-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that Paul Ryan will also run for reelection to his House seat:
Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-Wisc.), tapped Saturday to be Mitt Romney’s running mate, will also stay on the Wisconsin ballot as a House candidate. Wisconsin rules allow Ryan, a seven-term House member from Janesville, to be on the ballot twice.
This allays one of my major concerns about putting Ryan on the ticket: that if Romney loses, Ryan will be out of the House, where he has carved out a major role for himself on fiscal policy. This move means that Ryan could return to the House if President Obama won a second term. If the Romney-Ryan ticket prevails, a special election will be held to fill Ryan’s seat.
Lloyd Bentsen ran for reelection to the U.S. Senate while serving as Michael Dukakis’ running mate in 1988. Joe Lieberman did the same thing when he ran with Al Gore in 2000. Both Democrats were reelected to the Senate when the voters frustrated their vice presidential ambitions.
View all comments (33) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/08/11/ryan-will-run-for-reelection-t
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Oldefarte| 8.11.12 @ 1:56PM
Ryan won't have to worry about running for re-election to his old House seat, I can assure you of that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mike in N.C.| 8.11.12 @ 6:18PM
Apparently Ryan doesn't share your confidence or he wouldn't be hedging his bet. Like all Republicans who hate government, Ryan plans to spend his entire life in government enjoying the teat he will work so hard to deny everybody else. I've always been amused at how much time, energy and money Republicans spend to become a part of an institution they process to loath.
Oldefarte| 8.12.12 @ 2:02PM
No, he's just intelligent enough to INSURE his possibilities, since this election could repeat the STUPIDITY OF THE TYPICAL AMERICAN PUBLIC'S ASININENESS OF 11/4/08 WHEN THEY ELECTED THE DOMESTIC TERRORISTS OF ALL DOMESTIC TERRORISM! The only LOATHERS are the STUPIDS who refused to get their heads out of their anul cavities and realize the historical destruction brought upon this country by the Democratic Party; who asininely claim there is no difference in the two political parties; that there is no difference between a Ryan/Palin/Reagan/Ginguich and the Kennedys/Johnsons/Clintons/Kerrys/Dukakases/Durbins/Jacksons/Emmanuels/Jarrets/Wrights etc. These morons claim their utopia of the KING OF LJ etc as the all-knowing-messiah are [as ryan expressed yesterday] PART OF THE PROBLEM with this country!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RCV| 8.11.12 @ 2:14PM
On the contrary, he's doing both for the same smart reason Lieberman and Bentsen did, and with the same likely result.
Truth to Power| 8.11.12 @ 2:25PM
You are California dreaming. Forward to Detroit, fool. You and your Greek fiends are going to have a harder and harder time selling the bag of crap you are calling the future. Say hi to your pretend family. It is time for you to move to that paradise in San Bernardino and enjoy the fruits of your labors.
Occam's Tool| 8.11.12 @ 10:30PM
RCV: I am afraid, my friend, that I will encompass your doom! Mwah, hah, hah!
Seriously, THE most accurate poll, the Rasmussen poll, has Romney ahead by 4.
RCV| 8.12.12 @ 2:06AM
Rasmussen is always skewed GOP. More importantly, Obama leads in most of the swing states, some by a considerable margin. Go to RealPolitics.com and see the summaries of the state polls, and try to figure out how Romney can put together a winning electoral margin, even just looking at Rasmussen. Nate Silver, by far the most accurate and respected poll analyst, now puts Obama's odds of winning well over 55%.
I respect Romney's choice of Ryan. He is smart and articulate, and focused on the things the GOP should focus on, rather than the right-wing social agenda. (He broke with his GOP colleagues in supporting a gay rights employment bill, for instance.). His choice will sharply focus the race on the very different economic plans of the two parties, and that is a very good thing for all of us.
But as much as Ryan helps in energizing the GOP base, which Romney clearly needs to do, he brings considerable risks to the ticket. His approval ratings among female voters and older voters are sharply negative. Thus, while he helps in a key state like Wisconsin, he will likely cause Romney's loss of Florida and Ohio.
I'm very glad he picked Ryan, both because he adds intelligence and integrity to the race, but also because it further tilts the odds in Obama's favor.
Nick| 8.12.12 @ 11:28AM
"Rasmussen is always skewed GOP."
Not true, RCV.
All the other polls skew heavily democrat.
Rasmussen has been the most accurate predictor of the past two presidential contests.
RCV| 8.12.12 @ 12:27PM
No, Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com has been. Even Quinn H has acknowledged how respected he is. Silver's analyses of Rasmussen have demonstrated exactly why his past polls overstated GOPmargins consistently: over sampling of line-based telephone lines to the exclusion of mobile phones, which under included young, liberal voters even when the party preferences were accurate.
Nick| 8.12.12 @ 12:52PM
Not according to the liberal website Slate:
http://www.slate.com/articles/.....otape.html
Or, well-known democrats Pat Caddel & Doug Schoen:
"A recent case in point is what has happened to Scott Rasmussen, an independent pollster we both work with, who has an unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy. Mr. Rasmussen correctly predicted the 2004 and 2008 presidential races within a percent, and accurately called the vast majority of contested Senate races in 2004 and 2006. His work has sometimes been of concern for Republicans, particularly when they were losing congressional seats in 2004 and 2006."
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....26230.html
RCV| 8.12.12 @ 3:09PM
Nick - in the 2008 election, Nate Silver correctly predicted the presidential winner in 49 of the 50 states, missing only Indiana, which Obama won by 1%. He also correctly predicted all 35 senate races that year.
Nick| 8.12.12 @ 4:12PM
I've said nothing about Mr. Silver, RCV. I've heard of him, but that's about it.
I'm refuting your contention that Rasmussen skews towards the GOP. He doesn't. He couldn't be as accurate as he is, if he did.
I notice you provided no percentages, only that Mr. Silver predicted the winner correctly. How close were his numbers?
RCV| 8.12.12 @ 4:39PM
His final projection was that Obama would win the national popular vote by 6.1%; Obama's actual margin was 7.2%.
Silver is a fascinating guy. He developed the statistical baseball methodology that became the subject of the recent movie with Brad Pitt. He then moved to electoral projection and analysis and developed his own website, fivethirtyeight.com. In 2010, the New York Times began sponsoring and publishing his results.
Nick| 8.12.12 @ 7:24PM
I'll stick with Mr. Rasmussen, thanks.
I know his samples are correct. Unlike all the other MSM polls that over-sample democrats.
RCV| 8.13.12 @ 11:23AM
Nate Silver isn't a pollster. He's a statistician and political analyst. He looks at all polls, studies their methodology and historical accuracy and biases, and makes his predictions based on analysis of all available data.
As for Rasmussen's accuracy and pro-GOP bias, here's what Silver's dissection of Rasmussen's results after the 2010 election revealed:
"The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.
Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued." [cont in 2nd post]
RCV| 8.13.12 @ 11:26AM
"Nor did it make much difference whether the polls were branded as Rasmussen Reports surveys, or instead, were commissioned for Fox News by its subsidiary Pulse Opinion Research. Polls branded as Rasmussen Reports missed by an average of 5.9 points and had a 3.9 point bias. The polls it commissioned on behalf of Fox News had a 5.1 point error, and a 3.6 point bias.
Rasmussen’s polls have come under heavy criticism throughout this election cycle, including from FiveThirtyEight. We have critiqued the firm for its cavalier attitude toward polling convention. Rasmussen, for instance, generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window; speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process; does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially; and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys. These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples.
Rasmussen’s polls — after a poor debut in 2000 in which they picked the wrong winner in 7 key states in that year’s Presidential race — nevertheless had performed quite strongly in in 2004 and 2006. And they were about average in 2008. But their polls were poor this year."
PJ| 8.12.12 @ 9:10PM
Interesting that Silver is using mobile phones & Ramussen uses line-based telephones. They are probably getting their information from the same voters. This is not Hong Kong where everyone only has cell phones. And young voters tend not to be a large block of actually going to the polls.
I suspect that Ramussen will include cell phone users in the future if he finds that there are enough people discarding their hard-wired telephones.
Oldefarte| 8.12.12 @ 2:11PM
RCV, allow me to inform you of a FACT, and I want you to write it down if necessary, file it away in a safe place and above all else remember it now or at least on 11/7/12, okay? That FACT is that all of these polls/surveys are skewed/manipulated in one form or fashion, and numbers/statistics can be so very very easily [I know since I've spent my entire working liftime dealing with numbers for my financial living]; and most importantly these polls are fictitious in that many respondents to same avoid the truth when asked these questions from same since they do not wish to be branded/accused of being racists, discriminatory, etc toward the first minority POTUS in our history; and therefore these respondents LIE or DO NOT TELL THE TRUTH TO THE QUESTIONING SURVEY TAKER our of fear of same; and as a consequence of this FACT, this election will be a landslide victory for Romney/Ryan on 11/6/12. That you can take to the bank!!!!!!!!!!
RCV| 8.12.12 @ 3:11PM
See above, Oldfarte. You're going to be a very surprised and depressed guy come November if you really believe that. Then we'll be hearing the usual winge of "voter fraud" from your lot.
RCV| 8.12.12 @ 2:16AM
In fact, Occam, Silver currently pegs the odds of Obama winning at 71.6%, and his prediction of electoral margins is 301-237 for Obama. Interestingly, he pegs the national popular vote as close to even. I have long felt that there is a good chance that Romney may win the popular vote but lose the electoral count, in a reversal of Gore-Bush.
We shall see! Should be an exciting 3 months!
Oldefarte| 8.12.12 @ 2:12PM
Please read and contemplate my above post !!!!
Nick| 8.11.12 @ 3:56PM
Biden ran for re-election in '08, and won both elections.
He was even sworn in for a 7th term on Jan. 3rd, 2009.
And cast a vote in favor of the second TARP bailout.
Mike in N.C.| 8.11.12 @ 6:20PM
That would have been Bush's TARP bailout.
Nick| 8.11.12 @ 8:01PM
Which President You Didn't Build That! supported enthusiastically.
And tripled down on, with his stimulus packages.
Which did nothing but waste money.
RCV| 8.12.12 @ 12:28PM
So did Ryan.
Nick| 8.12.12 @ 1:27PM
Ryan isn't perfect, RCV.
He didn't vote for O'Bama's useless, debt-laden stimulus packages, though.
More democrats supported TARP than Republicans, by the way.
RCV| 8.12.12 @ 3:17PM
There's a lot to admire about Ryan, Nick. He supported the GM rescue as well, and his votes and comments on the gay employment discrimination bill were encouraging and insightful. It's why I'm not nearly as concerned about Romney and Ryan taking office as I would have been if Santorum or Gingrich or Bachmann (shudder) were anywhere near the ticket. Given Romney's moderate performance in Massachusetts, I expect we would have at least 2 competent bureaucrats with an emphasis on fiscal discipline and an aversion to right wing social causes. I could live happily with that for 4 or 8 years if necessary. But I honestly doubt that will ever happen.
Nick| 8.12.12 @ 4:25PM
Your damning with faint praise of Romney/Ryan is not going to dissuade anyone, here, who wasn't already going to, from voting for them in November.
Nice attempt at child psychology, though.
I can't wait for "Foot In Mouth" Biden to go up against Mr. Ryan, can you? How will "BFD" Biden explain the $700 billion cut to MediScare caused by O'BamaCare?
Enjoy the rest of the weekend.
RCV| 8.12.12 @ 4:46PM
I'm not trying to dissuade anyone here from doing anything. -- I know well the futility of that. Just being honest about things.
Ryan is very articulate and should do quite well in any debate. But where it counts -- in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Michigan and Florida -- Biden will play quite well, and laying out Ryan's own record on social security and Medicare will only increase his negative image among key constituencies in the swing states.
You enjoy the weekend as well. We're sweltering here in SoCal.
Oldefarte| 8.12.12 @ 2:22PM
That would have been "Bush's TARP bailout" [original] which was entirely necessary in order to save this country from a complete and total banking collapse without same, which would have destroyed this country, our government, the economy, and most of all.......YOUR [and everyone's] bank/checking/savings/CD accounts along with their mutual stock/bond fund and individual stock holdings etc. Yes you're GD correct it was BUSH'S and it was also necessarily vital. However what was NOT so was the domestic terrorists' [who took over in January of 2009] bailout of GM, Chrysler and their labor union thug-friends in Detroit so that they could maintain their $200000/year salaries at now taxpayers' expense. Whats more FYI, the original Bush bailouts/TARP to the banks/financials only have now been totally repaid WITH INTEREST to the government/taxpayers. GM/Chrysler and the unions have failed to repay to the tune of $200-300 million dollars to date and never will repay same. Oh and BTW, a recent new report indicated that GM [government Motors] is on the brink of going bankrupt [while Chrysler was sold previously to the Italian car company FIAT]!!!!!
RCV| 8.12.12 @ 3:54PM
Gee, why wasn't Ryan smart enough to see that when he SUPPORTED THE GM RESCUE!!!!?
aware| 8.11.12 @ 6:51PM
I wouldn't give up my day job either if I was Ryan.
Oldefarte| 8.12.12 @ 2:24PM
If I were a moron like yourself, I'd go blog on the NYT website instead!!!!!!!!!