• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Paul Ryan, Help Or Hurt Romney

Will Ryan as VP help or hurt Romney win election?


  • Total voters
    120
I think it helps Romney. Wish the ticket was reversed, actually.
 
This pick will hurt Romney for one reason:

The independent voter.

Paul Ryan is way too far right to sway most independents. His stance on medicare, and social security make him a darling for the far right but he looks like something else to independent minded voters.

That is the key to every presidential election, and this pick will hurt that cause.
If people knew how to appeal to the supposed 'independent voter' someone would have figured out what to say to get them in their camp already. I dont know who these people are or how anyone could be undecided at this point, but I would prefer a candidate to put his cards on the table and say where he stands and let him win or lose based upon that. Independents sided with Walker, so I wouldnt count Ryan out by any means. In fact, it might just guarantee a win for Romney.
 
If people knew how to appeal to the supposed 'independent voter' someone would have figured out what to say to get them in their camp already. I dont know who these people are or how anyone could be undecided at this point, but I would prefer a candidate to put his cards on the table and say where he stands and let him win or lose based upon that. Independents sided with Walker, so I wouldnt count Ryan out by any means. In fact, it might just guarantee a win for Romney.

The difference between Scott Walker and Paul Ryan is that the average voter doesn't view public union-busting in the same light as entitlement reform and lowering federal taxes for the wealthy while raising them for everyone else.
 
I think it helps Romney. Wish the ticket was reversed, actually.
Why do you "Wish the ticket was reversed..."? I posted "Paul Ryan knows he is smarter and has better solutions than Romney..." And I think it will show. What do you think?
 
The difference between Scott Walker and Paul Ryan is that the average voter doesn't view public union-busting in the same light as entitlement reform and lowering federal taxes for the wealthy while raising them for everyone else.
No one has proposed lowering the taxes on the wealthy and raising them for everyone else--even though that is exactly what should happen.
 
If he can't get rid of the cow lick...it will help Romney. LOL.

Ok, in all seriousness, Romney has not done well since he won the nomination. I'm hoping he is saving all the good ammo for the last couple of months before the election. Stuff like unemployment and 2 years under Obama/Democrat control and nothing positive, Obamacare, etc. But, since no VP has ever won the Presidency for the presidential candidate, I voted that he won't help or hurt. However, if he takes over the spot light in any way (positive or negative) he will hurt Romney. Ryan's job, right now, is to read the script, stick to the lines, smile and wave...and comb his hair...sheesh. Somebody get this guy some Aqua Net or something.
 
The difference between Scott Walker and Paul Ryan is that the average voter doesn't view public union-busting in the same light as entitlement reform and lowering federal taxes for the wealthy while raising them for everyone else.

How are two FIT rates of 10% and 25% on going to raise taxes? The Ryan FIT plan is said to bring in 18% to 19% of GDP, the same as under Clinton. We, as a nation, can not pretend that running federal defictis of 42% is sustainable.
 
The difference between Scott Walker and Paul Ryan is that the average voter doesn't view public union-busting in the same light as entitlement reform and lowering federal taxes for the wealthy while raising them for everyone else.

While I view both tactics as disgusting - I do think you have a point.
 
Why do you "Wish the ticket was reversed..."? I posted "Paul Ryan knows he is smarter and has better solutions than Romney..." And I think it will show. What do you think?

Does he know what office he is running for? Apparently Mittens does not. :roll:;)
 
The difference between Scott Walker and Paul Ryan is that the average voter doesn't view public union-busting in the same light as entitlement reform and lowering federal taxes for the wealthy while raising them for everyone else.

How quickly we forget that Bush lowered the bottom FIT rate by 33% (from 15% to 10%), and those paying that rate (as their top rate) are not likely to have any deductions (beyond the standard). We only hear the Obama crew stating that Bush gave tax breaks to the wealthy - they never mention that the lower income brackets got even larger FIT rate reductions. Many lose sight of the real purpose of the FIT, which is to raise federal revenue, not to accomplish social justice or income redistribution. Getting rid of most of the FIT deductions, credits and exclusions makes perfect sense, yet takes away a lot of DC power (and money).
 
Well, it is being reported that Romney will announce Ryan tomorrow morning. While it is entirely possible that they are screwing with the media, it seems kinda unlikely and that Ryan will be the VP pick. Do you think the pick will help Romney, hurt him, have no real effect?

Ultimately I think it'll have little effect. I think that this race, by and large, is going to be decided based on the people at the top of the ticket not at the bottom.

Realistically, I imagine Ryan will drive away some independents and win support of some Republicans that may not have voted or would've gone 3rd party. On one hand, it gives the Democrats another person to attack and rail against (yay, maybe we can get some more ad's tossing granny off a cliff) on the other hand I think Paul is MASSIVELY underrated by the die hard democrats/left leaning posters on this site in being able to explain and simplify Republican fiscal ideas that are going to be the heart of any chance they have to win. I think he does this far better than Romney and if used right could prove a benefit for right leaning moderates/independents that went with "hope" last election but are looking for an alternative this election.

