the most important election of your lifetime: 2012 american general election thread

maybe he's found a way to integrate Locutus of Ryan into his matrix

I guess he gets to choose how much he owns it, and Ryan can't argue back.

It was Mitt's gift to headline writers. "Ryan's Hope"..."The Ryan Express"..."Ryan's Daughter" (that one might sit idle).

There was no strategically better choice that I know of.

you no like Rubio?

jonathan chait explores the character of "Sad Paul Ryan"

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/paul-ryan-helps-mitt-reclaim-political-virginity.html

What does Rubio give him other than a futher hiding from the Latino vote?

well picking Rubio would have been a misguided attempt at tokenism and a hail mary to get Florida but I don't see how Ryan is demonstrably safer in any substantive way. Ryan isn't going to deliver Wisconsin. And he isn't gonna attract independents (neither would Rubio, to be fair). He'll solidify Romney's support from his base but Rubio would have done the same, I suspect.

I bet Romney wishes he could have picked Ryan Lochte. You know that douchebag must be a Republican, if he were bothered to vote.

Rubio may have gotten him Florida but he's a zero nationally.

You also assume that whoever Romeny wanted would actually accept the offer to run with him.

I watched a little bit of "Morning Joe" today and the very serious DC pundits on his show were all very satisfied that we now had a real debate on the issues in this election, a real choice on matters of policy, finally.

I have to ask.. Hasn't the question of whether or not Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other programs in the social safety net should be cut and/or privatized been put before the voting public REPEATEDLY? The answer to the question: Does the vast majority of the public want the government to get out of the business of running these programs is: No. How many polls and elections do we need to find out whether or not the answer is no? The answer is no! Do we need to keep holding choice elections until the very serious pundits on Morning Joe get the answer of yes that they clearly want? I just don't think they're going to get that answer.

Very Serious cable and Sunday morning pundits also thought Palin would catapult McCain into the White House for a few months before stretching him out on a hospital stretcher.

Very Serious pundits are simply selling you the Suspense of the Show that has 11 weeks left to run.

Morbz otm

Digby links to a Yglesias post on another impact of Ryan's entrance into the election:

And focusing attention on the big-picture disagreement between Democrats and Republicans about long-term fiscal policy means we won't be focusing attention on what ought to be the most pressing economic policy issue of our time—mass unemployment and the tragic waste of human and economic potential it represents. To be sure, politicians will still talk about this. But obviously Obama would prefer at this point to talk about long-term vision and the contrast between his "balanced approach" and the GOP's cut-cut-cut approach. With Ryan on the ticket, he more and more gets his way. Which means conservatives also get their way.

and then adds: You'll notice that this great debate only features two competing ideas: the "drastic cuts in exchange for some small tax hikes for millionaires" and "drastic cuts." (I guess the perfect compromise would be "even smaller tax hikes for the millionaires and drastic cuts.") But no matter what, the one thing we can all agree on is that whatever ails our economy is nothing that firing a few more government workers can't cure.

digby otm. it's time for everyone to get amped up about voting for their team and trouncing the other team and ignore that both teams are fighting for the wrong things

of course, after the election everything will be different! until early 2013, when you have to start thinking about optics for the 2014 mid-terms...

or, as Taibbi said when predicting Dem victories a couple years ago, "and then the Democrats will do nothing for 4 years again."

What is Digby saying? That given an opportunity to win on long-term policy, what we really should be doing is talking about current unemployment? Because that conversation favors the GOP, doesn't it?

And yes - I know the media has to sell the horse race here, because they have to cover it and they don't want the ratings to tank. I recall hearing someone comment on a political panel some time after the WI recall that they'd all known the polling indicated that Walker was going to win it, and the impression you'd get from turning on the news beforehand was, election was a tossup.

that piece about Sad Paul Ryan made me think of what I saw on Morning Joe today - Mika started reading a series of bullet point facts about what, exactly, the Ryan budget would cut out of domestic programs and the percentage of tax cuts it would give to the wealthiest, and Scarborough cut her off partway through with no other point except that it was so ridiculous and unfair to have to hear this - I can't recall exactly what he said but it was not about the substance of it, just disgust that she even brought it up.

