Support NeoGAF

[CharlieDigital]

why?

I mean compared to the other wackadoos in the primary he was great, but he's still a crazy person when it comes to policies, since he endorsed the Ryan budget.

The Ryan budget endorsement is one blemish and potentially one that he was backed into by the establishment.

(In much the same way that Ron Paul has to play along as a "Republican" to even have a shot)

I'd have to hear more about his economic views to really get a feel (didn't tune in to any of the Republican debates).

I've liked him since this interview: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19455.html

Some choice bits:

The party needs to be more intellectually rigorous, and to compete for the votes of the young, the elites and minorities, he said in an interview with POLITICO. To do so, the GOP needs to tack toward the middle on environment, gay rights and immigration.

...

He has little use for the congressional wing of his party and believes their arguments often fall on deaf ears beyond Washington.

“We will be irrelevant as a party until we become the party of solutions and until we become the party of preeminence,” he said. “It’s easy to fall back on gratuitous rhetoric and that’s kind of what this town is all about.”

...

Huntsman argued the GOP must shift on two issues as generational as they are political: gay rights and the environment.

“Just sit around your dinner table with your kids, as I do, my teenagers and college kids, and you’ll get a sense of the world for what it is and what it is becoming,” he said. “And it’s a whole lot different than the dinner conversations I used to have with my parents, that grew up during the ’50s.”

...

“We cannot become the anti-science party and succeed,” he said. “We have to be intellectually honest as a party, and I think we’ve drifted a little bit from intellectual honesty in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt, for example, where they would use rigorous science to back up many of their policies, and in this case many of their environmental policies. Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency... .A lot of intellectual rigor went into the policies of those days, and we’ve drifted a little bit from taking seriously the importance of science to buttress much of what we’re doing today, whether it’s basic research and development [or] whether it’s looking at climate science.”
​

He just strikes me as a smart, pragmatic, solutions-oriented guy who's career has been largely in civil service. I mean, here is a Mormon, ex-governor of Utah -- perhaps one of the most socially conservative states -- taking some very controversial stances on the side of righteousness. He even crossed party lines and took the post in China which many thought was career suicide for him (for various reasons). I like that.

And as I've stated previously, I'm open to experimentation on the economic side (but not to the extent of the Ryan budget proposal), but not willing to compromise on civil rights, pragmatism, and intellect. Huntsman is an eminently electable, centrist, intelligent, pragmatic candidate in much the same way that I view Obama as centrist, intelligent, and pragmatic.

 

[eznark]

We could go through every losing VP's post-loss career if you'd like.

Whatever amuses you, but the point is that there isn't a downside for Ryan. If his ideas are not viable on a national level, then they aren't viable on a national level. Best to find that out now when you risk literally nothing. If his ceiling is ranking committee member on all things financial for the GOP congress, then that's his ceiling. Unless you think as a result of the loss in November he'll be stripped of leadership roles within the party. I don't. He is all they have.

Like I said, at worse this stalls his career at a point where it would have stalled anyway. This way he at least gets to keep his job.

 

[PantherLotus]

Palin
Edwards
Lieberman
Kemp
Quayle
Bentsen
Ferraro
Mondale
Dole <-
Shriver
Muskie
Miller
Lodge
Kefauver
Sparkman
Warren
Bricker
McNary
Knox
Curtis

I went far enough to where none of us have heard of anyone before Warren. I think the point stands. If you want to say he might have "a" career post-loss, that's probably fair. But it's also probably fair that he'll never move upward or gain more power again.

 

[PantherLotus]

Whatever amuses you, but the point is that there isn't a downside for Ryan. If his ideas are no viable on a national level, then they aren't viable on a national level. Best to find that out now when you risk literally nothing. If his ceiling is ranking committee member on all things financial for the GOP congress, then that's his ceiling. Unless you think as a result of the loss in November he'll be stripped of leadership roles within the party. I don't. He is all they have.

