The New Republic

If past is prologue, the presidential nomination future for Ryan is not promising. Of the 25 vice-presidential nominees who lost either on a challenger or non-incumbent VP nominee since 1900 (in other words, I'm excluding candidates who had served as VP), only two later were nominated for president. The 25, in reverse order: Palin, Edwards, Leiberman, Kemp, Bentsen, Ferraro, Dole, Shriver, Muskie, Miller, Lodge, Kefaufer, Sparkman, Warren, Bricker, McNary, Knox, Robinson, Bryan, FD Roosevelt, Fairbanks, Johnson, Kern, Davis, & Stevenson. The two later nominated for president were Dole in 1996, 20 years after his vp nomination, and FDR in 1932, 12 years after his vp nomination. Dole is a bit of an outlier, because in 1976 he was a non-vp vp nominee on an incumbent ticket. If we exclude Dole, we have one one unsuccessful vp nominee who was later nominated for president, FDR. Dan

- dbuck1

November 8, 2012 at 7:26am

This post by Scheiber and yesterday's by Chait suggest that the Republicans got conflicting but wrong messages from the Romney-Ryan ticket: that the ticket lost because Romney is too moderate and could have won if only Ryan had been given a greater role in the campaign, when in fact, the Romney-Ryan ticket lost because Ryan was too extreme for seniors in the pivotal/swing states and could have won if only Romney had been the moderate throughout the campaign that he was at the end of the campaign.

- rayward

November 8, 2012 at 8:01am

I don't have an intuitive feel for Ryan's impact on voters because his contribution to political thought seems overrated to me and his solutions to problems aren't there. I just could not get past Ryan saying about the Romney/Ryan tax-economy plan:"Obviously," Ryan said, "the numbers add up, we have shown that."

- Nusholtz

November 8, 2012 at 8:46am

It was noticable, even from Austria, that Ryan had (been) disappeared. Perhaps he was only preaching to the converted...an empty effort. I still believe it was Romney's personna that nixed him. The absolute, phony pandering as the guy who won't drink even coffee with you (while not condeming his religion) may have been a factor. Also his entire body language, for a layman, was vain and repulsive, phony ingratiating, indulging others stupidity, while stuttering emptiness. We are not stupid!

- kras

November 8, 2012 at 9:30am

Strange how Romney, in his concession speech, went out of his way to say that putting Paul Ryan on the ticket was the second best decision he has made in his life (after marrying his wife)...

- sbmacdon@cox.net-old

November 8, 2012 at 9:43am

That's vampire albatross, bub. They don't call him the dead-eyed granny killer for nothing.

- miceelf

November 8, 2012 at 10:06am

Romney wasn't praising Ryan with that speech, he was effectively extolling his own wisdom. I guess he didn't actually decide to have kids. It was in any case a very ungracious concession speech. Having read somewhere about this computer model that the Republicans had, dubbed Orca, I am more than ever convinced that Romney had drunk his own Kool-Aid and believed he was going to win -- despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. Don't mess with Nate Silver.

- roidubouloi

November 8, 2012 at 10:09am

dbuck1, thanks for summarizing the history of presidential prospects for unsuccessful vp. prospects roi is also exactly right about Romney and Co. drinking their own koolaid. the ongoing tragedy for all of us here, however, is that the longer it takes the GOP to realize that Ryan was an albatross, the more everybody else suffers: everyone needs a GOP that has bouts of sanity more frequently. this is a two-party democracy after all; we're stuck with the other one at the national level, even when we don't vote for them.

- mcmahon.an

November 8, 2012 at 10:34am

krasmussen said "Also his entire body language, for a layman, was vain and repulsive, phony ingratiating, indulging others stupidity, while stuttering emptiness." At first I thought he was referring to Ryan not Romney himself. While that may be an apt description of Romney in some ways, Mitt was ever so slightly saved by a degree of experience and dark failure that gave him a whisper of humility, whereas Ryan appeared to fit the krasmussen words, esp. "entire body language" which bespoke the peppy callowness of Ryan, who displayed it even more than another similar fellow from the midwest, Dan Quayle, who at least never posed grinning with self-happy goofiness in his weight-lifitng clothes and baseball cap, as did Ryan!

- atlasqq

November 8, 2012 at 12:55pm

P S Romney did not want to be overshadowed by Ryan's fans on the hustings either (and when it happened once or twice was enough for Mitt), so hiding Ryan away for practical reasons was a decision with very little to argue against it in Romney's mind, or so I would imagine. (But thanks to the article for clarifying what was indeed the disappearance, except for the tepidly-received Ryan poverty plan, that had registered on my subconscious without really becoming clear; perhaps this was because Biden played a secondary role as well, for presumably different reasons, and not so drastically off-stage.)