So this is a problem, it seems to me? The serious pundits want a serious debate about the facts and the policies.. but stating the actual facts about what Ryan's stated policies would do, is out of bounds and offensive? Huh?

"seriousness" and "boldness" are qualities that only make sense if you feel america's distribution of pain and hardship is not slanted downward enough.

x-post--Digby does acknowledge one aspect of the choice re focussing on the long-term

The idea that this election will now be about deficit reduction is almost impossible for me to believe, but the Obama campaign believes they can win on this turf and I assume that's correct.

So this is a problem, it seems to me?

it is totally a problem. which is why Romney disavowed Ryan's plan the day after announcing him as VP.

which is, really, classic Romney. Put forth a position/characteristic as a virtue to appeal to one set of people, then immediately distance yourself from it due to its political liabilities with another set of people

Ezra Klein was on talking about all the calls for a serious debate about Medicare makes him want to smash his head into a wall because Ryan's plan would keep all the cuts they're calling Obama out on, and it's really a debate about who takes the hit, but nobody is talking about it because whenever there are "serious debates" they aren't "serious debates".

xpost - That's not the message I have heard at all from Obama - what I have been hearing is plenty of talk about the role of government in not just defense and infrastructure, but in education, research and development, health care, the social safety net, supporting and promoting industry, creating jobs, and on and on. That's from listening to some of his stump speeches directly. It's a pretty strong and clear difference from Romney and I don't hear the Obama campaign making deficit reduction a main part of their messaging at all. What campaign is she watching?

Yeah - Klein made the point that Ryan's plan takes the cuts out of the beneficiary side, while Obama's takes it from the health care providers.

This is a pretty important distinction and I wish Klein had been more clear about it.

i want to talk about the issues. my opponent doesn't want to talk about the issues. you know why he doesn't want to talk about the issues? because his plans would enslave the american people. his plans would make us toadies to the world. his idea of freedom is which line to stand in to fill out an application to see if some intellectual thinks you're good enough to deserve a hot dog. that's why he won't talk about the issues. because the american people see through it. they want a good honest debate on the issues and jim, i wish we could have that but instead it's just a mud-slinging match because my opponent is afraid of the issues, jim, he's afraid of the issues and he's afraid of the american people. i really believe that.

jim the hot dog thing is on page 284. page 284, look it up. subsection 5c. of the original draft bill. of the original draft bill, jim, before my courageous colleagues made sure it was taken out. we stand side by side with the american people on this jim, and this is what i mean about the issues. we stand with the american people and my opponent just wants to make their lives difficult, i sure do wish i knew why.

it is totally a problem. which is why Romney disavowed Ryan's plan the day after announcing him as VP.

Also a problem, of course, is that it's mid-August and we still don't know what his plan is.

to loosen up the regulations that are suffocating our entrepreneurs and wealth-creators and jump-start this economy!! how is that hard to understand?? everyone knows this already, he doesn't have to release a plan

Probably doesn't have a specific plan. He's been championing Ryan's for a while, and his seems to want to do similar things, but he's shy on the details. Maybe bringing Ryan into the national conversation has the fringe benefit of helping him figure out which parts of that budget are popular.

Third thing on the list of specifics (after repealing Obamacare and privatizing Amtrak) re. spending on his website:

Reduce Subsidies For The National Endowments For The Arts And Humanities, The Corporation For Public Broadcasting, And The Legal Services Corporation — Savings: $600 Million.

guys SIX HUNDRED MILLION

Medicare problem = solved

http://achewood.com/comic.php?date=07182007

Digby quotes a Democracy corps poll dated before the Ryan announcement:

The President starts out with a 3-point margin against Mitt Romney, 49 percent to 46 percent. When asked to judge the two candidates in a very narrow way—Romney’s support for the Ryan budget because it reflects his values and Obama’s opposition because of what it would do to the most vulnerable—the vote shifts. Obama wins a majority of voters (51 percent) and his margin more than doubles to 8 points (51 to 43 percent.) This is a significant finding.