Like I said, at worse this stalls his career at a point where it would have stalled anyway. This way he at least gets to keep his job.

Oh ok, then I totally agree with this. I thought we were operating under the assumption that everything we know about Ryan is couched in naked political ambition, and that being on the losing side would be a devastating conclusion to his most important asset (delusions of grandeur).

 

[eznark]

Oh ok, then I totally agree with this. I thought we were operating under the assumption that everything we know about Ryan is couched in naked political ambition.

Even if you assume that, it's better for him to lose as a VP than as a Presidential candidate. It lets him know what his ceiling is. Depending on how it breaks I assume he will either run for President in 2016 or take over Tommy Thompson's senate seat in 2018.

Basically I look at it like he is taking the country's temperature to determine how much he should actually ramp for 2016.

Also, look at that list of people you posted. Not a single one of them was any sort of serious politician. Outside of Bush and Gore, every VP and perspective VP in recent history has been a joke.

 

[Eidan]

Well, I did say "if the rumors", not "according to heavily confirmed sources." I am curious as to what Republicans are going to be there, though. Any theories?

Ray LaHood?

 

[Learn2read]

This time their reporting is honest and unbiased. All those other times when the reporting is less flattering for Democrats are the bad ones.

:yawn

If a story is reported by someone and it goes against their usual bias it's a tick in the "more credible" column (unless they have it in for Huntsman for some reason).

Not that I believe it though, because above all else Breitbart is just a shitty, shitty organization.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Palin
Edwards
Lieberman
Kemp
Quayle
Bentsen
Ferraro
Mondale
Dole <-
Shriver
Muskie
Miller
Lodge
Kefauver
Sparkman
Warren
Bricker
McNary
Knox
Curtis

I went far enough[/B][/URL] to where none of us have heard of anyone before Warren. I think the point stands. If you want to say he might have "a" career post-loss, that's probably fair. But it's also probably fair that he'll never move upward or gain more power again.

How many of these people are 42 years old? Even Edwards was in his 50's when he was selected.

 

[Learn2read]

No point in looking to past VP candidates - their viability for a future run at the top of the ticket 8 years down the road was not really a main factor in their being picked.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Ras. with good numbers for Ryan

Ryan Favorability (OH)
08/13
Rasmussen
Favorable
51.0%
Unfavorable
39.0%

It is strange to think 90% of people in OH already know about Ryan though.

They also have Romney back with the usual 3 point lead in the national tracking.

 

[Chichikov]

How many of these people are 42 years old? Even Edwards was in his 50's when he was selected.

Dan Quayle, but he won (before he lost) so I'm not sure I fully understand that list.

 

[PantherLotus]

Even if you assume that, it's better for him to lose as a VP than as a Presidential candidate. It lets him know what his ceiling is. Depending on how it breaks I assume he will either run for President in 2016 or take over Tommy Thompson's senate seat in 2018.

Basically I look at it like he is taking the country's temperature to determine how much he should actually ramp for 2016.

Also, look at that list of people you posted. Not a single one of them was any sort of serious politician. Outside of Bush and Gore, every VP and perspective VP in recent history has been a joke.

I think this ex post facto, or w/e. You can't say that the losing VP candidates weren't completely ambitious politicians before their loss. I think you're observing their too-early exposure to the national spotlight.

And you've said this a couple times, but the "taking the country's temperature" on either his ceiling or his policy agenda is nonsense. He has to know 1) the toxicity of his plan, and 2) what happens to losers. No way he's thinking there's no downside to losing. That's a joke dude.

 

[eznark]

No point in looking to past VP candidates - their viability for a future run at the top of the ticket 8 years down the road was not really a main factor in their being picked.

No, but it does factor in accepting the request to run.

That said, "it's never happened before" is incredibly lazy analysis. Not a single person on that list of losing VP's has much in common with Ryan.

2) what happens to losers. No way he's thinking there's no downside to losing. That's a joke dude.

