- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,821
- Reaction score
- 3,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I think it helps Romney. Wish the ticket was reversed, actually.
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.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.
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?I think it helps Romney. Wish the ticket was reversed, actually.
No one has proposed lowering the taxes on the wealthy and raising them for everyone else--even though that is exactly what should happen.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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?
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.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 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.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.
For once we are of a mind. Let this election be an actual choice between competing worldviews.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.