I rarely post anything about non-Massachusetts fundraising emails. But I’m making an exception, because this one from Team Obama gets it exactly right on why Mitt Romney asked Paul Ryan to run as his VP.
Here’s the calculation: Mitt Romney doesn’t need or expect Paul Ryan to convince even one undecided voter to cast their ballot for him. That’s not what he’s on the ticket for. He’s there to reassure and inspire ultraconservative ideologues and corporate interests that they will have one of their own a heartbeat from the presidency.
That means tens or even hundreds of millions more dollars for the Romney campaign and the array of outside groups supporting him — and if current trends hold, more than 90 percent of that money will be spent on TV ads — lying, distorting and trashing Barack Obama. Those ads will have more impact on undecided voters than anything Paul Ryan himself does or says.
Mitt Romney is convinced that picking Paul Ryan is a great investment for him. And his campaign is already touting the pledges and donations they’ve received as a result, with fundraising events planned for this week.
I think that’s correct. Paul Ryan is obviously not a play for undecided moderates. He’s a teabagger through and through, and that’s who the play is about. The right wing is a lot more excited about this election than they were a few days ago, and than they would have been today had Romney named, say, Tim Pawlenzzzzzzzz. They’re counting on right-wing excitement and enthusiasm to translate both into a big fundraising boost and into an enthusiastic base, in the hope that that’s enough.
It’s a big gamble on Team Romney’s part. But when you’re down a couple of runs in the late innings, you might as well swing for the fences and see what happens.
Christopher says
One theory of VP picks is that you either make an August pick (to solidify your base), a November pick (to win over swing voters), or a January pick (to help you govern/be able to take over if necessary). By this theory the strongest candidates make a January pick while the weakest make an August pick. Paul Ryan is an August pick and thus an acknowledgement of weakness.
seascraper says
.
JHM says
See . and raise ..
danfromwaltham says
Romney/Ryan just tearing the leather off the ball since the selection. John Zogby has Mitt with an 8 point lead in poll is swing states and leads with independents (like me). I can see why Obama is rattling the tin cup for donations.
Dave-talk about lying and distorting ads, look at this cancer ad and Debbie Wasserman Schultz just lying through her teeth about the Ryan Plan, just running on fear and scare tactics. I just hope you were not insinuating just Republicans fudge the truth.
http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/the-ryan-bump-new-zogby-poll-shows-huge-boost-for-romney-in-swing-states/
centralmassdad says
I think he was insinuating that only Republicans are shameless fucking liars. You will note the subtle, yet significant, difference.
David says
😀
SomervilleTom says
n/m
David says
but Zogby isn’t a real pollster. Please, when talking about polls, your first and basically only stop should be Nate Silver at 538. He’s the best, and he’s not biased either way – check out, for instance, his interesting most recent post on the Ryan non-bump because you might learn something. At the moment, he’s still got Obama at 300 EVs with a 71% chance of winning. That can and most likely will change, but you only embarrass yourself by claiming that Obama’s polls have “collapsed.”
merrimackguy says
Was glad to see him get acquired by the NYT- he deserved that kind of platform.
He’s also a nice example of a smart person working hard and making it. Good for him.
I think the NYT umbrella allowed him to take that site to some new places and specifically tailor it to the heavy internet user/political junkie. You can learn everything you need to know about the Presidential race by skimming down the right hand column filtered to “competitive states.”
One thing 538 points out is how bogus the mainstream media is in calling the news. The act like things are horse races when they are not (you could tell in 2008 McCain never had a shot). Only rarely does anyone ever point out that Romney has no shot in PA or MI, and that in general things have been looking bleak for him for quite some time, with him having to basically do a “Bush 2004” in a much different time. It’s like when the sports announcers for a football game will say something like “this is the kind of team that can come back from 21 points down in the 4th” just to keep you tuned in.
centralmassdad says
It makes nice companion to those interactive electoral college.
If you lock in all of the “safe” states, and assume no change in the “likely” states, you see a tough row for Romney. Essentially, he must win in Florida and Ohio, or there must be some huge game-changing event that reshuffles everything (Is Isreal going to attack Iran?), or else Romney is toast.
But that is not a “game changing” outcome. It is a check-the-photo win for Obama. I have not been hearing of any big comebacks for Dems in Congressional races, so it sounds like status quo ante all around.
centralmassdad says
Romney needs Florida like oxygen, and just handed Obama a big weapon there.
centralmassdad says
While these key battlegrounds are leaning/trending Obama, they are close enough that the likelihood of vote counting chaos at the margins increases.
