Daniel Larison

Grover Cleveland and the Venezuela Boundary Dispute

Not Much of a Rally

By Daniel Larison • August 27, 2012, 1:33 AM

Bill Kristol gushes over the “Romney-Ryan rally”

Everyone knows vice presidential candidates don’t matter. Except that on August 11, the day Paul Ryan was announced, Mitt Romney trailed by almost 5 percentage points in the RealClearPolitics average of polls. Two weeks later Romney had pulled to within 1 point—his strongest rally of the general election season.

Nate Silver reminds us:

What’s clearer is that Mr. Romney did not get as large a bounce in the polls from his vice-presidential pick as most past candidates have [bold mine-DL] — a fact that can arguably be read as a bearish sign for him.

To the extent that there was a “Romney-Ryan rally,” it already seems to be fading. The Palin selection managed to boost McCain and temporarily give him a lead in the RCP average for a week or so in early September. Two weeks later, the Ryan selection has not even managed to do that for Romney. Using the same RCP measure, McCain went from being 3.9 points behind on August 29 (the day of the Palin announcement) to taking a 2.9 point lead in eleven days. Fifteen days after the VP announcement, McCain was fading but still slightly ahead. So far, Ryan has given the Republican ticket less of a boost than Palin. Compared to the position McCain-Palin enjoyed two weeks after their VP announcement, Romney-Ryan has fallen short.

Everyone knows that every nominee receives some sort of boost from the selection of his running mate. Romney’s gain from his selection of Ryan has been below-average. This contradicts the hype and the forced enthusiasm for the ticket that Ryan’s selection provoked, but it seems to be true. Who would have guessed that selecting an obscure House member with a specialty in budget issues was not a cure-all for what ailed the Romney campaign?

Posted in politics. Tagged Bill Kristol, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Nate Silver, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin.

12 Responses to Not Much of a Rally

Kylopod says:

August 27, 2012 at 9:47 am

Your comparison with 2008 is problematic since Palin was selected just before the GOP Convention, unlike Ryan where there were several weeks separating the two, making it easy to distinguish a post vp announcement-bump from a post-convention bump. Looking at the RCP page, I see not much evidence of a bump for McCain in the few days between his announcement of Palin (Aug. 29) and the start of the convention (Sep. 1). In fact, McCain’s poll numbers stayed essentially the same until about Sep. 7, three days after the convention ended. So I don’t think there’s much evidence that the announcement of Palin itself produced any bump for McCain. The bump he received could have been purely driven by the convention. (Nate Silver makes this very point in his article examining post vp announcement-bumps, and he essentially eliminates Palin and Lieberman from his analysis for that reason.)

The bottom line is that it’s premature to declare the Ryan pick a success or a failure based on current poll numbers. Most voters still don’t know who he is (though he’s clearly better known than Palin was four years ago), and it’ll take some time before we can get any sense of his impact on the ticket, if any.
Daniel Larison says:

August 27, 2012 at 10:03 am

You’re right about the convention and the timing of the Palin selection. I should have used a different example. Regardless, the Ryan selection hasn’t made much of a difference. For his part, Kristol has a vested interest in presenting the selection as one of the smartest decisions ever made. It might turn out to be a good decision, but there’s no evidence to support that yet. All early signs point to the Ryan selection not mattering very much. According to the new Post/ABC poll, the Ryan effect is negligible: 14% more likely to vote GOP because of him, 14% less likely, and 70% saying it makes no difference.
krakow says:

August 27, 2012 at 11:28 am

Just imagine if 4 years from now the McCain/Palin ticket will be viewed as more reasonable than the Romney/Ryan ticket. Might as well start betting on Palin 4 years from now. Funny. After all, Cheney took back what he said about her being a mistake. I like Palin. She hunts. Hunters know that if Romney instead of Palin was selected in 2008 then that RNC would have been a disaster. Palin was the GOP version of hope and change. Just ask any hunter.
krakow says:

August 27, 2012 at 12:09 pm

Many GOP women disliked Bush and liked Hilary. Palin gave them a viable alternative but it was McCain who had nothing to offer. Hilary will again crush Romney/Ryan if she so chooses. I have always disliked the Clintons but that doesn’t change the fact that Romney/Ryan are out of their league. Palin is laughing. Show me another woman, other than Palin, who can take on Hilary. Two weeks from now the media will begin to bombard us with Hilary praises. Am guessing that Romney/Ryan will have only her lack of hunting experience as a counter. Women will not vote for Romney/Ryan and minorities will vote for Obama. Fortunately for GOPers, hunting season is just around the corner.
C Herman says:

August 27, 2012 at 12:21 pm

TAC too often fails into exactly the same trap as the neoconservative press or the liberal press, and that is to endlessly nitpick your ideological opponents’ faults, which is a sign of intellectual paucity, by the way. There is a whole subcategory of recent TAC tweets that are dedicated to “proving” that the Ryan pick is overblown. Establish that Ryan has contradictions and hypocrisies? – fine. But why harp on his electoral prospects? – which are largely irrelevant if you are judging on purely ideological standards (and if the GOP is so contemptible, why care if they’re doing well at all?) By now you’re just beating a dead horse, and being spiteful, exercising exactly the same confirmation bias that every other media outlet does. And the insta-opinionating of the blogosphere (I am not claiming I am immune to it either) makes the problem worse.
krakow says:

August 27, 2012 at 12:40 pm

To clarify, the Clintons are playing in the major league while Romney/Ryan are playing in the minors. Even the Clinton Foundation along with Chelsea might have more pull than Romney/Ryan.
Daniel Larison says:

August 27, 2012 at 12:42 pm

Almost all of my commentary on Ryan has focused on his voting record and his policy views. I comment on his electoral prospects from time to time when I come across what I regard as misleading information on the subject. There has been a small cult built around the idea that Ryan and his budget proposals will contribute greatly to a Republican victory this year. According to his boosters, this was one of the main reasons why Ryan should be added to the ticket. So far, it doesn’t seem to be happening. It seems reasonable to inform our readers by pointing this out. Refuting bad arguments isn’t just endless nitpicking.
John E_o says:

August 27, 2012 at 1:17 pm

Someone should explain to Bill Kristol about the Electoral College and why the popular vote standings really aren’t all that important.
EngineerScotty says:

August 27, 2012 at 3:27 pm

Palin hunts?

Good lord. If it wasn’t clear from her disastrous cable program, the woman has no clue how to handle a rifle.

On the other hand, there are (as of yet) no reports of her getting drunk on a hunting trip and shooting a buddy in the face, so maybe Cheney was correct to withdraw his criticism.

Palin notwithstanding, it’s awfully hard to see what being a hunter has to do with the Presidency; that’s like saying Obama is an excellent commander-in-chief because he plays pickup basketball (and is reportedly good at it). Some liberal publications have actually tried to suggest that O’s skills at hoops are somehow relevant to his performance in office.

Discussion of both Palin’s skills (or not) with a rifle, and Obama’s with a basketball, are utterly irrelevant non-sequiturs, and have no discernible purpose beyond cultural identity politics.
krakow says:

August 27, 2012 at 4:53 pm

@EngineerScotty
South Dakota pheasant season is calling you. No training required. See you there.
EngineerScotty says:

August 27, 2012 at 5:26 pm

FWIW, I don’t hunt either. I’ve got no particular objection to hunting (done responsibly); simply no interest in the sport.

Nor do I live anywhere near South Dakota, though there’s plenty of game out here in Oregon.

Fishing, yes. Hunting, no.

Whether a candidate for office hunts (well or poorly) matters little to me. As a liberal, the candidates I’m likely to support are less likely to be hunters than ones I’m likely to oppose, but I don’t use hunting (or basketball) as a litmus test to determine fitness for political office.
krakow says:

August 28, 2012 at 10:07 am

I don’t disagree with you and I agree with almost everything Larison writes. Good man.

The presidential campaign issues will be adjusted only slightly by the candidates over next couple months and followed only by select few voters. The popularity contest on the other hand is going into full swing and will be followed by most voters. To me, Palin is a modern extension of the Buffalo Bill Cody and Annie Oakley show from the turn of the previous century. That entertainment still sells. I do not know what percentage (big number) of the American voting population is cynical about politics but I would guess that to cynics Palin and her wilderness adventures make her as qualified as any other candidate. At least Palin might not need to hide the fact that US citizen assassinations are a necessary evil.

“…Senator Levin was speaking to another Democratic senator who was objecting to the fact that citizens could be assassinated under this provision, and Levin said, “I don’t know if my colleague is aware that the exception language was removed at the request of the White House.” It was a relatively rare moment on the Senate floor, unguarded and unscripted.” — Jonathan Turley

Obama will win.