Monday, August 13, 2012

More on why Democrats are cheering Mitt's pick.

On the topic of why Democrats are thrilled by Mitt's pick of Paul Ryan, I think it is best to point simply to John Heilemann's piece in New York Magazine.  While I don't agree with all of it, it most certainly elaborates on the failure of Mitt's overall strategy, which I do agree was the impetus for Mitt's pick.

The full take: John Heilemann's NYM article.

Or if you're too lazy to read that, I'll sum it up in three quotes:
"That the right is thrilled comes as no surprise, of course, given the despondency sinking in among hard-core conservatives (and, really, most Republicans) over the state of the Romney campaign during this long hot summer." -- As I've said repeatedly, no matter what they tell you in the broader media, this election has consistently looked like a non-competitive race.
"It raises the stakes and starkly clarifies the choice that voters will face in November — in one fell and dramatic swoop transforming a campaign that was teetering on the edge of being about nothing (of substance, that is) into a contest about Very Big Things indeed."  -- This is what gets Democrats excited the most.  Democrats get to tie the GOP proposal to maintain the top marginal tax rate cuts and reduced capital gains taxes, as offsetting any savings from privatization of Medicare and the cuts proposed in Medicare / Medicaid, with no effect on federal debt.
"President Obama’s lead against Romney more than doubles when the election is framed as a choice between the two candidates’ positions on the Ryan budget — particularly its impact on the most vulnerable." -- Heilemann is quoting from a summary from Democracy Corps, who perform frequent election polls.
And for the extremely lazy, here's the executive summary:

Mitt's campaign was non-competitive, period.

Of late, it was starting to sag as everyone was focused on the lack of transparency on Mitt's supposed strengths.  So he went bold and picked Paul Ryan.

But the shift in focus is now onto a Democratic strength and a Republican weakness: social and health benefits for the poor and elderly.


No comments: