Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mitt Romney has a chance to win this election, that's for sure. Obama hasn't done enough to guarantee his reelection (though he's done more than the Right likes to insinuate, and would have done even more if not for a bunch of congressmen acting like 3-year-olds being taught how to share) so Romney needed a VP choice who would motivate an unmotivated voting base and turn the election into an easy win.
Paul Ryan's positives:
Young, charismatic, somewhat intelligent (certainly better than Palin...), rational.
Paul Ryan's negatives:
Generic (in terms of looks, background, policy), from a state which is unlikely to flip from Blue to Red, nothing to distinguish him from Romney other than his age, simply not the kind of nominee who will excite voters.
Marco Rubio is a bit of an idiot, but he would have been a much better choice because he comes from a major state which could shift back to red, is from a different background than the typical GOP candidate and could motivate a whole new voter base for the GOP.
To beat Obama, Romney needed to choose someone who wasn't just another generic white Christian politician who looks good in a suit. Eric Cantor would have been an excellent choice, being a Jewish Republican from a swing state, he could have not only shifted votes in Virginia, but also in a few other states where his Jewish faith could have an impact, essentially balancing out the Mormonism of Romney.
Romney-Ryan is like Kerry-Edwards. Both are Charismatic white Christians who were the "best men for the job" but who did not create any kind of excitement in a voter base just looking for someone to motivate them. Turnout will be very low in this election, and low turnouts usually favor sitting presidents. Obama will win now for sure, not in a landslide, but comfortably.
There are strong parallels between Kerry-Edwards and Romney-Ryan. Both Kerry and Romney were viewed as ultra wealthy politicians who were out of touch with the working class. And both Edwards and Ryan are young, charismatic politicians who were selected to add excitement to the ticket. Another parallel is that in 2004 democrats weren't voting for Kerry, they were voting against Bush. Today republicans are not voting for Romney, they are voting against Obama. We all remember the 2004 outcome. Presidential elections aren't won by voting against someone, they are won by voting FOR someone.
The article plainly states that the reason for the low numbers is because Ryan is largely an unknown entity. People simply don't follow politics enough to know who he is.
Yet Democrats appear to be having a wet dream over this headline, when in fact it has little to nothing to do with his policies as an elected official.
Learning more about Paul Ryan may not necessarily increase these numbers. He shored up the conservative base, but many independents may decide they do not like his views and it may drive more moderates and independents in the opposite direction.
I am guessing you would not have voted for Romney regardless and if you call Ryan a generic white Christian and Rubio an idiot you don't think too highly of Republicans period, Am I right?
I would not vote for Romney unless he chose a strong Libertarian-type candidate as his VP. Had he named someone like Gary Johnson as his VP I'd give him a look.
Regardless, I'm not voting for Obama in November
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucsLose
___ is a horrible pick by Romney and hates women and the poor.
That is what liberals and media would say no matter who it was. So screw. Ryan is a great choice
Why is Ryan a great choice? Does he motivate people who weren't already motivated? Will he change the poll numbers enough in a single state to make a difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi
We will know in November. Not before.
Actually, we will know before. Polls will tell us plenty. They wont change much at all with Ryan as VP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsoboi78
There are strong parallels between Kerry-Edwards and Romney-Ryan. Both Kerry and Romney were viewed as ultra wealthy politicians who were out of touch with the working class. And both Edwards and Ryan are young, charismatic politicians who were selected to add excitement to the ticket. Another parallel is that in 2004 democrats weren't voting for Kerry, they were voting against Bush. Today republicans are not voting for Romney, they are voting against Obama. We all remember the 2004 outcome. Presidential elections aren't won by voting against someone, they are won by voting FOR someone.
And we have our first intelligent statement!
Good work gsoboi78...you actually have an idea of how politics work. Nobody was brought into the fold by adding Ryan to the ticket. The Democrats are happy with this choice because it wont turn any of the people away from Obama to Romney...unlike Rubio, Johnson, Paul, Rice, Petreaus, or any of the other 10-15 men and women who would be able to motivate swing voters and apathetic ones.
___ is a horrible pick by Romney and hates women and the poor.
That is what liberals and media would say no matter who it was. So screw. Ryan is a great choice
Ryan was a necessary choice.
What made him necessary, was the state of the campaign so far.
Romney would have preferred to keep things ideologically squishy. Mitt would have preferred to keep signing "America the Beautiful" at every stop, and blaming Obama for the slow recovery. Then, he could have picked a "safe" boring old white guy (Portman, Pawlenty, etc) for veep.
But, as the campaign enters the last stretch, Romney's strategy wasn't working. People still generally LIKE Obama, and don't blame him for the state of the economy. Mitt couldn't get traction- in fact, he was losing ground.
And, after his disastrous Euro trip, Mitt's hand was forced: he HAD to go bold, needed a game change.
So, he picked a RW ideologue. The president of the Ayn Rand fan club, a Social Darwinist. The TP (ie, the GOP base) is thrilled... The rest of America, not so much.
I used to think this was going to be a close one, but now...
It's still very misleading what you claim. Healthcare cost will rise. What Obama is proposing is Medicare spending will continue to increase, just at a slower pace.
Please point to ANY government agency that has been able to hold down its costs, let alone cut out billions in waste, fraud and abuse. Particularly in an environment where the costs will rise? To claim that it will happen is misleading.
It's still very misleading what you claim. Healthcare cost will rise. What Obama is proposing is Medicare spending will continue to increase, just at a slower pace.
Please point to ANY government agency that has been able to hold down its costs, let alone cut out billions in waste, fraud and abuse. Particularly in an environment where the costs will rise? To claim that it will happen is misleading.
Slower pace..........hilarious.
No, what is misleading is your claim, "Cutting Medicare by $700 billion over 10 years", which is way off.
Now, if you think that what Obama is proposing won't slow down the pace, which is a different debate, you haven't made your case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
