Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

[Gauthier]

Based on his Congressional voting record, for instance, the statistical system DW-Nominate evaluates him as being roughly as conservative as Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota.

By this measure, in fact, which rates members of the House and Senate throughout different time periods on a common ideology scale, Mr. Ryan is the most conservative Republican member of Congress to be picked for the vice-presidential slot since at least 1900. He is also more conservative than any Democratic nominee was liberal, meaning that he is the furthest from the center

So Ryan is far-right insane as Michele Bwcawkmann? Damn. Romney did bend over and take it from the Tea Party while begging for more.

[Alien Space Bats]

Right. Almost all the ad money is being spent in the swing States, although a little Republican money is being dumped on long shots like Minnesota.

God... I've seen all the ads here and I'm so freaking tired of it all...

Buck up, son. You still got several hundred million dollars worth of ads to "consume" on behalf of the rest of us.

And again, thank God the Romney campaign didn't invent some infernal little jingle to go along with all those ads.

[Serrland]

Right. Almost all the ad money is being spent in the swing States, although a little Republican money is being dumped on long shots like Minnesota.

God... I've seen all the ads here and I'm so freaking tired of it all...

I'm in Florida now, and I feel your pain. Really puts you off, dunnit?

I'm so glad I am heading back to Chicago next week. Whew. No campaign ads there, except on AM radio!

[United Dependencies]

God... I've seen all the ads here and I'm so freaking tired of it all...

Buck up, son. You still got several hundred million dollars worth of ads to "consume" on behalf of the rest of us.

And again, thank God the Romney campaign didn't invent some infernal little jingle to go along with all those ads.

I suppose being in a swing state should have some downfall. However, I am glad there is no jingle to get stuck in my head.

I'm in Florida now, and I feel your pain. Really puts you off, dunnit?

It's just a mood killer. I'm trying to watch politics or some such with my family and then everything has to become about politics at every commercial break. I like keeping current as much as the next guy but this is just an overload.

[Serrland]

I'm in Florida now, and I feel your pain. Really puts you off, dunnit?

It's just a mood killer. I'm trying to watch politics or some such with my family and then everything has to become about politics at every commercial break. I like keeping current as much as the next guy but this is just an overload.

Trying to watch Sportscenter in the morning before work? NOPE! Try watching two attack ads every ten minutes instead!

If they weren't all negative it wouldn't be half as bad. I mean, I've seen a lot of this from Obama and a lot of this from Romney.

Frankly it's hard to see that many ads and not just get apathetic to it all.

[Wamitoria]

Enthusiasm for Barack Obama is still soft

Can we truly say that this early into the campaign? Surely the conventions will do something to increase enthusiasm?

[Zaras]

God... I've seen all the ads here and I'm so freaking tired of it all...

Buck up, son. You still got several hundred million dollars worth of ads to "consume" on behalf of the rest of us.

And again, thank God the Romney campaign didn't invent some infernal little jingle to go along with all those ads.

"Now, I know you're as bored with the election as we are..." - Jon Stewart, tellin' it like it is three days ago.

It seems so pointless to have an interminable campaign when ASB already showed that it doesn't change anybody's mind.

Thank whatever I live in the UK, where Parliament is dissolved 17 days before polling day.

[The House of Petain]

Enthusiasm for Barack Obama is still soft

Can we truly say that this early into the campaign? Surely the conventions will do something to increase enthusiasm?

Maybe a bit, but I fear unlike 2008, the electorate is mostly pessimistic.

[Wamitoria]

Can we truly say that this early into the campaign? Surely the conventions will do something to increase enthusiasm?

Maybe a bit, but I fear unlike 2008, the electorate is mostly pessimistic.

Well, that's a given. But the electorate was extremely pessimistic in '04 and it didn't depress GOP turnout on the scale that would be assumed to cost them the election.

Hell, all we have to go on are polls to determine enthusiasm at this point, and the Republicans only lead the Democrats on enthusiasm by about 10%, which looks big until you realize it's 90% enthusiasm to 80% enthusiasm.

[New Chalcedon]

*snips*

It's a daring strategy, however much of a crazy long shot it may be. Of course, if it works, it will be remembered as something of a political Marengo - one for the history books.