This is nonsense. There isn't a decent politician on that list. They were either old or had no career to begin with.

 

[ToxicAdam]

It is strange to think 90% of people in OH already know about Ryan though.

Not really surprising. He's been the de facto hero/bogeyman of both parties since 2010. If you watch cable news at all, you are going to know him.

 

[Officerrob]

Ras. with good numbers for Ryan



It is strange to think 90% of people in OH already know about Ryan though.

They also have Romney back with the usual 3 point lead in the national tracking.

Not even 90% of people in Wisconsin know who Ryan is

 

[PantherLotus]

No, but it does factor in accepting the request to run.

That said, "it's never happened before" is incredibly lazy analysis. Not a single person on that list of losing VP's has much in common with Ryan.


This is nonsense. There isn't a decent politician on that list. They were either old or had no career to begin with.

So Paul Ryan is the first serious politician on a Presidential ticket since we've been alive?

 

[eznark]

So Paul Ryan is the first serious politician on a Presidential ticket since we've been alive?

Bush, Gore and Edwards are the only VP candidates who had any Presidential hopes when they ran as VP since I have been alive. If that's how we are defining serious, then yes.

Hm, maybe Gary Hart as well but he never ran as VP did he?. He actually might be the closest to Ryan if he did.

 

[RDreamer]

If the only "serious VP candidates" have come from the winning ticket, then I would think that means one of two things, statistically. It either means that, as PantherLotus is saying, the winning ticket boosts you into being a "serious VP candidate" (adversely it means losing throws you downward into not being a "serious VP candidate"), or it means that having a "serious VP candidate" boosts your chances of winning by quite a bit.

 

[Chichikov]

Bush, Gore and Edwards are the only VP candidates who had any Presidential hopes when they ran as VP since I have been alive. If that's how we are defining serious, then yes.

Mondale.

 

[Stinkles]

No, but it does factor in accepting the request to run.

That said, "it's never happened before" is incredibly lazy analysis. Not a single person on that list of losing VP's has much in common with Ryan.


This is nonsense. There isn't a decent politician on that list. They were either old or had no career to begin with.

I don't know how you could listen to his Ayn Rand speech, or look at his actual voting record, and state with any kind of a straight face that he's either a serious or accomplished politician. And his actual legislation? He changed the tax on arrows and named a post office.

He hasn't actually accomplished anything of note except for the fact that he was the only Tea Partier to actually hand in his homework. Now it was riddled with errors and problems, but he spelled his name right at the top.

The irony of course is that even I, a part time c-grade politics enthusiast, ONLY know half of this stuff because he's running for veep.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Not even 90% of people in Wisconsin know who Ryan is

90% in America probably don't know who Mitt Romney is.

 

[eznark]

If the only "serious VP candidates" have come from the winning ticket, then I would think that means one of two things, statistically. It either means that, as PantherLotus is saying, the winning ticket boosts you into being a "serious VP candidate" (adversely it means losing throws you downward into not being a "serious VP candidate"), or it means that having a "serious VP candidate" boosts your chances of winning by quite a bit.

I think depending on the experiences of previous politicians to predict the outcomes of existing politicians is hilarious and pointless.

But generally politicians with a future don't want to put their careers on hold to join a losing battle. It means they probably have to be on the sidelines for a few years before they can re-join the discussion. It also means giving up any built up seniority. In this case, Ryan doesn't even have to miss a committee meeting most likely.

Mondale.

I always forget he was only 50 in 77. I can only picture him as 80 years old.

I don't know how you could listen to his Ayn Rand speech, or look at his actual voting record, and state with any kind of a straight face that he's either a serious or accomplished politician. And his actual legislation? He changed the tax on arrows and named a post office.

Well, an accomplished politician is a politician who has proven he can get elected. Those policies that he espouses that you despise so much routinely get him 65-70% of the vote. I'm not judging or discussing his positions here.

 

[PantherLotus]

hey guys stop piling on EZ. don't want to smother conservative conversation.