I don't think it's the best pick politically, and I think it definitely has the potential to be a problematic one...but if I was going to lay money on it I'd probably go with the notion that it'll have little significant effect either way on this election. Yeah, it'll play into it and I won't be surprised if it hurts a bit...but I really think this one is going to largely come down to the top two.

I think the thing that makes this possible that it is okay for Romney.....Paul is not a huge vocal SOCIAL conservative. While the left and liberal on this forum and elsewhere like to proclaim any Republican that has conservative views regarding fiscal issues as "FAR RIGHT", I don't think the "far right" thing is going to work too well on the average person with Paul because for so many years the Democrats have tried to tie the notion of "Far right" to social issues and that's not something Paul focuses on a ton. This is going to be a fiscal and governmental election....that is, if either side ever begins to move away from just non-stop mud slinging, which will happen a bit as the actual debates begin...and I think Paul has a 50/50 chance in terms of his impact because of that depending on how well he does with his skill at explaining conservative fiscal views compared to how well the Obama campaign is able to launch attacks against those views.
 
Last edited:
Well, it is being reported that Romney will announce Ryan tomorrow morning. While it is entirely possible that they are screwing with the media, it seems kinda unlikely and that Ryan will be the VP pick. Do you think the pick will help Romney, hurt him, have no real effect?
It won't have much of an effect. I think it's a good move because it gives the Romney campaign a clear vision and focus going forward. However, it could backfire if Obama finds a way to completely destroy the logic behind the policies of that vision and focus. The good thing about Obama's Biden pick is that they both had different focuses and strengths so where Obama failed, Biden picked up. I'm not sure that Ryan has that same power.
 
I think Christie would be a bad choice because both candidates on the ticket would be from the same general part of the country.
I've always thought that aspect has been given more weight than it deserves. I can see a candidate helping their own home state, but regionally I'm not sure it matters.

It's only a single anecdote. but Bush II/Cheney were both from the same state... regardless Cheney's needing to switch his official residence to comply with election laws.
 
It won't have much of an effect. I think it's a good move because it gives the Romney campaign a clear vision and focus going forward. However, it could backfire if Obama finds a way to completely destroy the logic behind the policies of that vision and focus. The good thing about Obama's Biden pick is that they both had different focuses and strengths so where Obama failed, Biden picked up. I'm not sure that Ryan has that same power.
I think that is right. It sets up a fairly clear ideological battle between smaller, less intrusive government and a bloated, intrusive, leftist welfare state. The public has to decide what it wants and what it is willing to pay for.
 
For once we are of a mind. Let this election be an actual choice between competing worldviews.

This may mean the end of the world. You knwo that, right. ;)
 
I think that is right. It sets up a fairly clear ideological battle between smaller, less intrusive government and a bloated, intrusive, leftist welfare state. The public has to decide what it wants and what it is willing to pay for.

When you make statements like this....... do you try to use over the top hyper partisan hyperbole or is it just something which you have no control over?
 
Ultimately I think it'll have little effect. I think that this race, by and large, is going to be decided based on the people at the top of the ticket not at the bottom.

Realistically, I imagine Ryan will drive away some independents and win support of some Republicans that may not have voted or would've gone 3rd party. On one hand, it gives the Democrats another person to attack and rail against (yay, maybe we can get some more ad's tossing granny off a cliff) on the other hand I think Paul is MASSIVELY underrated by the die hard democrats/left leaning posters on this site in being able to explain and simplify Republican fiscal ideas that are going to be the heart of any chance they have to win. I think he does this far better than Romney and if used right could prove a benefit for right leaning moderates/independents that went with "hope" last election but are looking for an alternative this election.

I don't think it's the best pick politically, and I think it definitely has the potential to be a problematic one...but if I was going to lay money on it I'd probably go with the notion that it'll have little significant effect either way on this election. Yeah, it'll play into it and I won't be surprised if it hurts a bit...but I really think this one is going to largely come down to the top two.

I think the thing that makes this possible that it is okay for Romney.....Paul is not a huge vocal SOCIAL conservative. While the left and liberal on this forum and elsewhere like to proclaim any Republican that has conservative views regarding fiscal issues as "FAR RIGHT", I don't think the "far right" thing is going to work too well on the average person with Paul because for so many years the Democrats have tried to tie the notion of "Far right" to social issues and that's not something Paul focuses on a ton. This is going to be a fiscal and governmental election....that is, if either side ever begins to move away from just non-stop mud slinging, which will happen a bit as the actual debates begin...and I think Paul has a 50/50 chance in terms of his impact because of that depending on how well he does with his skill at explaining conservative fiscal views compared to how well the Obama campaign is able to launch attacks against those views.