The Ryan budget’s impact on the most vulnerable is powerful among key swing voters, including unmarried women, who shifted a net 10 points toward Obama, the Rising American Electorate (net 3-point shift), and independents (net 9-point shift). Even conservatives were swayed, shifting a net 13 points toward Obama.

Among those who heard an even split of facts about the Ryan budget – including ones about cuts to programs aimed to help mostly lower and working class families – the shift is even more pronounced. With this group of voters, Obama leads Romney by 9 points, 52 to 43 percent, the largest margin of any of the groups in our experiment. It’s clear that focusing on what the Ryan budget does to the most vulnerable Americans can pay dividends for Obama.

yeah, but then you gotta factor in excited conservatives, convention bump, etc

presidential elections are different in a great many ways from off-year elections, but excited conservatives and discouraged everyone-else = 2010. sayin'.

unsure whether convention bumps matter anymore in such a polarized climate. The pols' supporters don't count.

Sarah Palin and Barack Obama are the only reason the 2008 conventions got big viewer numbers. Now everyone's heard everything Barack has to say and no one gives a shit about Mitt and Paul. Don't expect 2008 numbers for either one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-jack-abramoff_n_1768084.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

I had forgotten about this

A reason to like Paul Ryan:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/ryans-sartorial-problem.html

Or as the principal who hired me said near the end of my interview 15 years ago, "You look a little...rumpled."

these may be covered above:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156545/reaction-ryan-pick-among-least-positive-historically.aspx

http://www.theonion.com/articles/admit-it-i-scare-the-everloving-shit-out-of-you-do,29160/

if only he had picked Rubio, there would have been months of this shit

That Onion thing's pretty funny, and a perfect contrast to the Gallup poll linked above. We'll see.

Larison on the differences between the GOP and Dems when picking veeps.

...The VP nomination has become the consolation prize for conservatives after they lose in the primaries. Conservatives consistently field too many presidential candidates and end up sabotaging the chances of selecting a more conservative nominee, and so the Vice Presidency is the best they can do.

This has not created a tradition of making former Vice Presidents and VP nominees the natural heirs apparent in future elections. Ever since 1988, Republican VP nominees and Vice Presidents have had an impressive track record of not seeking the presidential nomination later or seeking it with no success. Quayle didn’t even try in 1996, and his tentative efforts in 1999 quickly went nowhere. Kemp didn’t run in 2000, Cheney was never going to try, and Palin likewise stayed out. Many people seem to see Ryan’s selection as the beginning of a path to Ryan’s preeminence in the party later on, but that may not happen. The Republican ticket could win, and Ryan’s career might still hit a dead end after four or eight years. The later political success of Republican VP nominees since Quayle has been elusive. Part of this is a result of the perceived and real failures of the administrations to which they belonged (Quayle, Cheney), and some of this is the result of failed general election campaigns (Kemp, Palin).

election will have to go pretty bonkers for a better headline than "Host for Romney event is a convicted drug dealer" to come down the pike

Good thing Ryan did:

JANESVILLE, Wis. — In 2009, as Representative Paul Ryan was railing against President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package as a “wasteful spending spree,” he wrote at least four letters to Obama’s secretary of energy asking that millions of dollars from the program be granted to a pair of Wisconsin conservation groups, according to documents obtained by The Globe.
The advocacy appeared to pay off;both groups were awarded the economic recovery funds — one receiving a $20 million grant to help thousands of local businesses and homes improve their energy efficiency, agency documents show.

http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/08/13/paul-ryan-district-supported-energy-funds-while-decrying-stimulus-program/qkXIN2eHgyt4yyBSH81WEJ/story.html

I know...it's just politics as usual

Looks like the GOP counterattack is taking shape: thanks to the Affordable Health Care Act, Obama ALSO plans to cut Medicare.

Which is, of course, about as good as "you didn't build that" and "eliminating work requirement for welfare."