- atlasqq

November 8, 2012 at 1:00pm

Some of us were begging Romney to pick Ryan, not that Romney reads TNR, although maybe he does, who knows, but anyway Ryan is so extreme it seemed logical that people would reject the whole ticket once they knew what the real agenda entailed. So, thanks Mitt:) As for the future - if Mitt has a good side, and I'm guessing he might, is it possible he could play a role in reconciling our nation? We can't go on like this - with two conflicting visions of the world, two conflicting sets of "facts," when indeed there may be interpretations of facts but not Rove facts and real facts. I was shocked they were watching FOX at Romney campaign headquarters - FOX??? They believe their own lies.

- Sophia

November 8, 2012 at 3:53pm

Ryan seemed so callow and smug, like a character out of Sinclair Lewis. Just what did Romney see in him? What did Bush the First see in Clarence Thomas? in Dan Quayle? Bush II in "heckuva job" FEMA administrator Michael Borwn. Romney and the Bushes share a contempt for the Republic. Sophia, there have always been different visions of America and its place in the world. In "American Nations", Colin Woodard discerned 9 regional nations in North America that have existed side by side, for the most part, since colonial times. It is the job of politics to reconcile or chose among those values. Enough times, it has succeeded, sometimes not. I basically believe that some liberal positions cannot be compromised or bartered away. President Obama was elected to pursue a liberal economic agenda. I expect him to follow through.

- amidut

November 8, 2012 at 4:28pm

I think that, in retrospect, three things become obvious: one, that Romney did Obama a great favor by picking Ryan, two, that Romney did not quite understand how good a favor it was (if played well by Obama/Biden), and three, that it's nothing short of astonishing if Romney thought that he could pick Ryan and then distance himself from his own running mate in such as way as to suggest that he both selected him and it didn't matter.

- ironyroad

November 8, 2012 at 4:41pm

amidut, excellent comment, I will have to read your source, thank you. However, if it isn't the role of politics to reconcile values, for the sake of passing necessary legislation, let's say, then what is the role of politics? As President Obama said in his victory speech, we always have conflict, different opinions etc. But, lately, it's really become polarized to the point that a lot of Red State voters simply don't believe either in the reality we see nor in our good will or even that we are "American," this includes the President! What to do?

- Sophia

November 8, 2012 at 4:54pm

As for Ryan, but also the Far Right in general: what we saw, with Romney's all too obvious shapeshifting back to the Center, was an awareness on his part at least that the radical Right was losing him the election. They thought he could simply etch-a-sketch himself out of right wing mold but ultimately it just made him look like a liar and a person of no principle. Ryan was a sop to the "base," maybe? Nevertheless, the fact that his campaign seemed to realize he couldn't win as a Far Right candidate speaks volumes about their philosophy doesn't it? Most of us don't like it and won't vote for it. I suspect they think it's just "demographics" though and they'll pander - Rush Limbaugh was ranting yesterday about "diversity," he named Herman Cain and Robert Steele, declaring them evidence of "outreach," as if having 2 black guys in the GOP = a diverse and open party! Similarly, they have a Hispanic or two, a few women - but that doesn't change their message at all.

- Sophia

November 8, 2012 at 5:00pm

Sophia writes: "suspect they think it's just "demographics" though and they'll pander - Rush Limbaugh was ranting yesterday about "diversity," he named Herman Cain and Robert Steele, declaring them evidence of "outreach," as if having 2 black guys in the GOP = a diverse and open party! Similarly, they have a Hispanic or two, a few women - but that doesn't change their message at all" I think if you stack up who's in charge, republicans have a very solid showing. Note that most of the color in the dem organization comes from black representatives voted into place by a black district. You've let them in the corner of the tent, but no further. And I understand dem thinking here. Jessie Jackson Jr. was elected in spite of being in a mental ward and under investigation by the feds. Nobody has seen him in 6 months and he still won something like 5:1. And then there's Hank Johnson, who honestly believed if we put too many marines on the island of Guam it was at risk for tipping over. There is a reason these folks remain in the basement of the dem party. You're proud of your minority NUMBERS but you aren't proud of your minority PEOPLE. That is a big difference between the parties. As for the republicans, it's not just two black men as you claim. It's also a long list of hispanic republican governors (4 of 5 minority govs are republicans), voted in by a white electorate. It's Condi Rice, it's Susana Martinez, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Allen West, Mia Love, and on an on. The dems are so protective of their minority flag that rather than celebrate the substantial diversity in the republican party, they minimize it. MSNBC cut away at the Republican convention whenever a person of color was speaking. And if the republicans dare try to bring their strong roster to the minds of votors, it's all written off. The highlighted minority is dismissed (search google for Colin Powell and uncle tom, or Condi and Aunt Jemima to see how the smear works) and berated, or it's held up as a "look how many gay friends I have moment" and the republican party is portrayed as pandering and clueless. But the good news is that while the dems are great at getting first generation immigrants on their side, each successive generation becomes more conservative. And as I've said before, it's no surprise. Progressivism sounds great if you are clueless. But once you realize bills have to be paid and there is no free lunch, the question very quickly comes "who could do this better: my family searching for this service in the free market, or a one-size fits all plan from the gov" and the progressives loses that discussion most every time.