The thing is, Paul may not be very vocal on it, but he is a huge social conservative. His voting record and comments on social issues would make it easy to paint him, accurately, as one. Paul Ryan on the Issues

Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Voted NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)
Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Rated 91% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-Family-Value voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the AU, indicating opposition to church-state separation. (Dec 2006)

Not only can democratic ads portray him as a bigtime social conservative, but that portrayal would be 100 % accurate.
 
I think that is right. It sets up a fairly clear ideological battle between smaller, less intrusive government and a bloated, intrusive, leftist welfare state. The public has to decide what it wants and what it is willing to pay for.

Since you'll just have someone from the other side doing the same hyperbolic spin as yours....

I agree, this election once the debate start could come down to a clear ideological battle regarding fiscal and governmental stances. The difference between a focus on the individual and the focus on the community. The difference between a focus on government removing itself from the path of the private sector and the government assisting the private sector down the path. One that suggests spending less is the primary focus where the other's primary focus is collecting more. One which see's the primary focus of the federal government is defense and another that see's it as the safety net, with each seeking larger cuts on the other and more support for their own. One which suggests less regulation results in more innovation where the other suggest more regulation for greater safety. One whose idea of fairness is as keeping what is "yours" and the other where fariness is getting what you "deserve".
 
It will either hurt him or have no impact. I don't think VPs ever help the presidential candidate outside of their home state, but they can hurt if they are viewed as unacceptable by the electorate. Whether Ryan's impact is neutral or negative depends how forcefully the Obama team can attack the "Romney/Ryan budget plan," and how forcefully the Romney team can respond to that criticism. So far Obama has run a much better campaign than Romney, so I suspect that Paul Ryan will be at least a slight negative for Romney.

Of all the possible running mates he could have picked, Paul Ryan was the one I was rooting for. :mrgreen:
 
The thing is, Paul may not be very vocal on it, but he is a huge social conservative. His voting record and comments on social issues would make it easy to paint him, accurately, as one. Paul Ryan on the Issues

Not only can democratic ads portray him as a bigtime social conservative, but that portrayal would be 100 % accurate.

The thing is, for the average voter...if he's not out blabbing about it non-stop, I think many of those type of ads will seem more like attack ad's then things that actually start making people think "OMG he's going to be some crazy social conservative".

His votes may paint a different picture, but his actual persona and presentation is not one where he pushes social issues as equal importance and focus to the fiscal stuff. Because of that, I think trying to paint him as some right wing social crazy as is such a common tactic won't work nearly as well
 
This is the message that picking Ryan sends. More taking from the poor to give to the rich. Basically the question Romney is asking America right now is "How would you like another recession?" More jobs will go overseas. More homes will be foreclosed on. More "shared sacrifice" that will fall on the middle and lower classes. And more profits for the business elite.

I think that is their plan entirely. If you think about it, Romney's specialty is taking things that are loaded with debt (this country) and selling them off piece by piece (like at Bain). Its a wet dream for investment firms, Romney in the whitehouse.
 
The very idea of a Randroid in the White House is something out of a nightmare novel.
 
That would be a sensible argument except that 1/3 of the US population is now getting some taxpayer assistance. It is very hard to believe that can be "good", while we have at least 15 million illegal aliens that can find work.

well, it would be a sensible argument if anyone was proposing to take those programs away.
 
It's a desperation play for sure that will only delight voters who are already on his side. But I guess he figured what more do I have to lose.
The best part is that now the election can be a referendum on the Ryan budget and more tax cuts for the rich. Let's get that over and done with so we can move on.

Okay, the tax cuts for the rich rhetoric has to stop. It is true that his tax plan took taxes for the "rich" down to 25%. What you ignore is that his plan cut out all of the loopholes that allowed the "rich" to get their average tax rate down to 25% ANYWAY. Don't buy the media hype bro, do your own research.
 
Last edited:
Ultimately I think it'll have little effect. I think that this race, by and large, is going to be decided based on the people at the top of the ticket not at the bottom.

Realistically, I imagine Ryan will drive away some independents and win support of some Republicans that may not have voted or would've gone 3rd party. On one hand, it gives the Democrats another person to attack and rail against (yay, maybe we can get some more ad's tossing granny off a cliff) on the other hand I think Paul is MASSIVELY underrated by the die hard democrats/left leaning posters on this site in being able to explain and simplify Republican fiscal ideas that are going to be the heart of any chance they have to win. I think he does this far better than Romney and if used right could prove a benefit for right leaning moderates/independents that went with "hope" last election but are looking for an alternative this election.

Unlike most, Romney picking him has me reconsidering writing in Ron Paul. Haven't made up my mind yet and I will probably still write in. But it made me reconsider at least.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom