either about the same or worse? So you see who you voted for hasn't got you in mind but only who they want to to help, like the banks, Wall Street and themselves the most.

Ask yourself if you have gotten help or have things stayed about the same or gotten worse. With an 8 percent unemployment rate I can't say, to me, that things are better than 4 years ago with over 5 trillion dollars being wasted in overcoming the recession we are in.

So the way I see it is that no matter who you vote for you're only going to have the same things going on in the future as they have been in the past. Look at the new boss, same as the old boss. Some things never really change for the more things change, the more they remain the same.

If the economy improves somewhat I think Obama will be our next President but if the economy goes down the drain then Romney has a chance to take over.

The economy has improved remarkably under the Obama administration. When he took office we were losing nearly a million jobs a month. The economy was shrinking at a rate of 9 percent per year and growing. Since late 2009 we have been adding jobs to the economy each and every month for the last 3 years at a rate of between 100k and 200k per month and the economy has been growing consistently month after month. Romney & Ryan want to redouble on the policies and practices that caused The Great Recession and the loss of 8 million jobs. So there is a pretty clear choice this fall for voters.

**Syzygys** · 08-11-12, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by R1D2

So you could have voted not to me in the poll syz. Because to you it don't matter.

No, I had the general and objective answer. I thought that's what you wanted to know. But I would say, 99% of the posters also answered "not to me" if we are talking about this paricular election.

**R1D2** · 08-11-12, 03:43 PM

Alright miss S. Thanks for the clairfication then,

**Cavalier** · 08-12-12, 01:12 PM

A VP nomination is a weak signal, but not worthless and it is more important to Romney's campaign than it is to Obama's.

There are two principal effects that matter with a VP nomination:

1) The VP could (though often doesn't) have a voice in the administration, and thus help to steer policy. Because that doesn't always occur, no one can rely on it heavily, and that discounts the value of it (though not to zero). So one can reasonalby assume that having a particular VP should influence the direction of policy to a small degree.

2) In Romney's case, it also serves as a signal of what values Romney embraces. That he has chosen Ryan suggests, for good or ill, that he embraces Ryan's values, and those are a known quantity. That is important because Romney doesn't have a track record in the White House that we can use as a measure of his potential upcoming first term, so we can use Ryan's legislative initiatives as a proxy. (In contrast, we do not need such "second-hand" information on Obama, as we have his record in office to use as a guide to his potential second term.) Since Romney may be attempting to deceive us, though, and may be radically different than his running mate, it is another weak signal.

So it should affect things, but only at the margin.