SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Psychology of the Ryan Pick

PLANK AUGUST 12, 2012

The Psychology of the Ryan Pick

BY NOAM SCHEIBER

My initial reaction to the Ryan VP selection was that there was only one possible explanation: Team Romney believed it was on track to lose, and Ryan allows them to shift blame for the loss onto the party’s conservative wing.

In response, a lot of readers have wondered why Romney would consciously try to lose. This misunderstands my point—I’m not suggesting he’s trying to lose. I’m saying he’s anticipating losing and trying to make the best of it. He’s not self-sabotaging; he’s resigned. 

To see this, let’s back up a few steps to something we can all agree on: You don’t pick Paul Ryan as your running mate if you think you have a strong chance of winning. Whatever you think of Ryan, no one regards him as low-risk. 

Now here’s where I add the special sauce: Given that Team Romney believed it was headed for defeat, there were one of two ways to respond. 1. With a genuinely bold pick that could have beefed up its margins among key demographic groups: women, independents, disgruntled Democrats, Latinos, etc. 2. With a pick whose only value was to excite conservatives (whom, I should reiterate, were already highly motivated).

The ideal option 1 would be a moderate woman or a moderate Latino, possibly even a Democrat. But Marco Rubio would have been a plausible take on option 1. Even Sarah Palin, as ludicrous as the idea turned out to be in retrospect, was consistent with option 1—she is an attractive, youthful woman who was a genuine outsider. This is your basic high-risk/high-reward proposition that marginally increases your chance of winning (which are low to begin with), but also increases the chance you lose by a large margin, because people see it as a gimmick.  

But Romney didn’t go that route. He went with option 2—a pick that does nothing to increase his chance of winning, but does increase the chance he loses by a large margin, because it hurts with the demographic groups we’re talking about. 

Why would Team Romney do that? Here’s where we get into the realm of psychology. I’d guess—and I won’t pretend it’s anything other than speculation—they worried that if they went with option 1 and lost big, then the blame was on them. In the case of a Palin or Rubio-type figure, the conventional wisdom would be that they were reckless, a la McCain. If they went with a moderate woman or a moderate Latino or a Democrat, the base would insist they lost because they strayed too far from the Truth. I doubt they ever articulated these anxieties, much less discussed them at length. But I suspect they acted as powerful, if subconscious, constraints.

By picking Ryan, on the other hand, they won nothing but validation from conservatives, who have now signed on in blood, and who will share the blame if the ticket goes down.

Just knowing what we know about how humans work, that strikes me as a much more appealing proposition. But, of course, it’s also incredibly risk-averse. 

Follow me on twitter: @noamscheiber

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 29 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

29 comments

I still don't buy it. Romney strikes me as someone who is incredibly insulated from the world and who associates only with people he feels are his equals or with people who toady up to him. All of his equals were saying Ryan was the man, and since they were all winners ponying up millions of dollars each I am convinced he thinks the billion that will come his way will inundate Obama and win him the victory. And the only way the blame could ever be shared is if it is a landslide loss wiping out the House along with it, and even then I am convinced the Republicans will believe it was based on Obama's lies about the real Ryan budget and in 4 more years the obviousness of Ryan and his budget will be crystal clear to America. And if it is a narrow loss, then obviously the loss was due to Ryan not being at the top of the ticket and that Ryan being at the top of the ticket Obama would never have gotten away with his lies since Ryan would have wiped Obama up in the debates. No one anywhere blames Bentsen for the loss of Dukakis. Romney will be the next Dukakis. Think of the Republican party as being run by Mr. Rationale to get a sense of their mindset. Don't confuse these people with normal people, normal people do not get car elevators, they do not believe that the rules of behavior do not apply to them. Ryan is the same age as Romney's oldest son, I am sure he was properly deferential to Romney in meeting him, and I am sure that Romney thinks Ryan will be the next JFK bringing in millions of young voters and Catholic voters so I simply do not buy the idea that a loss is really in the cards.

- blackton

August 12, 2012 at 12:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

a loss is really in the cards by their way of thinking I mean. I think that they are utterly delusional and if they are not, then I am utterly delusional in my faith in the American people falling for a ticket that is even worse than McCain Palin (at least I liked and respected McCain but thought he was 8 years too late)

- blackton

August 12, 2012 at 1:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Palin didn't lead conservatives to accept any blame. Why should Ryan? Conservatives will continue to blame the top of the ticket. Only when Jim DeMint is nominated and loses a national election will movement conservatives confess among themselves that their program is not, in fact, popular with the "real" America. Maybe.