<waits to see who fully appreciates the historical reference, in all its glory>

Unfortunately for Team Romney, I doubt that Paul Ryan can match up to Louis DeSaix' mark. He may be just as enthusiastic, but he's considerably less skilled. So it matters little whether he attacks at 3pm, 3am or any other time - he's almost certainly going to lose: the minging, nasty, small-souled "vision" that the Republicans offer, of a concrete-jungle America where it's every man for himselfand Devil take the hindmost, cannot compare to the alternative offered by the Democrats, however flawed it's implementation.

[The House of Petain]

Maybe a bit, but I fear unlike 2008, the electorate is mostly pessimistic.

Well, that's a given. But the electorate was extremely pessimistic in '04 and it didn't depress GOP turnout on the scale that would be assumed to cost them the election.

Hell, all we have to go on are polls to determine enthusiasm at this point, and the Republicans only lead the Democrats on enthusiasm by about 10%, which looks big until you realize it's 90% enthusiasm to 80% enthusiasm.

That's true. Though I find it depressing that this election, like so many others, is based off of which candidate is less crappier. I suppose it was foolish hope still lingering from 2008. Then again I've always had this "the West Wing" kind of sentimentalism about politics. God only knows why.

But we'll see what happens. I know that Ryan (instead of Rubio or Pawlenty) will at least energize the Democratic base and hopefully mean re-election. If the campaign focuses on Ryan's budget, I think we can win enough independents over, too.

[Tmutarakhan]

Unfortunately for Team Romney, I doubt that Paul Ryan can match up to Louis DeSaix' mark.

He's not going to get himself killed?

[Alien Space Bats]

*snips*

It's a daring strategy, however much of a crazy long shot it may be. Of course, if it works, it will be remembered as something of a political Marengo - one for the history books.

<waits to see who fully appreciates the historical reference, in all its glory>

Unfortunately for Team Romney, I doubt that Paul Ryan can match up to Louis DeSaix' mark. He may be just as enthusiastic, but he's considerably less skilled. So it matters little whether he attacks at 3pm, 3am or any other time - he's almost certainly going to lose: the minging, nasty, small-souled "vision" that the Republicans offer, of a concrete-jungle America where it's every man for himselfand Devil take the hindmost, cannot compare to the alternative offered by the Democrats, however flawed it's implementation.

I think Democrats need to take the threat seriously.

First, Romney's claim that the President is trying to roll back welfare reform - a claim the GOP appears prepared to stand by - is the first shot in a campaign designed to invoke white resentment against minorities. Couple this with the fact that oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin are scheduled for October 10th, and that the Roberts Court is almost certain to use that case to eliminate affirmative action in higher education altogether (especially with Justice Kagan's recusal in the matter), and the fact that the far right has been itching to "relitigate" the 2008 election on the basis of Barack Obama's ties to Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his supposed "hatred" of traditional (white) American culture (and that Mitt Romney lacks John McCain's statesmanship and is therefore unlikely to stand in their way), and the danger should become all too clear.

Yes, the odds are still against Mitt Romney - indeed, I'm not really sure they've improved in any material way - but now if the GOP wins, they will be able to claim to have a mandate to roll back Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, trivialize the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts, and drive America as hard as they possibly can towards the far-right's Randian vision of social Darwinism in economics while pushing for the worst kind of States' rights reaction in the area of social legislation.

In short, this is really no longer just about Barack Obama and Mitt Romney; this is going to turn into an election about whether we ought to repeal the last 50 years of American history. Even if the odds still favor the Democrats, the stakes are so great that they have to campaign as though everything they believe in is at stake.

Because everything the Democrats believe is is at stake, and I'm not yet sure they realize that.

[Tmutarakhan]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of August 11th, 2012)

(Image)

Obama 317, Romney 212 (9 Undecided)

---

PLEASE NOTE: AS OF YET, NO POLLS CURRENTLY SHOWN REFLECT ROMNEY'S CHOICE OF RUNNING MATE

---

Just one new poll today:

• In Iowa (6 EV's), an August 8th poll by Rasmussen shows Romney leading by 2%; this is quite a shift from earlier polls, so we'll want to see further confirmation going forward. For now, the State swings from "Likely Democratic" to "Barely Republican"

I'd expect we're going to see a whole slew of polls over the next few weeks.