 

[RDreamer]

Well, an accomplished politician is a politician who has proven he can get elected. Those policies that he espouses that you despise so much routinely get him 65-70% of the vote. I'm not judging or discussing his positions here.

They get him that percent of the vote in one part of the country. I remind you that people like Michelle Bachmann and Allen West also seem to be able to hold their seats. There's a difference between being an "accomplished politician" on a small stage and wanting or actually being an accomplished politician on a national stage.

 

[eznark]

They get him that percent of the vote in one part of the country. I remind you that people like Michelle Bachmann and Allen West also seem to be able to hold their seats. There's a difference between being an "accomplished politician" on a small stage and wanting or actually being an accomplished politician on a national stage.

Hence the point of his accepting the nomination. It's a risk free trial balloon for Ryan.

Romney gets absolutely nothing out of this in my opinion. This was forced on him by the money men.

Remember, the conversation started as "why would Ryan accept the nomination to a losing ticket"

 

[gcubed]

Hence the point of his accepting the nomination. It's a risk free trial balloon for Ryan.

Romney gets absolutely nothing out of this in my opinion. This was forced on him by the money men.

So basically, the ships sunk, but it gets him more national exposure and they can see how the country reacts to him?

I think if Paul Ryan is a future presidential candidate for the GOP, the GOP is completely irrelevant

 

[pigeon]

Ras. with good numbers for Ryan



It is strange to think 90% of people in OH already know about Ryan though.

They also have Romney back with the usual 3 point lead in the national tracking.

I could be wrong, but that seems like a Romney lead pretty much in line with Rasmussen's earlier polls, which isn't actually that great a sign? There's no VP bounce evident there.

 

[eznark]

So basically, the ships sunk, but it gets him more national exposure and they can see how the country reacts to him?

I think if Paul Ryan is a future presidential candidate for the GOP, the GOP is completely irrelevant

The questions was why would he accept, not why would "they" nominate him.

 

[gcubed]

The questions was why would he accept, not why would "they" nominate him.

Sorry, that was too far back to go. I couldn't make it back more then a few posts in the last page so i figured i'd just jump right in and chance being way off.

 

[PantherLotus]

You keep saying it's a risk-free trial balloon, but I've proven that it's not! If he really has presidential ambitions, he's smart enough to know that losing this year will kill them.

The original point is that if he knows they're going to lose, it's political suicide (not that his plan to kill medicare wasn't on its own). You're saying that it's either not political suicide or he believes losing won't matter in the long run. Either of those is to ignore history.

 

[Farmboy]

As Nate Silver is fond of pointing out, we should always be cautious about drawing conclusions from very general past trends in presidential elections. The sample size is simply too small, especially since elections in the 21st century are quite radically different from most if not all of those in the 20th in terms of media (/internet) scrutiny.

A couple of pages back people were joking about how Obama is doomed because no black president was ever re-elected. That's a great hyperbolic example, illustrating how silly these extrapolations can get. I remember all the inane talk in 2008 about how Senator-Senator tickets never win except in the case of Kennedy-LBJ as well.

There is nothing inherently disqualifying about being the running mate on a losing ticket. Take the most recent example of a losing veep candidate seeking his party's nomination: John Edwards. He ended up in a reasonably respectable third place behind two powerhouse, history-making campaigns. Now, obviously he didn't win and we can't really know for sure if that has anything to do with him losing in 2004. I suppose it could have influenced voters subconsciously (that's hard to measure), but it certainly wasn't brought up during the debates or anything like that. It didn't seem to be much of a factor at all, (Of course, Edwards political career is very much dead now, but I'm sure you'll agree that has absolutely nothing to do with 2004).

Now, if Romney and Ryan lose to an Obama landslide and Ryan gets stuck with a large portion of the blame (as happened to Palin, though I'm sure she still would've had a decent shot at the nomination, if not the presidency, had she opted to run), then that might disqualify him in the eyes of voters. And this may well happen. But if he loses like Edwards did - in a close race in which he didn't really do any harm - he can easily survive a loss, and should probably be considered an early frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2016.

