Nothing spells fear more than irrationality.
And there is nothing safe or rational about choosing Paul Ryan as your running mate.
Historically, a vice presidential selection has little impact on the outcome of a race. But it does give you a significant window into the thinking of a campaign.
And Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan says one thing: "I'm going to lose."
Over the last few months the Romney campaign has spent thousands of hours doing research, focus groups, polls, meeting with big donors on the ski slopes of Utah and vetting tax returns down to the dollar.
All of those things matter.
But the ultimate determinate of a vice presidential candidate is the fear of the presidential nominee.
The choice, in other words, shows you what Romney's greatest fear is.
In this case, Romney knows something that many pollsters have been saying for weeks: his campaign support is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Choosing Ryan shows Romney fears he is going to lose.
How did this happen?
How does someone that is successful in business and politics cave into fear when the moment matters most?
I suppose we could ask John McCain.
But the easier answer is to simply look at Romney's inability to create a positive narrative about himself.
He has inadvertently succeeded in getting his message out about being a for-something-before-against-something candidate; an "evolving" candidate.
The consummate politician.
In fact, everything he communicates about his campaign is allowing an impossible-to-shake narrative take hold -- an election ender -- that he has no core and will say or do anything to get elected.
So he chose Paul Ryan.
Like him or not, you know where Paul Ryan stands.
But the narrative about Romney is too far down the road and he knows it.
The only thing Romney had was a "game changer" - a Sarah Palin.
A losing choice.
Elections are often won and lost on narratives. Successful narratives emotionally connect with and engage people, they need characters, a plot and a solution to the problem.
Romney has none of these things.
The 2004 election was defined, and won, by the early establishment of Senator Kerry's narrative. In fact, defining Kerry's narrative helped President Bush overcome unpopular domestic and international policies -- not to mention remarkably low poll numbers.
In 2008, Obama's narrative was emotional and obvious. People were engaged and the solution was a new direction -- change.
And as the 2012 election recaps are written we can look back at when Romney lost the narrative. And we can see when he told us he had - the day he selected Paul Ryan.
Follow Zach Friend on Twitter: www.twitter.com/zachfriend55
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Great--
Now, when are people going to wake up and get the Republicans OUT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The Ryan Bill, that every Republican voted for, dessimates the middle class and the needy while they give even more money to the rich!! They want to END Medicare. They"ll give us "vouchers" -- notice they havent said a word about how much those"vouchers" will be??
Wake up people !
How many more warnings do we need?
Vote out your Republican Representative . They are ruining this country .
Biden was pretty neutral, as an experienced insider who would not, and could not out shine Obama. Biden is a very strong team player and was a very wise choice.
A weak candidate will not look stronger by picking a strong VP, they may look wise, but not stronger.
A weak candidate is only made to look weaker by a weak choice. Choosing an ideologue like Ryan just makes it look like Mitt is afraid of loosing votes among those who would "never vote for a Democrat." Ryan is not likely to gain many votes and may in fact loose independent voters and those retirees who need medicare and social security to survive.
Romney is trying to protect himself from his own party
For Pete's sake. That is pathetic. It is exactly what McCain did.
Also too, the Republicans now have a ticket with no experience in the military and no experience in foreign or even domestic affairs.
The Romney ticket's only experience is in wealth accumulation for the few.
With Paul Ryan, I think the moneymen behind the Republicans see that Romney is likely to lose, and so decided why not overreach for their ultimate goal, killing Social Security and Medicare—or as CBS News teabagger Jan Crawford puts it, "Medicare reform for people under age 55."
If the Republicans are going down anyway, they're going down with their freak flag flying. But the Democrats are expert at losing to the worst imaginable candidates. This time, the threat from the Republicans of the end of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Planned Parenthood, and maybe even access to birth control ought to be enough to win easily, but Democrats to have a talent for blowing it.
The TP has taken over the Republican party. It won't get any easier to deal with them.
I can think of nobody other than perhaps Cantor who would serve as a better GOTV motivator for the left than Ryan.
Mitt just does not have experience outside the board room, the real world is beyond his understanding. He chose the guy who would look good to the Board members.
McCain also out of touch with normal people, choose someone he though would appeal to "common" voters. He was terribly wrong, and I suspect Romney has repeated that scenario.
Like how every thought gets its own little line.
Keeps the information is small, digestible chunks.
Kind of like a list, but without the numbers.
It's like Larry King's old column, but less coherent.
And what's up with shallots, anyways? Aren't they just sweet, small, expensive onions?
Oops, sorry, lost my train of thought.