So, yay.
SomervilleTom says
“Vote counting chaos” is a very generous way to describe it.
I think your analysis is right on the money.
centralmassdad says
Though I would add to that the Dem push to spend government money in a “what, its a nonpartisan! effort to cause certain potential voters, who might not otherwise be sufficiently engaged to realize there is an election, to be registered to vote. That’s the game.
I guess we should add that these favorable polls may have a “Bradley Effect” that means Romney is a small measure better, AND that Obama, having conspicuously offered to zap Medicare for the young-senior set, and having been KILLED by the Medicare set for Obamacare, might not get as much traction on Ryan as might be assumed.
danfromwaltham says
Big Mo for MItt!!!!!!!!!! Call it: Substance over Style.
General Election: Romney vs. Obama Gallup Tracking Obama 45, Romney 47 Romney +2
General Election: Romney vs. Obama Rasmussen Tracking Obama 43, Romney 47 Romney +4
Ohio: Romney vs. Obama Purple Strategies Obama 44, Romney 46 Romney +2
Florida: Romney vs. Obama Purple Strategies Obama 47, Romney 48 Romney +1
Colorado: Romney vs. Obama Purple Strategies Obama 49, Romney 46 Obama +3
Virginia: Romney vs. Obama Purple Strategies Obama 45, Romney 48 Romney +3
danfromwaltham says
Rasmussen has Mitt up 2 in Iowa.
HR's Kevin says
I can tell you that Obama has been sending out a constant stream of fund-raising e-mails for many months now. So this is definitely not a sign of panic; it is just simply one of their fund-raising marketing strategies.
A much less biased view of the poll results can be read on Nate Silver’s blog, FiveThirtyEight: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/aug-13-polls-have-middling-reviews-for-ryan/
Of course, the real data will come after details of Ryan’s budget proposals start getting wider circulation, I would be surprised if the deeply unpopular aspects of his plan don’t end up hurting his poll numbers.
And you are not an Independent in any meaningful sense. Even if you genuinely think of yourself as an Independent, and I doubt that you are being honest about that, you are fooling yourself if you think that your views are in any way representative of Independents at large.
mike_cote says
Six. Agreed on all points. I am shocked.
Christopher says
Dan, I hope you’re smart enough to realize that the link you provided was to a conservative blog with a heavy dose of spin. Gallup has Ryan as the worst first impression of a running mate since Dan Quayle, even worse than Sarah Palin!
merrimackguy says
It definitely made me think about this issue. Conclusion: it doesn’t matter.
I don’t think anyone thought very highly of Biden before his VP selection, and that was a “who cares, we’ve got Obama” situation.
Palin was in a class by herself.
Bush still won with Quayle, and Dukakis had Bentson who was pretty solid but lost.
Dole had Kemp and still lost.
Clinton’s pick of Gore was confusing at the time, but that seemed to work out well.
Cheney was well, Cheney.
I’m not sure who he could have picked that would change anyone’s minds who were already made up, and the remaining undecideds will be getting their first look at Ryan.
Mr. Lynne says
… usually matter for the general except for there is usually a small bump in the VP’s home state in November. All that said, it is also usual for the ticket to get a decent size (around 5%) bump right after the VP pick, and that isn’t happening for Romney. Can’t read anything definitive about that, but I can’t think of a way to spin it such that it shouldn’t be worried about at least a little.
oceandreams says
… to the idea that VP doesn’t matter. Palin frightened a fair number of voters, not because of her ideology but because she was seen by a lot of people as unprepared to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, and that reflected poorly on McCain’s judgment in some swing voters’ minds. I believe McCain would have lost anyway, but Palin was a drag on the ticket.
I think Ryan matters because unlike most VP picks, he is known nationally for a very specific ideology and budget proposal. That’s going to move the discussion about the election to focus on that ideology and proposal in a way that other possible picks — Pawlenty, Portman — wouldn’t have.
As it happens, many details of the Ryan proposal will be highly unpopular with a majority of the electorate, particularly killing off Medicare as it currently stands, since the Ryan plan includes telling middle-aged working people who have paid into the system for decades that they won’t get the benefits they’ve paid to support for others. (And we haven’t even gotten around to publicizing his personhood bill that would prohibit some forms of birth control. If Romney has a gender gap now, just wait…..)
I think the Ryan pick makes it a lot tougher for Romney to keep dancing around on the Ryan budget plan. Questions on this will get more focused and intense. Either he supports it, which will frighten many centrist voters, or he disavows part of it, which will antagonize the right-wing base and somewhat defeat the point of picking Ryan in the first place.
seascraper says
If the Ryan plan was such a ball and chain, it would have dragged down Congressional Republicans in 2010.
Mr. Lynne says
… plans that can’t pass probably play differently than budgets pushed from the executive with a real danger of congressional support.
HR's Kevin says
Now Obama and every Senate and Congressional Democrat running for office along with various Democratic Super PACs will now all be spending money to highlight the most unpopular aspects of Ryan’s proposal. By election time, I doubt there will be very many voters who aren’t aware of the most controversial aspects of the plan.
oceandreams says
A lot of people who like the idea of smaller federal government and lowering the deficit in principle don’t at all like the choices that Paul Ryan made (forgetting for a moment analyses that the Ryan plan won’t actually help the deficit, since a) he doesn’t deal with military spending — even David Stockman is aghast at that, b) he depends on massive tax cuts paying for themselves — haven’t seen any evidence that worked before and c) he talks vaguely about closing tax loopholes without any specifics about which ones and how much).
There are a great many people who don’t remember or didn’t recall specifics of the Ryan plan. By putting Ryan on the ticket, that’s all going to be examined and rehashed. It will be a focus in debates, in TV ads, in coverage. IMO that’s going to be a problem. The big Republican House vote on the Ryan budget that I remember was in April 2011, after the 2010 election. Since the Senate didn’t pass it, not as many people cared — it was inside baseball stuff, since it was unlikely to take effect. The potential for having Ryan in the White House will focus a LOT more attention on it.
merrimackguy says
but ended up being a drag.
So what can we conclude about Ryan not being a bump?
SomervilleTom says
I think the thread-starter has it right — the motivation for the selection was to land even more cash, in hopes that the resulting flood of negative advertising can move the swing states enough for a razor-thin victory.
As in so many aspects of today’s GOP, public opinion doesn’t count — cash is king.
merrimackguy says
Mr Pot.
And notice that Obama never talks about changing tax rates on capital gains, because he wants to keep all the 128 and Silicon Valley money flowing.
You really do live in a different world, don’t you? Maybe you should go out for a drive.
SomervilleTom says
Here, for your convenience, it is again:
This is an observation about the likely motivation for the Paul Ryan selection. Campaign spending from 2008 is utterly irrelevant, as is your snark about capital gains rates.
I stand by my assessment that the motivation for choosing Paul Ryan was to collect more cash.
merrimackguy says
I think both political parties value money equally.
I realize that the fumes from all the roads around your city confuse your thinking.
Perhaps a nice drive up to New Hampshire might clear your head.
Maybe you can pick up some deposit free beverages while you’re up there.
danfromwaltham says
Ryan is battle tested, can handle his own, comes across more intelligent than either Obama or VP Cheapskate.
Instead of a cement block, more like a solid foundation.
HR's Kevin says
2% is well within the margin of measurement error, which doesn’t even take into account incorrect assumptions on the part of the pollsters, so that doesn’t mean much, if anything. Of course, every time Obama rises in the poll by a point or two, you ignore that.
Also from Gallup:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156545/Reaction-Ryan-Pick-Among-Least-Positive-Historically.aspx
I wouldn’t call Ryan “battle tested” but I do think that he presents himself much better than Romney does. I am not sure whether that is good or bad, since it may make Romney look bad in comparison.
HR's Kevin says
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156692/Romney-Sees-No-Immediate-Bounce-Ryan-Pick.aspx
so much for that.
oceandreams says
polls taken immediately after announcements, but it’s a bit dicey to make any sort of assumption that they represent a sustainable trend. Palin is the perfect case in point. They’re as likely to be measuring immediate post-announcement media coverage as they are anything else.
danfromwaltham says
Rasmussen poll of LIKELY voters shows 45%-45%. Nationally Romney +3%.
Please look at the internals of many state polls and national polls, they over sample Democrats by 8-9 points. Rasmussen and Gallup tend to be most accurate. Zogby was known for calling the 2000 election when most had Bush ahead. Also, Romney slight lead in Iowa.
Romney had a great line yesterday. He said nothing is more radical that spending a trillion more each year than you take in. A majority of voters know we cannot continue what we are doing and RESPECT Ryan for telling the truth. I don’t like his solution but reality is taking root in 2012. Hope and Change and Together We Can slogans wont solve the fiscal catastrophe.
David says
You’re not listening, and if you don’t listen, you can’t learn. The notion that Rasmussen is “most accurate” is ludicrous (in fact, it skewed about R+6 in the last cycle, which was one of the worst results in the business), as is the notion that “many state and national polls” wildly over-sample Democrats. You are simply making this up.
Stop embarrassing yourself; visit 538 and learn about how real polling analysis works.
dont-get-cute says
Elections are plagued with physical and temporal anomalies like weather, work schedules, sports events, and media reports that cause people to stay home, and also maybe fraud and manipulation. We should just conduct a random sample of citizens, just a small percentage chosen randomly by social security number and use that instead of a hugely unreliable I controlled unscientific election.
johnd says
but I have come to watch what people do and not what they say. I’m hearing a lot of people on BMG and Obama supporters taking about this race like it’s over. Obama is up x% in swing states, with women, with minorities, hispanics, Ryan lost FL for ROmney… and yet I see many of the Democratic people scrambling for this race. I hear a outright onslaught on Paul Ryan and Mitt, I see “fundraising gone wild” for Obama, PACs blaming Romney for a cancer victim’s death… I think this race is so close that nobody could call it and anyone who does is simply “horseshoe-up-their-ass” lucky.
So if you’re all saying Obama is in such a giant lead position, why am I “seeing” people acting very nervous?
kbusch says
The 2012 election could be quite a disaster. Projections show the Republicans are likely to hold onto the House. They might easily win the Senate. The seats in Missouri, Montana, Virginia, Nebraska, Virginia, and Florida won’t be easy to hold. Massachusetts Democrats really need to help the country and defeat our Senator Brown. (Happily the other, better Senator Brown is still leading by a large margin but he still — yikes! — has not broken 50%.)
The Obama campaign has been spending a lot — probably wisely, but it’s also risky. The anti-Obama forces (they are not pro-Romney forces) have an appalling quantity of money. Our electorate is mostly low information voters who will believe the catchiest story told to them, and Republican operatives tell much better stories than Democratic operatives — who sometimes even neglect to tell stories at all. Republicans have a lot of money with which to find, polish, and tell stories.
And yes, going with Nate Silver, who is the most believable pundit when it comes to predicting elections, Obama is looking quite good. I pretty much don’t pay attention to anyone else when it comes to predictions.
johnd says
The House is int he bags nd the Senate is definitely in play. The best bet for Democrats is the White House right now and even that could change based on Debate performances, economic situations, world events… and I don’t think Romeny has really started spending money of the advertising his campaign money will be used for.
All that said, Romney has an uphill battle ahead of him.
I think Ryan will be a much more credible spokesman than many here (or on MSNBC) give him credit for. Ryan’s Medicare proposal is being misrepresented and the details will play better with people when it comes out.
I appreciate your honesty on being nervous, just as I am on Romney’s chances.
kbusch says
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/whats-in-the-ryan-plan/
We just need to figure out how to make that critique sticky, memorable, funny, and dismissive. Shouldn’t be hard.
kbusch says
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/paul-ryan-imaginary-expertise-article-1.1137112
centralmassdad says
Indeed, very close. But the wind and tide favor the incumbent, at least for the moment. Absent external factors, that will be hard for Romney to change.
At this point, I predict a close, relative to 2008, win by Obama, with little in the way of coattails, such that the House stays GOP and the Senate gets a majority only by a vote or two. In other words, I predict status quo ante.
SomervilleTom says
If that happens, I predict (along with one official analyst who said the same thing on NPR) a resurgent and energized Tea Party who will say — loudly and relentlessly — that the election was lost because the GOP was not conservative enough.
The Tea Party will be greatly emboldened by a Mitt Romney loss, and the gridlock will continue (at least until the Democrats break the back of the Senate minority by, for example, changing the filibuster rule).
Christopher says
I’m cautiously optimistic myself, but BMGers are sophisticated and probably among the last to think this is in the bag and we can all go home.
johnd says
First of all I don’t think Romney is down a few runs and second, there’s plenty of time left in the game.
SomervilleTom says
Anybody that’s been to Fenway Park knows that NO GAME is in the bag until the very last out — no matter who’s ahead in the eighth. Having said that, “swinging for the fences” usually results in a popup.
Mark L. Bail says
I’m not pessimistic either. Just nervous. Stuff is too close to call. I have a lot of faith in Obama as a campaigner. I have faith in MA voters to see stupid when they see Scott Brown, though it may not change their votes.
Ryan is a doubling down on what the GOP sees as its future: Randian rhetoric, tax cuts, and budget balancing through the careful application of pixie dust.