 

[Stinkles]

Well, an accomplished politician is a politician who has proven he can get elected. Those policies that he espouses that you despise so much routinely get him 65-70% of the vote. I'm not judging or discussing his positions here.

With the greatest of respect, I absolutely can't accept that definition of accomplishment. And he hasn't actually even advanced his positions, but rather been part of a millstone that's retarded others' positions.

 

[Blergmeister]

Here is an interview with Reporter Michael Grunwald on his new book The New New Deal. In addition to trying to show all the good that the stimulus has done, it's another argument that the Stimulus Act was as big as we were going to get and shows that President Obama did push for additional stimulus.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...stimulus_has_been_an_astonishing_success.html

I know it's another 'libera feel good' link but I feel this article is above the low level partisan hackery links that are being criticized.

Yeah that's mostly what I was finding. I thought going in that Thompson would be the hardest one to beat of them all. Looks like Hovde is winning the Republican support though. I'm kind of wondering if I should go vote in the primary for Hovde to give him some extra oomph, since I feel more comfortable with that matchup than Thompson.

The candidates are close enough in the primary race, and have a good enough shot at winning overall, that I'd vote for the one that you hate the least.

 

[eznark]

Sorry, that was too far back to go. I couldn't make it back more then a few posts in the last page so i figured i'd just jump right in and chance being way off.

I don't really see a great reason why the GOP would nominate someone like Ryan unless they think they have a really good shot at winning, which seems ludicrous to me. The only thing I can think of is they want to keep Wisconsin at least in the discussion so that they can make beating Baldwin easier.

You keep saying it's a risk-free trial balloon, but I've proven that it's not! If he really has presidential ambitions, he's smart enough to know that losing this year will kill them.

The original point is that if he knows they're going to lose, it's political suicide (not that his plan to kill medicare wasn't on its own). You're saying that it's either not political suicide or he believes losing won't matter in the long run. Either of those is to ignore history.

No you haven't, you've shown it has been suicide in the past.

I wonder if we're simply talking past each other? What do you think will happen to Ryan this fall when they lose? Maybe we just have different definitions of political suicide.

 

[PantherLotus]

The questions was why would he accept, not why would "they" nominate him.

No, the question is why he would accept if he thought he might lose. Everyone else is saying it's a horrendous miscalculation if he really wants to be President when he becomes a real boy, you're saying that he could be the one political example in history of defying the Peter Principle.

 

[PantherLotus]

I don't really see a great reason why the GOP would nominate someone like Ryan unless they think they have a really good shot at winning, which seems ludicrous to me. The only thing I can think of is they want to keep Wisconsin at least in the discussion so that they can make beating Baldwin easier.


No you haven't, you've shown it has been suicide in the past.

I wonder if we're simply talking past each other? What do you think will happen to Ryan this fall when they lose? Maybe we just have different definitions of political suicide.

Probably, because I don't really disagree with your premise on merit, just on history. I think if he loses, he retreats to his previous position in the House and loses a bit of stature. I don't think he'd lose his chairmanship in the immediate, but with his plan basically becoming the poison pill for Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina that it's already becoming, he'll likely lose that as well. Not to mention what happens when Dems regain the House. He might run for Senator, but would lose again on the bigger stage. He'll never get a chance to be speaker -- at least in the next 12 years -- and he'll definitely not be on another Presidential ticket, either at the top or the bottom.

If you're saying "he keeps his job and never takes another promotion" isn't political suicide, there's our disagreement.

 

[DynamicG]

I don't really see a great reason why the GOP would nominate someone like Ryan unless they think they have a really good shot at winning, which seems ludicrous to me. The only thing I can think of is they want to keep Wisconsin at least in the discussion so that they can make beating Baldwin easier.

No you haven't, you've shown it has been suicide in the past.

I wonder if we're simply talking past each other? What do you think will happen to Ryan this fall when they lose? Maybe we just have different definitions of political suicide.

Political suicide is a pretty broad term that's going to shift depending on the political climate at the time. We all saw Newt Gingrich return to some prominence in Republican party months ago, so people can come back from alot.

 

[Byakuya769]

hey guys stop piling on EZ. don't want to smother conservative conversation.

You're joking, but he is fielding a lot of responses...

 

[RDreamer]

Probably, because I don't really disagree with your premise on merit, just on history. I think if he loses, he retreats to his previous position in the House and loses a bit of stature. I don't think he'd lose his chairmanship in the immediate, but with his plan basically becoming the poison pill for Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina that it's already becoming, he'll likely lose that as well. Not to mention what happens when Dems regain the House. He might run for Senator, but would lose again on the bigger stage. He'll never get a chance to be speaker -- at least in the next 12 years -- and he'll definitely not be on another Presidential ticket, either at the top or the bottom.

If you're saying "he keeps his job and never takes another promotion" isn't political suicide, there's our disagreement.

The thing is that I don't think Ryan's a typical politician in the way we would normally think about it. A normal politician would likely be worried about the suicide of a VP loss, because their primary concern is getting elected and going further in the process. I think Ryan is more of an ideologue. He fully believes his wonky philosophy is correct, and a national stage to push that is probably a good idea in his mind.

It's kind of like the tea party themselves. They'll push toxic ideas to the forefront and then their candidates will lose in the general elections. They care about the purity of their philosophy rather than bowing to people who are clearly "wrong."

 

[eznark]

Probably, because I don't really disagree with your premise on merit, just on history. I think if he loses, he retreats to his previous position in the House and loses a bit of stature. I don't think he'd lose his chairmanship in the immediate, but with his plan basically becoming the poison pill for Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina that it's already becoming, he'll likely lose that as well. Not to mention what happens when Dems regain the House. He might run for Senator, but would lose again on the bigger stage. He'll never get a chance to be speaker -- at least in the next 12 years -- and he'll definitely not be on another Presidential ticket, either at the top or the bottom.

If you're saying "he keeps his job and never takes another promotion" isn't political suicide, there's our disagreement.

I think we are both essentially working under the assumption that Paul Ryan wants to run for president in 2016. Let's start there. If that is the case then this is "risk free" (really, just less risky) alternative to running as a Presidential candidate in 2016 because:

1. This allows him to retain his seat. He is only able to do that because he essentially can no longer get off the ballot. Filing was finalized in June. That obviously won't be the case in 2016 so it'll be win or go home. As long as his name is on the ballot he skates there.

2. This allows him to review polls and see what works, what doesn't, and determine just how untenable his positions are (if at all). There is a real possibility that he could talk people into liking them. Hell, people love the Patriot Act.

3. If Obama wins big, it allows Ryan to deflect criticism to an already incredibly unpopular candidate within the party. He's pretty much teflon here since Romney is so fucking incompetent.

4. If the Ryan team does determine that his positions won't work on a national level in 2012, it gives him plenty of time to regroup and win the senate seat in 2018 (the only real place for him to go at that point).


The only significant downside is that public reaction to him is so overwhelmingly negative that he finds out that his national career is DOA in November...something he would have found out anyway in 2016, without the Congressional safety net.

Paul Ryan touched the third rail already, he can't go back. He just needs to find out if it killed him. This is a great way to do so.

 

[Tamanon]

I'm not entirely sure Paul Ryan wants to be President.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Sorry, that was too far back to go. I couldn't make it back more then a few posts in the last page so i figured i'd just jump right in and chance being way off.

I could be wrong, but that seems like a Romney lead pretty much in line with Rasmussen's earlier polls, which isn't actually that great a sign? There's no VP bounce evident there.