- timteeter

August 12, 2012 at 1:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Copying a post I made on facebook, but it's something that entered my mind, giving Mittens the benefit of knowing he isn't stupid: My personal theory is that he is getting Ryan to solidify his hold on the base (who freak out at the slightest moment, see Mittens campaign strategist getting black listed over her saying Romneycare was good in Mass.) while he himself makes a move to the middle. It's risky and I don't think it would work, even if it is his plan, which it might not be. But still, Ryan is a complete idiot, and upon that, white as can be, he should have gone with Rubio, who is still super tea party (I think he was a birther at one point to) and Latino to boot, so he possibly could have given Romney some Latino voters and secured Florida for Mittens. Ryan might actually lose Florida for Mittens, as he has been very open about tearing down Medicare and social security, two things old white Obama hating people love.

- ARealHero

August 12, 2012 at 1:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Copying a post I made on facebook, but it's something that entered my mind, giving Mittens the benefit of knowing he isn't stupid: My personal theory is that he is getting Ryan to solidify his hold on the base (who freak out at the slightest moment, see Mittens campaign strategist getting black listed over her saying Romneycare was good in Mass.) while he himself makes a move to the middle. It's risky and I don't think it would work, even if it is his plan, which it might not be. But still, Ryan is a complete idiot, and upon that, white as can be, he should have gone with Rubio, who is still super tea party (I think he was a birther at one point to) and Latino to boot, so he possibly could have given Romney some Latino voters and secured Florida for Mittens. Ryan might actually lose Florida for Mittens, as he has been very open about tearing down Medicare and social security, two things old white Obama hating people love.

- ARealHero

August 12, 2012 at 1:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ummmmmm...double posts for the win? Wait crap now it's a triple post.

- ARealHero

August 12, 2012 at 2:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noam, someone does not spend much of his adult life running for President (or seeking to achieve any major goal) only to give up when s/he has a bad month. Most people are not wired that way. Certainly, incredibly ambitious people are not. Romney probably figured that he was being hammered by the far right and that his campaign was DOA unless he placated them. He didn't like having to do that, and he probably panicked in making this lousy decision, but in any event he bit the bullet. ARealHero might be on to something in that Romney is making the best of a bad situation (and no, Noam, that does not equal being defeatist) by bringing Ryan on to cover his right flank while he tacks somewhat to the middle. Now, the obvious problems with that strategy is that he has the Ryan Plan tied around his neck. But it could well be that he'll present a Romney Plan that isn't the same as the Ryan Plan. Romney will still be weighed down by this poor choice, but that won't preclude his trying to make the best of it. And it surely doesn't mean he's giving up.

- Thunderroad

August 12, 2012 at 3:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is my attempt to explain why Romney chose Ryan: Romney faced two immediate problems: (1) conservatives didn’t trust him, especially after his spokesperson’s recent reference to his Massachusetts health care plan; and (2) the Obama team had managed to make the campaign about Romney’s business history and tax returns, and he was desperate to change the subject. The selection of Ryan solves both of these immediate problems, albeit at the expense of creating a larger long term problem, i.e. associating Romney as closely as possible with the extremely unpopular Ryan plan. This theory would be consistent with Romney’s general approach to politics: Adopt whatever position promises short term gain, and worry about the long term later.

- NateG

August 12, 2012 at 3:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I to noticed it came just in time considering the whole "Romney proud of ROmneycare???" flap.

- ARealHero

August 12, 2012 at 3:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm still holding out (via Crowley's Time article) for how Rove figures into this decision. According to that article, Rove want's the White House yesterday.

- jet

August 12, 2012 at 3:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

C'mon, don't mischaracterize the nature of your reader feedback. I'll admit I skimmed a few of the comment after your first post, but I read most of them, and I didn't see anybody suggesting that it was your contention that Romney was trying to lose. We aren't stupid. We understand that you were only saying that Mitt is resigned to the likelihood on his loss. It's just that we disagree. Romney still believes he can win this thing and with good reason. And the idea that he picked Ryan for any reason other than that, rightly or wrongly, he believes Ryan can help him win is just silly, too clever by half. "I'm probably going to lose, and if I do, I want to make sure that people blame movement conservatism and not me personally." I mean, really... People don't operate like that. There are too many leaps of logic involved. Also, why should Romney give a shit what the GOP thinks about him if he loses? And why should he want to stick it to movement conservatism? It's all too far-fetched.

- AaronW

August 12, 2012 at 6:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I see you don't even mention the effect of money on the election. Can you really dismiss the effect it's always had on picking a winner?

- dar1213

August 12, 2012 at 8:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Romney doesn't think he's going to lose, and he's not looking for excuses if he does. People as driven and disciplined as Romney don't think that way, in my experience. If the Ryan pick is wrong for him, then it's a mistake in judgment, and we'll only understand it, if ever, once the fat lady sings, and the campaign memoirs are written. That said, I will give in to the urge speculate a bit and point out that Romney is not a professional politician, despite his earlier forays into elective office. He's a professional business executive - not even a manager - an executive. He has succeeded in the past by imposing his discipline and vision from the top-down, and most often that's been a command-driven execution of a chosen turnaround strategy. His seconds have always been executors as well - people who buy the boss' vision, and ruthlessly carry it out. That is how much of business works, and in particular it's how the private equity, turn-around business works. And, in that world, Ryan makes sense, if you assume that Romney actually believes in the budget and tax ideas that he and Ryan both propound. Ryan is the guy who will make it happen, 'cause you know he's on board, absolutely committed, and completely ruthless. Of course, in reality, the presidency is only marginally an executive position - outside of military and foreign policy, it's almost entirely a leadership position. Obama's attempts at using waivers for No Child Left Behind and welfare reform starkly illustrate the limits of true executive power in domestic policy. Romney, if elected becomes immediately constrained by the character of the House and Senate, and can execute on his plans only if the legislature also lean decisively toward the right. Unfortunately for most of the country, if Romney is elected, he probably will have a House and Senate leaning decisively and catastrophically to the right. So, if he wins, Ryan makes sense as someone who can execute for Romney. But of course he has to win first. And here, his decades of executive experience almost certainly betray him. You can't decide to win. You have to convince people you deserve to win. An executive can put a hatchet man in as his Chief Operating Officer, or CFO, or whatever, and if the peons don't like, it, tough. In the short term, they can still execute. That won't work to get you elected though. If the Ryan pick looks to the electorate - as Obama will make sure he does - as an endorsement of radical policy choices with respect to Medicare, Medicaid, student aid, etc, then you just might not ever get the chance to test your theories. In the end, I don't think Romney either respects or understand electoral politics. I don't think he knows beans about leadership or inspiration. He knows how to execute - how to give orders. And I think that may have betrayed him in this choice.

- IowaBeauty

August 12, 2012 at 10:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Romney had to pick Ryan because he locked himself out of the political realms by moving back and forth between them. The left doesn't consider him a moderate, the right doesn't consider him a conservative and moderates don't consider him a moderate. His plan to win on the economy faltering, and him losing his base, who might stay home, he had to assert himself again as a severe conservative.

- Nusholtz

August 12, 2012 at 10:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Romney is so befuddled (scared) that when he introduced Ayn Ryan to the crowds he said: 'I give you the next President of the US." He later, corrected himself. Still someone in command of himself would not have given in to his anxieties. Ryan was chosen because they wanted someone who could change the subject from himself (his business problems, his tax history) to something on someone else. In this sense Ryan isn't so much a scapegoat as a red-herring.

- arnon1

August 12, 2012 at 11:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find nothing mysterious here. Romney knew he was losing (look at today's pollster.com and RCP averages). He decided to be bold . . . but not really bold. What exactly does Ryan add to the ticket? In the end, Rpmney did in fact choose an incredibly boring white guy--except this IWBG is a somewhat younger, very slightly less incredibly boring white guy who excites the people Romney listens to even while this IWBG bores everyone else to death. It's weeks to go to the RNC and by the time we get there no one will care. Ryan has less media staying power than Palin or Dan Quayle. He isn't even amusing. Romney's tax returns and Bain Capital problems will continue. Every blank in Romney's budget that Ryan fills in will bring terror to anyone who's listening, and most people won't be listening. Once the RNC is over, no one will care. His press corps will be miniscule. The good news is that Ryan will lose his House seat.

- timteeter

August 12, 2012 at 11:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Does he automatically lose his House seat by running? Maybe Romney is a patriot after all. Hmmmmm. Anyhow that Freudian slip was all too frightening. Vice Presidents do matter. Can you imagine President Ryan? AAAAACCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK.

- Sophia

August 12, 2012 at 11:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just a couple of comments: -- Actually, Obama made the same slip-up once when introducing Biden, as an NPR report has reminded us: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/08/11/158622422/romneys-not-alone-in-stumbling-over-next-president-line -- Bad news, Sophia: apparently Ryan can run concurrently for the House and the ticket -- if they lose the general but he wins his district, he keeps his seat. -- Nevertheless, no matter what the thinking behind this (and I think Iowa gives a very good read on Romney), the GOP presidential candidate has selected as his running mate a man who detests with all his heart and soul the main political and policy achievement of that candidate's previous career.

- ironyroad

August 12, 2012 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia, he is running for both seats as it is legal by Wisconsin law, so he is likely to still be with us no matter what happens.

- blackton

August 12, 2012 at 12:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Notwithstanding the fine insights in the other comments here (though not in the piece we're commenting on - sorry, Noam, time to move on to some other thesis), I return to the idea suggested by ARealHero that Romney has protected his right flank in order to try to pivot to the center. With that in mind, we'll soon see a Romney Plan that takes elements of the Ryan Plan but that ignores or fudges its most politically counterproductive elements. I'm not saying this will work - my money is still on Obama, though more confidently today than before Ryan was picked - but it's what Mitt will try in order to get the most out of Ryan while hoping to avoid the worst blowback from the pick.

- Thunderroad

August 12, 2012 at 12:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Actually, Obama made the same slip-up once when introducing Biden, as an NPR report has reminded us" Irony, the link showed Romney's slip of the tongue, it doesn't show Obama's. Do you have link (video or script) to that other event? Did Obama correct himself right away or did he wait till someone else reminded him of the error a full minute and a half later?

- arnon1

August 12, 2012 at 1:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who cares how long seats in the House as long as he is not VP and as long as he not the chairman of any important committee as he is now. This is why the Democrats need to work hard: to beat Romney and to take back the house.

- arnon1

August 12, 2012 at 1:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My assumption is that the Romney campaign was promised, in return for this decision, enough cash to win with John Wayne Gacy as running mate, and to gain the Senate as well. This only requires effective psychological manipulation of a relatively small slice of the electorate. A relentless emphasis on the slowness of the recovery and Obama's supposed responsibility for it, along with Romney/Ryan's supposed "courage" (albeit only the courage to promise their donors more money) in facing the debt could get it done. And, then, who will be able to deny that it's a mandate to implement the Ryan plan? I think we're going to see the force of money in politics like we've never seen before, including congressional races flipped at the last minute by massive super PAC buys.

- kpidcoc

August 12, 2012 at 2:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

NPR has been falling all over themselves trying to be fair to Romney and the Republicans. As is usual with them when they work at creating equivalences where non exists they end up distorting the news. They have been doing it when covering Romney's selection of the Vice P. If Romney stumbles they look for a moment when Obama stumbled and when one misspeaks the other has to also.

- arnon1

August 12, 2012 at 2:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon, I think Obama corrected himself right away. But there are other famous slips -- President Ford toasting Anwar Sadat as "the president of Israel -- I mean, Egypt" at a White House dinner must take gold. It can happen to anyone.

- ironyroad

August 12, 2012 at 2:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

kpidcoc, but in our ever more diffuse media environment there simply is not enough cash to do this. I seldom watch TV for one. And there is hard evidence that after a while of saturation in main stream media people simply tune it out. Beyond this all Democrats have to state is that yes, the recovery has been slower than we wanted, but why was there a recovery in the first place? Republicans turned over the keys to a house on fire and now that it is almost rebuilt they are standing outside with a bucket of gasoline and a lighter saying how great their plan worked before, let them finish the job.

- blackton

August 12, 2012 at 3:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It can happen to anyone." It can, but it often happens to people who like Ford played football without a helmet, as used to be said about him. Romney is different, he didn't seem to notice and had to come back on stage to correct himself. I assume someone clued him in.

- arnon1

August 12, 2012 at 4:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Republicans turned over the keys to a house on fire and now that it is almost rebuilt they are standing outside with a bucket of gasoline and a lighter saying how great their plan worked before, let them finish the job." That's the truth and it needs to be repeated over and over and over and over.... sans cessation.

- arnon1

August 12, 2012 at 4:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noam and many others are into psycobabble re Ryan. Mushy Mittens is not playing true to his typical no drama, grey flannel suit personna. He's doubling down on a bet that the economy will noticeably decline by Nov 1. That bet is risker now than it was 3 months ago, simply because the time window for that decline to occur by Nov 1 is shorter.. even though there is a rather high probability that a decline will occur within the next year. Mitt, still the twit, wins big time with Ryan as VP IF that decline occurs by Nov 1 because their economic plan is agreed by all to be different from BHO's whose plan would have demonstably failed by Nov1. The reaons for that failure-- and the insanity and unfairness of the Repub alternative will matter little to the majority of voters. And Ryan increases the probability of that win IF the economy noticeably declines. The Ryan choice decreases Mitt's win probability otherwise-- but that probability is declining anyway thanks to the fact that he is more inept at connecting with voters than BHO. This is truly the Dukakis vs Millard Fillmore personality election. Dems need be careful what they wish for in a BHO win in November. I am appalled by what BHO and the Dems have frittered away in the last 4 years-- and what BHO and his acolytes are likely to do with a win with no workable plan or political fortitude in the next 4 years. The economy has a high chance of decimning in 2013.. and Dems may suffer from that for a generation. IF Romney and Ryan lose in Nov -- and the economy does decline in 2013-- they have set up the Repubs to win big time in 2014, 2016 in a situation where they will control-- or come close to controlling-- both houses of Congress in December of 2012. As a Dem, I'm appalled. As one who routinely makes bets on the outcomes of scientific and political experiments, I like their odds in 2014 and 2016 if they lose in 2012.

- drofnats1

August 12, 2012 at 11:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close