---

Were this an ordinary year, the next month would see a roller coaster ride in the polls: Saturday's announcement of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's running mate could ordinarily be expected to produce a Republican bounce; three weeks from now, the Republican National Convention in Tampa Bay, FL would likely produce another; the week after that, the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC would produce a third bounce, this time in the opposite direction.

But there are indications that a substantial percentage of likely voters are already essentially locked in to their final decision (barring a major "October Surprise"), which means that this year we might not see any such thing. In a sense, we're about to have a test of the whole idea that a massive early effort, especially in such a deeply polarized environment, can effectively determine the outcome of the Presidential race even before the Conventions are held.

Indeed, in some ways the choice of Paul Ryan itself is consistent with the idea that the race is already essential decided: Ryan is intended to appeal to the GOP base, and appealing to the base is an end-game strategy. From that perspective, Ryan's nomination is supposed to rally the faithful and maximize their turnout in November, as much to try and ensure candidates up and down the ticket a strong base of support as to scare up the last few percentage points needed to win a close race.

Several people have responded to Ryan's selection by saying that they think it's a bad idea, in so far as it surrenders the middle and doesn't do a lot to attract potential crossover Democrats; from my perspective, however, its intention is to avoid what happened to the GOP in '08 - namely, erosion of its voter base through conservative abandonment of the ticket, which (if allowed to happen) would result in the kind of weak voter turnout that could turn defeat into a rout.

In a way, Ryan's presence on the ticket now challenges Democrats to redouble their efforts to galvanize their base. Enthusiasm for Barack Obama is still soft, and if it remains soft Democrats could lose; nor can they count on Paul Ryan's nomination for Veep to stiffen up their ranks. Ryan and his budgetary proposals could provide the juice that Democrats need to turn out their base, but they're going to have to work to transform that opportunity into reality. Then, too, since it now appears that the decision to name Ryan was made back around August 1st, and that also appears to be roughly when the Romney campaign decided to move its message off the economy alone and expand into a full-bore attack on Lyndon Johnson's legacy (the "Right Choice" ad [accusing Obama of "gutting" the work requirement for welfare] being the opening salvo in this offensive), Democrats are going to need to be ready to mount a broad defense of entitlements and public assistance - and to do so all while fighting the insinuation that such programs bleed hard-working white folks dry for the benefit of lazy, good-for-nothing dark-skinned slackers.

Chances are few voters are going to be swayed by this debate; yet swaying them may not be the point. More likely, the goal is to energize voters - or to force one's opponent into demoralizing his supporters through blunder or inaction.

I'll comment more on this soon enough, but for now that should be enough to clarify the broad strokes involved in the fight to come.

is the "No Rasmussen" map, which we should probably pay more attention to, given that Rasmussen's divergence from other sources seems to be increasing. Only Rasmussen shows Romney ahead in Iowa or North Carolina; although both of those are clearly very close.

How deep a hole is Romney in if the Ryan pick alienates the seniors (through "Mediscare") and depresses enthusiasm among Cubans (because Rubio was "dissed") enough that the slight Obama lead in Florida becomes a lock? The election is then on the knife-edge if Romney keeps the McCain states plus: Indiana (sure); North Carolina and Iowa (maybe, if Rasmussen is right or Obama slumps a little); Colorado (tossup right now) and Virginia (Obama's lead has been fading); Nevada and New Hampshire (Romney has never led in either); Wisconsin (Ryan's home-- polls before he was picked indicate that adding him wins more votes there than it loses, although Ryan is a rather polarizing figure-- though not enough to tip it yet) and Michigan (Romney's birthplace, although that definitely hurts more than it helps, making his wish for GM to be allowed to go under seem a betrayal). Presumably if Romney flipped those nine he would also flip Omaha, Nebraska (which Obama flukishly picked up last time) for 270, or if it ties 269-269 the House is presumably still GOP if Romney is doing that well. Substitute Ohio or Pennsylvania for Michigan and Omaha no longer signifies. The problem, however, is that Romney cannot lose even one state out of IN/NC/IA/CO/VA/NV/NH/WI (only Rasmussen has him doing as well as 3-for-8, let alone 8-for-8) without needing to go 2-for-3 out of Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (he is 0-for-3 there now, and has been all year). In short, if Florida is lost there are hardly electoral maps left that work for Romney/Ryan.

[Wamitoria]

Because everything the Democrats believe is is at stake, and I'm not yet sure they realize that.

Have you read any of the fundraising letters that the Obama campaign has sent out to large donors to the Democrats in the past? They pretty much state that if Obama loses we'll go back to the Gilded Age. Now, keep in mind, this may just be fear-mongering to get money, but if any campaign has ever been completely aware of the stakes of this election, it's the Obama campaign.

Also, nearly everything you've said they should do, they've done. So, either you're David Axelrod, or the Obama campaign is hyper-competent in a way that no Democratic campaign has ever been. I'm sure they know the stakes of the election. And I'm pretty sure Democrats do as well. The whole Ryan pick basically allows the Democrats to make sure that the Independents (and some of the less partisan Dems) know the stakes as well as us who watch MSNBC and read Hufington Post for fun.

First, Romney's claim that the President is trying to roll back welfare reform - a claim the GOP appears prepared to stand by - is the first shot in a campaign designed to invoke white resentment against minorities. Couple this with the fact that oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin are scheduled for October 10th, and that the Roberts Court is almost certain to use that case to eliminate affirmative action in higher education altogether (especially with Justice Kagan's recusal in the matter), and the fact that the far right has been itching to "relitigate" the 2008 election on the basis of Barack Obama's ties to Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his supposed "hatred" of traditional (white) American culture (and that Mitt Romney lacks John McCain's statesmanship and is therefore unlikely to stand in their way), and the danger should become all too clear.

Look, I really may be a bit of an optimist, but I really don't think all-and-out race baiting is going to do much in this campaign. Let's face it, white racists weren't about to go and vote for the black dude in the first place. What I honestly think is that the Romney campaign is under the (false) impression that Romney can push the floor of Democratic support among white men lower than where it is now (39-41% depending upon the polling). They can't go for the "soft on terrorism" line of attack, because it's so transparently bullshit that I honestly don't think anyone but the Republican base could convince themselves to believe it.

This is really where the folly of the Romney campaign comes into view. They're starting to believe the bullshit that the Republican Party has been telling itself since November 7, 2008. Say what you will about their strategy beforehand, but it at least was one that made sense on paper. President who presides over historically weak economy can be unseated by running a relatively decent campaign focused on the economy, as long as you don't repeatedly foul yourself up. Of course, we all know that not only has Romney repeatedly fouled himself up (forcing himself off-message), and his overall strategy has not borne fruit at all. The only state he's captured back for sure is Indiana. And Obama winning their was practically a fluke and only really possible because of Obama's massive advantage in overall campaign funds vis a vis McCain.

Now, realizing that this isn't working, they've decided that the far-right must be correct. He should pick a far-right Social Darwinist as his VP with the most politically toxic congressional plan since FDR tried to pack SCOTUS with his cronies. He should go all-in on race-baiting and crazy theories about wars on religion and the president's secret hatred of Israel and Poland. He should tout his own anglo-saxon-ness as something that ties him to the UK in a way that Obama is unable to be.

They believe that this race-baiting will get the base out, but let's face it, they already were going to turn out to vote against Obama (hell, Kerry pretty much turned out the entire Democratic Party to vote against Bush, and Kerry was one of the worst campaigners in the history of campaigning). What this sort of race-baiting will do is turn off the moderate independents (so-called "swing voters"; largely white women, as you have stated before) and maximize turnout on the Democratic side. After all, the one thing that always unites Democrats is a hatred of racism and any sort of race-baiting attacks.

[Corporate Councils]

Buck up, son. You still got several hundred million dollars worth of ads to "consume" on behalf of the rest of us.

And again, thank God the Romney campaign didn't invent some infernal little jingle to go along with all those ads.

What about their new slogan?

Romney-Ryan '12: As long as you aren't poor.

[Alien Space Bats]

What I honestly think is that the Romney campaign is under the (false) impression that Romney can push the floor of Democratic support among white men lower than where it is now (39-41% depending upon the polling).

Absolutely. In the best case scenario (depressed minority turnout combined with the lowest possible degree of African-American and Latino enthusiasm for Obama), Romney has to win among white males by a minimum margin of 25% (52-37); more realistically, he has to get that margin up over 30% (to at least 65-34). Naturally, there are conservative pundits who believe that Mitt Romney can do this, or even somehow manage to drive that margin up to 35% (67-32), which was where it ended up in 1984. As I've said before, I think they're smoking crack. Yet they point to current Gallup tracking polls that place the present margin at 26% (59-33), and then blithely assume the undecided 8% will all fall into Romney's lap, rather than splitting evenly between the two Parties.

Realistically, Democratic Presidential candidates - as I have pointed out - routinely draw between 36-38% of the white male vote, and have ever since 1988. Indeed, this particular trend is one of the most reliable in politics, which means that breaking it would represent a major feat by the GOP; for this reason I am skeptical that Republicans can manage more that a margin of 23-27% among white male voters.

Which makes the white female vote extremely significant. Romney needs to pull down at least 8% of the white female vote to even have the slightest chance of winning - and that's with minimal minority support for Obama. If minority support runs closer to expectations, white female support needs to exceed 11-14%, and that could be problematic (to say the least).

Of course, the other side of the coin is that appeals to white resentment stand a strong chance of mobilizing African-American and Latino voters, which is precisely what Obama needs to do to win. So there's a certain "damned-if-you-do" element to all of this as well...

After all, the one thing that always unites Democrats is a hatred of racism and any sort of race-baiting attacks.

As you yourself have plainly noted.

---

I will say this: For the Democrats, there's a clear strategy from here on out - attack Mitt Romney's character while attacking Paul Ryan's ideas. Paint Romney as an awful choice for President, and paint the GOP-Ryan approach to government as a disaster for America. Talk about rebuilding America; talk about fixing roads and bridges, improving schools, supporting scientific research, and creating an environment in which America can one more achieve great things.



"Does the future belong only to those who seek gain for themselves? We don't think so. We believe that Americans can achieve great things together."

[Bodegraven]

*wonderful post*

If the Democrats do it right, they will only lose NC and IN this year (that is my prediction for 2012 btw, no other changes except those) If something big happens, Obama could win NC back, but I wouldn't be so sure of that happening.

But, ASB, could Ryan being insanely conservative (and I mean Bachmann-conservative) be the push that Obama needs to actually win NC back, and make a big enough difference to win? Of course, we will see the VP-announcement bump first, but how big is the chance that the Obama campaign can use this to their advantage to win the seniors vote?

EDIT: typo

[Alien Space Bats]

But, ASB, could Ryan being insanely conservative (and I mean Bachmann-conservative) be the push that Obama needs to actually win NC back, and make a big enough difference to win? Of course, we will see the VP-announcement bump first, but how big is the chance that the Obama campaign can use this to their advantage to win the seniors vote?

North Carolina will probably be decided by the State's job numbers more than anything else, which are a bit on the iffy side compared to where they were a few years back (States like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and MIchigan with worse job numbers are actually improved from where they were in '09 - which makes it easier for the President to make his case).

No, the real importance of the Ryan pick for Democrats lies in the fact that it now ties the Presidential race to the Congressional one. Whether or not Democrats win North Carolina is irrelevant; whether or not they win the House of Representatives makes all the difference in the world.

[Farnhamia]

But, ASB, could Ryan being insanely conservative (and I mean Bachmann-conservative) be the push that Obama needs to actually win NC back, and make a big enough difference to win? Of course, we will see the VP-announcement bump first, but how big is the chance that the Obama campaign can use this to their advantage to win the seniors vote?

North Carolina will probably be decided by the State's job numbers more than anything else, which are a bit on the iffy side compared to where they were a few years back (States like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and MIchigan with worse job numbers are actually improved from where they were in '09 - which makes it easier for the President to make his case).

No, the real importance of the Ryan pick for Democrats lies in the fact that it now ties the Presidential race to the Congressional one. Whether or not Democrats win North Carolina is irrelevant; whether or not they win the House of Representatives makes all the difference in the world.

It also lashes Mitt Romney to the mast of the SS Tea Party, once and for all. Before picking Ryan he could tap-dance around his budget plans (even though he had endorsed the Ryan budget). Now he can't, the man who would slash social programs ... I can't think of an appropriate metaphor ... is now his running mate. The Ryan budget is now the Romney budget.