- seattleeng

November 8, 2012 at 6:21pm

It's more than demographics. Hispanics and Blacks often have conservative "family" values and Obama is a model family man as well as a man of color. Being more economically vulnerable, they also voted their economic interest, too, in favor of a more paternalistic government. The current spate of political polarization is a complex story that began with the 1964 Civil Rights Act when Lyndon Johnson aggressively pushed and signed the law understanding that he was going to lose the South for the Democratic Party. I have hoped that the election of a bi-racial president would symbolically put most of the racial issue behind us. But, of course, there is still a correlation between race and poverty and there are so many other ingredients to this polarization. We can't flinch from this fight on the budget and the economic. My main criticism of the American Left is that it has made a litmus test of too many cultural issues and it needs to focus more on economic issues in order to win back more of the white working class. Much of their fear is rooted in the collapse of their economic security. The Democrats have a demographic problem, too. If Obama compromises too much with the Republican economic agenda and with Wall Street, he will assure the continued alienation of too many white voters, who may feel that the Democrats only care about the special symbolic concerns of various cultural minorities and coastal elites.

- amidut

November 8, 2012 at 6:24pm

"'who could do this better: my family searching for this service in the free market, or a one-size fits all plan from the gov' and the progressives lose that discussion most every time." That's never the real-world question, though, seattle. Except conservatives think it is. It depends crucially what you are searching for in that market. If it's an angus steak or a vacation in Alaska or even vehicle insurance, then yes, the market will mostly work. If it's medical coverage, it won't -- for all the reasons we've discussed here innumerable times. You don't need the government for some things (but you needed it for power companies in some special circumstances in the 1930s), for others it's indispensable.

- ironyroad

November 8, 2012 at 7:17pm

Well stated by Irony. I can buy a pocket radio from Japan and I can do it from my chair. I can test drive different cars and pick the one I like. And I can choose when to buy or not to buy. I do not have any of those options with medical care, unless I want to get on a jet and fly around looking for the best price and I can train to evaluate the information. And the free market for health insurance has its limitations, which are well documented. Capitalism does not solve the health care problem.

- Nusholtz

November 8, 2012 at 7:33pm

"each successive generation becomes more conservative. And as I've said before, it's no surprise. Progressivism sounds great if you are clueless. " Man, I need to introduce you to my family, and a good many others I know. As for cluelessness: I'll match the cluelessness of the Republican voters in my backyard with their Democratic counterparts any day - particularly the ones living on $11/hr jobs, thinking they're at the center of the middle class, and likely to be in the top 10% of earners any day now. Talk about clueless.

- IowaBeauty

November 8, 2012 at 8:14pm

Irony writes:" That's never the real-world question, though, seattle. Except conservatives think it is. It depends crucially what you are searching for in that market. If it's an angus steak or a vacation in Alaska or even vehicle insurance, then yes, the market will mostly work. If it's medical coverage, it won't -- for all the reasons we've discussed here innumerable times. You don't need the government for some things (but you needed it for power companies in some special circumstances in the 1930s), for others it's indispensable" There is a % of the economy that absolutely works best when driven by gov. No question. That number is probably around 20 to 25%. Unfortunately, today we nearing twice that (fed, state, local). Markets work anytime you have people allocating their own money. It doesn't matter if it's hamburgers or hysterectomies. if someone doesn't have the money to purchase the insurance or service, then the gov should help that person. Roid has tried and failed many times to explain why medical care preparation differs from a house. Both are expenses such that if you neglect them, then you may suffer some serious consequences. if you can argue that health care should be under the control of government, then why not housing? Imagine if there were 5 standard houses, all built the same quality all across the US. Costs would be really low, they'd be uniformly strong, etc. Barf. You need to read up on the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority. The power policies from the 30's were disastrous. They caused private markets to drop out of the business not due to competition, but because of fear that that which the private market had built could be nationalized, or new taxes could be brought overnight that would close them down. As a result, all of the private effort to light the south ground to a halt. The TVA, ironically, kept the south in the dark many more years than was needed. Tugwell, a self-described "gas and water socialist" was wrong on everything.

- seattleeng

November 8, 2012 at 9:41pm

"Progressivism sounds great if you are clueless." There is no point in arguing with Seattle on this one -- nobody is better positioned to tell us what looks great to the clueless.

- Fishpeddler

November 9, 2012 at 12:00am

seattle, YOU should read up. There was little to no "private effort to light the south" in that era and if you believe there was then you're living in even more of a fairy tale than I thought.

- ironyroad

November 9, 2012 at 1:45am

Seattle writes: Roid has tried and failed many times to explain why medical care preparation differs from a house. Maybe to you, but I find it hard to rent medical care temporarily or use a friend's or family member's medical care until I can afford to buy my own.

- Nusholtz

November 9, 2012 at 7:34am

Seattle, you are as ever completely full of crap. Only to you, with your crackpot Randian libertarianism, is the explanation not clear. But you believe all sorts of things that are plainly contrary to the facts. Why, just the other day you were confidently claiming to me and the assembled crowd that the opinion polls were all wrong, biased against Romney, and he was about to win the election. Meanwhile, Nate Silver, relying on actual data (not the garbage you invent), called the electoral map exactly. The Romney campaign, that drank from the same Kool-Aid fountain that you do, was plainly stunned. Because you are all indifferent to reality, or think you can simply invent it to suit, they, like you, thought that they were about to win. How'd that work out? Reality bite you on the ass because there is a discrete outcome that you cannot tell fairy tales about? In the simplest possible terms, a market system allocates goods based on willingness and ability to pay. This means that lots of people don't buy a product because they cannot afford it, or buy inferior goods because that is the best they can afford. For the market to regulate health care, we would have to tolerate a condition where millions of people do not get the medical care that their health objectively requires. This is morally abhorrent to most people in a country as wealthy as ours. We do not in fact tolerate allocating health care by price and means. We have multiple overlapping, incoherent, and inefficient systems -- including health insurance -- for avoiding this. The system is poor, in that there remain huge gaps, but it also has allowed costs to spiral out of control. If there is no price and market system to regulate costs, then something else has to do so or they do inevitably spiral out of control. The only alternative to market control of price and consumption is government control of price and consumption. There are no other alternatives that exist on the planet Earth at this time, and perhaps for all time. The wingnut complaint about this is that it would be a nightmare to have government control health care. Instead, the nuts prefer to have private insurers, who pocket and profit 100 cents on the dollar for every dollar of care they deny, do so instead. That is perhaps the nuttiest thing of all. It is quite technically possible to have the government establish protocols that govern care, and the prices that will be paid, which do not allow manipulation. If everyone is subject to the same protocol, we will all have the health care we are collectively willing to pay for. If the public wants face-lifts at government expense, we will have them. If not, not. They only technical necessity is that providers not be permitted to over-bill. They could either accept the government payment as payment in full or charge privately, but not add private payment to the government payment to increase revenues. This ought to appeal to libertarians. Providers would be free to take the customers offered by the government or work privately for those who will pay them. No compulsion. Of course, it won't satisfy libertarians because they are frauds, really just shills for wealth who drape themselves in a pseudo-philosophy for the sake of respectability. If they were not hiding behind the pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo (Rand was merely a novelist, a fantasist), they would be naked before the world and everyone would be disgusted. Because of libertarian stupidity of the type that you subscribe to, this country has chosen the worst possible solution for health care. We do not allow the government to regulate price and consumption and the private market cannot so long as care is not allocated by price and willingness and ability to pay. Hence, we get our costs out of control, 18% of GDP as compared with 11% in France, we don't get better medical outcomes on average, and we don't achieve anything near universal health care. What is missing from the system as it exists is a price-driven demand. We cannot have price-driven demand and give people the care the need at the same time. Impossible. Not difficult, not unlikely, impossible. When the government provides the missing piece, the proper price and demand, by regulation, we will have a functioning health care market. We will still have to require the cost to be shared communally if we are not to leave those less wealthy without the necessary health care. You don't give a shit whether the poor die in the streets. You think it is what they deserve. That is a matter of your rather nauseating Randian amorality. But you cannot pretend that the repellent (im)moral outcome that you want is an economic necessity. Not around here. That makes as little sense as your belief that the opinion polls were wrong and Romney was winning. The ACA is a step in the right direction, but will fail, particularly as to cost control. However, once everyone has health care, there will be no going back. When the costs continue to spiral out of control, we will then have to adopt some version of the solution that is employed, directly or indirectly, in every other advanced industrial economy -- government control of consumption and price. If the government sets the consumption and price, the free market on the supply side -- that is health care providers -- will then compete to provide the necessary services efficiently.

- roidubouloi

November 9, 2012 at 10:11am

As always, very nice summary of a complex issue, roid.

- Thunderroad

November 9, 2012 at 1:24pm

Time to either follow Brecht and elect a new people (Republican variety, as liberal progressives are obviously a superior race) or for a new Lincoln to appear and start a new party. Whigs?

- skahn

November 9, 2012 at 2:47pm