The discussion revolves around the predictive value of Wikipedia edits regarding potential vice presidential candidates for Mitt Romney during the 2012 election cycle. Participants explore the implications of these edits, the significance of the VP choice, and the broader political landscape, including the appeal to different voter bases.
Participants express a range of opinions about the implications of Ryan's selection and the overall effectiveness of Romney as a candidate. There is no consensus on whether Ryan is a good choice or how he will affect the election outcome.
Some participants highlight the uncertainty regarding how Ryan's selection will resonate with independent voters and the overall dynamics of the Republican base.
Readers interested in political strategy, election dynamics, and the influence of social media on public perception may find this discussion relevant.
*snip*
In 2008, as The Washington Post wrote at the time, "just hours before [Sen. John] McCain declared his veep choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, her Wiki page saw a flurry of activity, with editors adding details about her approval rating and husband's employment. ... Palin's entry was updated at least 68 times, with at least an additional 54 changes made to her entry over the preceding five days.
Meanwhile, the Post said, "on Aug. 22, the day before the Obama campaign officially named [then-Sen. Joe] Biden as the veep pick, Biden's Wiki page garnered roughly 40 changes. Over the five days prior, users would make at least 111 other changes to his entry."
*snip*
So what's going on now with some of those said to be among the leading possibilities to be joining Mitt Romney on the Republican ticket?
— Ohio Sen. Rob Portman's Wiki page has been revised 16 times so far today, by someone called "River8009."
— Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's Wiki page has been revised nine times so far today and 11 times from Aug. 2-6.
— Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's Wiki page has been tweaked four times today.
— Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan's Wiki page has been edited once today, and 11 times from Aug. 2-6.
— Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's Wiki page hasn't been edited today, but was revised eight times from Aug. 3-4.
— New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte's Wiki page has not been touched today. It was last revised on July 28.
— New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's Wiki page hasn't been revised since July 24.
*snip*
Jimmy Snyder said:I expect Romney to win, so the choice is important. For those who don't like Romney, take heart, he predicted Ryan would be the next President.
Pythagorean said:I'm pretty sure Obama's got that one, but that's probably for another thread.
Obama can't be the next President, he's the current one. And the only way Ryan can be the next one is if Romney loses the current election.Pythagorean said:I'm pretty sure Obama's got that one, but that's probably for another thread.
Haborix said:I can only ever hope neither of them wins. "Two wings of the same bird of prey"
I've voted for the lesser of two evils in the past and it hasn't worked out well for me. This year I'm going to turn things around.Pythagorean said:Lesser of evils is what we're forced to choose, lest we allow the greater.
Jimmy Snyder said:I've voted for the lesser of two evils in the past and it hasn't worked out well for me. This year I'm going to turn things around.
That's pretty strong -- what specifically is so awful about him?WannabeNewton said:Paul Ryan is a horrible human being...
I believe he said he was voting for Romney.skeptic2 said:You're going to vote for the greater of two evils this time?
I share that opinion, particularly the parts about budget and religion. I am particularly happy to see someone with virtually no religious cachet on the Republican ticket (Romney too).dydxforsn said:Paul Ryan was a good VP pick. Makes it clear that Romney's potential presidency is going to be all about the federal budget.
SIGNIFICANTLY better than John McCain's VP pick... I'm probably not going to vote this year, but it's good to see Republicans picking a candidate based on credentials rather than race sex or religion.
Pythagorean said:How do you mean?
lisab said:Seems like Ryan will go a long way to secure the base...but shouldn't that already be secured? I don't know yet how he'll appeal to independents.
lisab said:Seems like Ryan will go a long way to secure the base...but shouldn't that already be secured? I don't know yet how he'll appeal to independents.
russ_watters said:Which base?
The way I see it, there are two Republican parties; the gun-totin', hardcore Christian Right of Sarah Palin and the non-religious fiscal conservatives of...well...Paul Ryan.
Setting aside the problem of Palin's intelligence, McCain surely picked her to energize/appease the Christian Right, while hoping women would vote for her because she's a woman.
For a Republican, I don't think Paul Ryan could be more anti-Sarah Palin. So Romney must be betting he'll get the Christian Right either way and hoping the independents buy-in to the traditional Republican fiscal conservative values. I think that's a good strategy and one that has a pretty good shot at succeeding. I think Americans like fiscal conservative Presidents and I think that message should sell better now than it ever has before. I think it is a good pick -- unlike Palin, I think Ryan can only help Mitt, not hurt him.
Jacob Weisberg apologized for his initial praise, admitting that
"I reacted too quickly and didn’t sort out just how laughable Ryan’s long-term spending projections were. His plan projects an absurd future, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in which all discretionary spending, now around 12 percent of GDP, shrinks to 3 percent of GDP by 2050. Defense spending alone was 4.7 percent of GDP in 2009."