The New York Times, in an editorial today, said, "Whatever his political considerations were, Mr. Romney made a clear statement in choosing the most extreme of the vice-presidential possibilities, both in Mr. Ryan’s economic views and his positions on social issues, like his opposition to contraception coverage under the health care reform law for employees of religiously affiliated institutions, repeal of the military’s don’t ask, don’t tell policy, and sensible gun control. More than any small differences that eventually develop between the men, it is their shared and troubling goals that bind them together."

[Silent Majority]

ASB, you mentioned a few months ago that if Romney lost it would likely be blamed on him not being a"true conservative" and the party would run increasingly farther right candidates, but now that Romney has picked a running mate who is about as far-right as you can go, do you think the GOP could learn from a Romney/Ryan defeat, and become more moderate?

[Telesha]

ASB, you mentioned a few months ago that if Romney lost it would likely be blamed on him not being a"true conservative" and the party would run increasingly farther right candidates, but now that Romney has picked a running mate who is about as far-right as you can go, do you think the GOP could learn from a Romney/Ryan defeat, and become more moderate?

I think it would just make a true schism in the GOP more likely. You'll have the moderates pointing (not entirely incorrectly) at Ryan's extremism as the cause of Romney's loss while the Tea Party points to Romney's moderate-ness.

Unfortunately for said moderates, inertia within the party is against them.

[Khadgar]

ASB, you mentioned a few months ago that if Romney lost it would likely be blamed on him not being a"true conservative" and the party would run increasingly farther right candidates, but now that Romney has picked a running mate who is about as far-right as you can go, do you think the GOP could learn from a Romney/Ryan defeat, and become more moderate?

I think it would just make a true schism in the GOP more likely. You'll have the moderates pointing (not entirely incorrectly) at Ryan's extremism as the cause of Romney's loss while the Tea Party points to Romney's moderate-ness.

Unfortunately for said moderates, inertia within the party is against them.

I'd say moderate Republicans are well aware part of the reason McCain lost was because he picked a foaming at the mouth walking caricature as his running mate. Now Romney's done the same, and will likely have the same result. Moderate Republicans should split from the wack-jobs, because it's pretty clear they're not being represented properly. Of course you could say something similar about Democrats. Obama isn't remotely liberal enough for many.

[Telesha]

I think it would just make a true schism in the GOP more likely. You'll have the moderates pointing (not entirely incorrectly) at Ryan's extremism as the cause of Romney's loss while the Tea Party points to Romney's moderate-ness.

Unfortunately for said moderates, inertia within the party is against them.

I'd say moderate Republicans are well aware part of the reason McCain lost was because he picked a foaming at the mouth walking caricature as his running mate. Now Romney's done the same, and will likely have the same result. Moderate Republicans should split from the wack-jobs, because it's pretty clear they're not being represented properly. Of course you could say something similar about Democrats. Obama isn't remotely liberal enough for many.

Yeah, but the Democrats seem to be much better about voting for their candidate regardless. Just look at the primary in '08. In the end it didn't really matter a whole lot if it was Hillary or Obama, the Democratic voters were going to vote for their candidate either way.

I definitely think the moderate Republicans should just split as well. I can't remember who said it (all I remember was reading it here), but they can either be a hunted RINO or a semi-prominent DINO. I just think the second loss in a row that can be tied to Tea Party-esque extremism might just provide the necessary cataylst.

[Khadgar]

I'd say moderate Republicans are well aware part of the reason McCain lost was because he picked a foaming at the mouth walking caricature as his running mate. Now Romney's done the same, and will likely have the same result. Moderate Republicans should split from the wack-jobs, because it's pretty clear they're not being represented properly. Of course you could say something similar about Democrats. Obama isn't remotely liberal enough for many.

Yeah, but the Democrats seem to be much better about voting for their candidate regardless. Just look at the primary in '08. In the end it didn't really matter a whole lot if it was Hillary or Obama, the Democratic voters were going to vote for their candidate either way.

I definitely think the moderate Republicans should just split as well. I can't remember who said it (all I remember was reading it here), but they can either be a hunted RINO or a semi-prominent DINO. I just think the second loss in a row that can be tied to Tea Party-esque extremism might just provide the necessary cataylst.

I'm probably being unfair to Ryan, but to veer right when he ought be courting moderates seems backward to me. To veer away from women's reproductive rights when they're a critical voting bloc is suicidal.