EZRA KLEIN v MATT YGLESIAS

guy just has convinced ppl by sheer force of nerdy swagger & a good rapport with media that he is a moderate think thank policy wonk making hard choices when his thinking is as shallow & ideological as like everybody else

― reductio ad burzum (flopson), Friday, August 17, 2012 4:42 PM (34 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

people =/ reporters - covered that upthread btw

Don't know anything about Ryan's district, but he might just mean getting elected in a state that's voted Democrat (sometimes just barely) in every presidential election from '88 forward. If Ryan's in a notably conservative district, no big deal.

its a lean republican district

and it doesn't matter how well or quickly Ryan has ascended GOP ranks. The guy sits in a safe district. He has never been tested except in front of Cokie Roberts types who want to be his Ayn Rand.

1. ryan doesnt really matter because hes just the vp candidate
2, the democrats made him famous ON PURPOSE
3. just take a look at this dude he is so clearly not the political genius being sold by the credulous ezra klien et al

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PXCxBDTMqQ

check out the charisma dripping off this guy, a v cool character

I looked at his district:

--he's won lopsided elections every year since '98: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan
--the district was Republican but pretty much dead even in the two elections before he arrived: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Neumann
--a Democrat held office from 1971-95 (mostly Les Aspin, who I vaguely remember as being conservative?): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin%27s_1st_congressional_district

So: I think you've got to credit him for winning the district convincingly every time out--it's only been solidly Republican since he started running. I realize there are undoubtedly many other factors at play.

Les Aspin was Clinton's doomed first defense secretary and a classic but extinct subspecies called the Dem hawk.

under no circumstances should anyone be given any credit as a bigtime politician for winning house races

it is also generally rated as a lean repubican district

Didn't Aspin have a heart attack while in Clinton's administration?

It's been leaning heavily Republican...exactly from the moment he started running.

u realize there are people who do things like rate congressional districts professionally right, apologies to your 30 seconds of googling

And you carry this information around in your pocket? Anyway, I know you're pretty obstinate when you fixate on something, so this one's all yours--Paul Ryan is clearly a disaster for the first district of Wisconsin.

u can find the infos using yr google, so obstinate

Paul Ryan is clearly a disaster for the first district of Wisconsin.

― clemenza, Friday, August 17, 2012 5:09 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol v poor paraphrasing of my argument

guys

guys yrself

clearly a disaster for the only Klein-Iglesias thread

So I looked at--I googled--Charlie Cook's ratings for various districts, and sure enough, he has Wisconsin's 1st at +2 Republican. The rating--I googled--is based on "averaging its results from the prior two presidential elections and comparing them to national results."

Simple question: if the district runs about +2 in favor of Republicans, and Ryan's winning each election by an average of +30 (I googled), and it was held by Democrats from 1971 until four years before he started running, might it not be reasonable to conclude that he's a pretty good politician at the district level?

a. who cares
b. no

You see, that's what you did when we argued about the Sarah Palin film--you reverted to your schtick. Which I continue to find pretty funny in most contexts. It's just a little deficient in actually supporting your argument. And very difficult to counter.

sry thinking success in a house race translates over to a presidential race is a non starter for me

as far as my 'shtick' this might shed some light for you on our interactions

I think that's perfectly valid, and probably right--we'll find out over the next couple of months. But if Klein says that Ryan is a skilled politician, he can only base that on what's already happened, not on what might happen. And based on Ryan's performance in seven elections, and the fact that he's now one-half of the Republican ticket, I don't think it's that strange a conclusion to reach.

ya sure just like everyone said rick perry was a killer campaigner

i mean its not strange conclusion to reach, theres a logic operating there, its just based on v poor assumptions thatre constantly being contradicted by reality

Is there a reality yet, after six days? One poll I look at says Ryan has hurt Romney, the next one says he's helped, the next one says no difference. I don't think anything conclusive has emerged yet, other than the fact that Ryan is the main focus of the election right now.

The Obama team never could have predicted that its efforts would help vault Ryan into the nomination for vice president. The difference between what they reasonably hoped a strategy like this could achieve and what it actually achieved is attributable to Ryan, who has proven a tremendously skilled politician — so skilled, in fact, that he’s convinced many Republicans that the fight Obama wants is the fight they should want, too. Many of them share House Whip Kevin McCarthy’s view. “It’s not so smart to raise [Ryan] up by picking him as an enemy,” he told Draper. “If he picks a budget fight with Paul, Paul will beat him.”

not understanding the difference between politician and political operative, get back to me when he convinces voters of something

― lag∞n, Friday, 17 August 2012 16:32 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i didn't read anything suggesting pr would get more voters in the blog post tho? it is confusing that he sees consolidating gop behind ryan's budget as both a successful dem strategy goal, and a flaw or too-risky gamble, but i thought the point was the risk is that forcing republicans to rally around the budget would mean they take passing parts of it much more seriously than they would have had he remained in obscurity, something reinforced by vp pick (also possible that they hoped it would be more divisive, but he doesn't make that point)

*take passing parts of it if they win

post is basically: everything is going just how the democrats planned, they should be more careful

man he pointed at a computer and said "this is perfect." Dude has NO FEAR.

Republicans are so good at getting a reputation for being smart by simply insisting that they are smart.

btw clemenza ur generally a chill bro but it's nagl to be all "lago_On you're generally v. obstinate, now watch me strawman ur argument."

http://yaledemocrats.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/IMG_3161_Feature.jpg

http://wiki.washjeff.edu/download/attachments/25364131/college+dems.jpg?version=1&modificationDate=1227556500000

http://sophia.smith.edu/democrats/images/dems_obama2.jpg

I'm not sure what you mean, Matt, if you trace the argument. Lagoon ridiculed the idea that Klein called Ryan a good politician; I found, what seemed to me, some pretty good evidence that he was a good politician, at least based on past history (running almost 30 points ahead of his party for seven consecutive elections); rather than explain why that wasn't good evidence, the one-word response was "no."

Anyway, I know you're pretty obstinate when you fixate on something, so this one's all yours--Paul Ryan is clearly a disaster for the first district of Wisconsin.

― clemenza, Friday, August 17, 2012 9:09 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

If your point is that I'm just as obstinate, guilty as charged--I am being hypocritical there.

lag00n otm a) vp's don't matter and b) the little that they do ryan is a historically bad one. he is even half-assed at bringing the lulz

Don't dispute the first point at all. The second one, I don't know yet--I still say it's early. But I wasn't arguing either--just the one very narrow point about whether Ryan was, in Klein's words, a skilled politician. Having said that, now that I go back and look at the actual column, I do see that Klein wasn't referring to Ryan's skill at winning elections, but rather his skill at working himself into the VP slot. So I can see lagoon's argument better--he's saying Ryan's only there because the Democrats wanted him there, not because of any special skill. Fair enough--not sure I agree with that, either, but at least it makes sense to me (whereas the Republican-lean stuff didn't).

right, it's possible he's a great VP that doesn't matter

woah hold up, Tippecanoe AND Tyler too??!??!?!

haha

right, it's possible he's a great VP that doesn't matter

― ticagrelor rotini (k3vin k.), Saturday, August 18, 2012 12:53 AM (9 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

its much more likely that hes a terrible vp that doesnt matter tho

I don't what a good veep is. Thomas Marshall?

i just mean campaign wise

btw whats up w/all these prog rock pieces by dave weigel, what an utterly terrifying concept

idk if you could engineer a more perfect link i will never click

what constitutes a 'skilled politician' in the gop today?