It's just days before the Republican
presidential nominating convention and a simple review of the
objective facts that describe the political context for the November
election should put Mitt Romney ahead with a comfortable lead over
President Obama. Obama's job approval has been mostly below the 50%
mark for months (currently 47.5%: Rasmussen/Gallup). The economy is
in its fourth year of recession and the unemployment rate is 8.3%.
The “real” unemployment rate that includes individuals who have
given up looking for jobs and others who have downgraded to part time
or low end jobs, is 14.9%. Sixty one percent of America believe the
“country is on the wrong track”. The federal deficit exceeds 15
trillion dollars and annual deficits which add to the debt are
forecast to be near or above $1.3 trillion for as far as the eye can
see. Obama's signature legislative “accomplishment”, Obamacare,
still lacks majority support of the American people.
U.S. combat forces are out of Iraq but
that took three years and the situation in Iraq is little better than
after Saddam Hussein was deposed, as Sunni militias continue the
internal conflict. The war in Afghanistan plods towards its 2014
expiration date for no logical reason. Afghan security forces are
infiltrated by Taliban insurgents who are murdering U.S. troops at a
higher rate than they are being killed in combat. Obama presides but
does not govern. The Democrats haven't produced a budget in three
years and the Federal Reserve is attempting to manage the economy
through monetary policy.
Yet Romney will enter the GOP
convention behind in national polls, several key swing states and
projected electoral votes. Why is this so? The answer has several
components.
First, Romney emerged from a weak field
of Republican candidates which fought a vicious and self destructive
nominating battle. As the front runner he was the main target of
attacks. The Republican “brand” suffered as the public watched
months of ineptitude (Bachmann, Cain), bizarre positions (Santorum)
and hostility (Gingrich). Romney himself has been an uninspiring
candidate, better than the others during the primary battle but
lacking the innate qualities of “vision” and leadership necessary
to inspire enthusiastic support in the general election battle. He
offers a conservative alternative to Obama's big government, advanced
welfare state, but it lacks coherence and projects a poorly defined
outcome.
Second, each party has core supporters
whose support is constant. The Democrat base is simply larger than
the Republican's. Democrats can count on unions, minorities, gays,
feminists, environmentalists, government workers and individuals on
public assistance, as well as an ideologically motivated group of
intellectuals i.e. educators and journalists. The Republican core
includes the big business and financial communities, and blocs of
voters concerned with abortion, gay rights, deficits and debt and
defense.
So to gain a majority, Republican
candidates must inspire independents and Democrats whose
dissatisfaction with their current personal circumstances under
Democrat leadership, overcomes their tendency to vote their
historically perceived interests.
This then, is the context within which
Romney made his choice of Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running
mate. Much “conventional wisdom” surrounds the choice of a
running mate. The first criteria always asserted by presidential
candidates in their selection process is to find someone who is
qualified to take over the office of the president in case that is
necessary. This common sense standard however seems to have
diminished in favor of other more political considerations i.e.
McCain/Palin; Kerry/Edwards.
The basic question is “Will Paul Ryan
bring votes to the ticket that weren't already there? Geography used
to be a prominent factor. In our electoral college system a
candidate from a large population state and thus with a significant
number of electoral votes seemed to be a likely criteria. This of
course assumed that the candidate was popular throughout the state in
question. This logic also applied to regional candidates i.e. the
“south”; the “mid-west”, New England etc. Other
considerations however, can supersede this simple calculation.
George W. Bush picked Dick Cheney from Wyoming with three electoral
votes (insider Washington D.C experience). Obama picked Joe Biden
from Delaware, with three electoral votes (alleged foreign policy
expertise), and McCain picked Palin from Alaska with three electoral
votes (the female vote).
Balance is often cited as a useful
selection strategy. This could mean picking a candidate with
particular expertise and experience. Most presidential candidates
are short on foreign policy experience so a vice presidential
candidate can campaign as filling this gap i.e. Biden. Ideological
balance might be sought; a vice presidential candidate that is
perceived to be “more liberal”, “more conservative” or even
“more moderate” might be touted as “balancing the ticket”.
In the modern era of televised campaigning personal traits have
become more important. Dynamism, sense of humor, likeability,
appearance, speaking ability, and self confidence, all are important.
So back to the basic questions: with
respect to readiness to assume the office of president, both Romney
and Ryan have the advantage of running against Obama whose 2008
election resume' lowered the bar in this respect to outer space like
emptiness. Although relatively young at 42, Ryan's 13 years in the
House of Representatives and prominence as GOP “ranking member”,
and since 2010, Chairman of the Budget Committee place him beyond
criticism from Democrats as being unprepared for the higher office if
necessary.
Geography? Wisconsin, Ryan's home
state, only has ten electoral votes but is considered a
“swing state”, and in a close election every electoral vote becomes important. Polls since Ryan was named show a slight (2%; within the polling margin of error) pick up for Romney, although Obama still leads slightly. But if electoral votes were the primary factor, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida would have been the choice.
“swing state”, and in a close election every electoral vote becomes important. Polls since Ryan was named show a slight (2%; within the polling margin of error) pick up for Romney, although Obama still leads slightly. But if electoral votes were the primary factor, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida would have been the choice.
“Balance” might have been a factor
since Romney has met with an conservative enthusiasm gap since the
primaries and Ryan is perceived, somewhat incorrectly, as a deficit
hawk and a Tea Party favorite; (Ryan voted for the “Bush tax cuts;
the Medicare Prescription Benefit; TARP, the bank bailout; and the
auto bailout).
Essentially, Ryan is a politically
savvy technocrat who loves economics and unlike most politicians
isn't afraid to offer up specific ideas for debate in hopes of
bringing about needed change. He lacks the energy and charisma of
New Jersey Governor Chris Christy, or the interesting background,
potential electoral college benefits, and up and coming political
stardom of Florida Senator Marco Rubio both of who would have
generated more interest/excitement, but he is a safe, conservative
choice. His 2010/11 budget proposal has provided fodder for the
expected Democrat doomsday scenarios and vitriol but any Republican
vice presidential nominee would stimulate the far Left hate machine.
So will Ryan bring votes to the
Republican ticket that weren't already there or could he cost Romney
votes? Probably neither. Research shows that barring an obviously
flawed vice presidential candidate (Palin) voters tend to vote for
the top of the ticket. Voters who prefer Romney to Obama will approve
of Ryan and vice-versa. The presidential and vice presidential
debates will be crucial for Romney and Ryan. They have to make the
case that Obama has led a failed administration and that they have a
plan to turn the nation around. And they will have to do this in
such a way as to inspire the confidence of the electorate.
No comments:
Post a Comment