Gallup and Ras's tracking polls are so far showing no appreciable movement, although Ras is the only one with a full post-announcement poll, and the averages are still mixing in pre-announcement results. It seems a little weird that there's no bump at all so far, but we're probably still looking at very early, very volatile numbers.

I mean, at some point Ras is going to show a bump even if they have to weight it 9:1 Republicans or something.

 

[eznark]

I'm not entirely sure Paul Ryan wants to be President.

If that is true than this is supremely idiotic. The VP is a clown suit.

 

[Clevinger]

If that is true than this is supremely idiotic. The VP is a clown suit.

The right wing is going to spend the rest of the year giving him a gigantic PR handjob. I can't imagine that's bad for his career, even if he loses.

 

[Tamanon]

If that is true than this is supremely idiotic. The VP is a clown suit.

Not if it is an expected loss. Paint Romney as running away from Ryan's policies and then pin the loss on that. Gets "good soldier" points and galvanizes the opposition. Sets him up for Speaker or Senate.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Yeah, I don't think you accept a VP run at the age of 42 if you don't have designs on the Presidency eventually.

 

[eznark]

The right wing is going to spend the rest of the year giving him a gigantic PR handjob. I can't imagine that's bad for his career, even if he loses.

But if he doesn't want to be President that that PR love is meaningless.

Generally speaking House leadership positions are based on insider politicking, not PR campaigns.

Not if it is an expected loss. Paint Romney as running away from Ryan's policies and then pin the loss on that. Gets "good soldier" points and galvanizes the opposition. Sets him up for Speaker or Senate.

He could have run (and won in a landslide) a Senate seat this year if that is his goal. Ryan v. Tammy Baldwin would be hilarious.

 

[pigeon]

If that is true than this is supremely idiotic. The VP is a clown suit.

Yeah, I agree that there's zero reason for Ryan to accept the nomination if he doesn't want to run for President someday. All it does is increase the odds that he'll lose his House seat one way or another -- if he wins, obviously, he vacates, and there's at least a chance that he'll lose badly or make a bad enough impression on the national stage that it hurts him in his district. (At the very least, it could motivate Democrats to invest in his opponents.)

It's hard to really judge, but I find it doubtful that Ryan is a cynical power-seeker -- if he were, he's done himself serious harm by propagating the budgets and bills he has put forward. It seems more likely that he's a true believer, in which case the Presidency is the logical place to go in order to achieve your goals. Of course, even if he was a cynical power-seeker, he'd still probably want to run for President eventually.

 

[Dude Abides]

Yeah, I agree that there's zero reason for Ryan to accept the nomination if he doesn't want to run for President someday. All it does is increase the odds that he'll lose his House seat one way or another -- if he wins, obviously, he vacates, and there's at least a chance that he'll lose badly or make a bad enough impression on the national stage that it hurts him in his district. (At the very least, it could motivate Democrats to invest in his opponents.)

It's hard to really judge, but I find it doubtful that Ryan is a cynical power-seeker -- if he were, he's done himself serious harm by propagating the budgets and bills he has put forward. It seems more likely that he's a true believer, in which case the Presidency is the logical place to go in order to achieve your goals. Of course, even if he was a cynical power-seeker, he'd still probably want to run for President eventually.

He seems to be a complete careerist. The spending hawk pose was adopted only when it became fashionable in the GOP. His budget proposal seems like an attempt to raise his stature, but he may have miscalculated how long that political moment would last.

 

[eznark]

He seems to be a complete careerist. The spending hawk pose was adopted only when it became fashionable in the GOP. His budget proposal seems like an attempt to raise his stature, but he may have miscalculated how long that political moment would last.

The Road Map was definitely that, but he has been employing the same budget hawk rhetoric since at least 1999. He opened for a GWB event that I was at and his proposed hawkish reforms were even more sweeping. He used to be a very vocal social security privatizer in addition to reforming medicaid.

He is definitely an ideologue more than an opportunist, but he's a politician so there is more than enough opportunist mixed in.