Only if Orange Slob gets back into the White House. If he doesn't - and I hope he doesn't - Vance will have the loser tag on him going into 2028. FDR notwithstanding, history has been anything BUT kind to losing Vice Presidential candidates when they run for President.
Only if Orange Slob gets back into the White House. If he doesn't - and I hope he doesn't - Vance will have the loser tag on him going into 2028. FDR notwithstanding, history has been anything BUT kind to losing Vice Presidential candidates when they run for President.
I think when you dig into it, especially recently, this becomes a little less clear. John Edwards was a strong 2008 candidate (the Rielle Hunter affair didn't come out until after he dropped out), but he just happened to be running against 2 even stronger ones. I think Palin would've been a very strong 2012 candidate. I'm not sure about Ryan in 2016 he probably would've been stuffed into the clown car with all the other non-Trump candidates, but in a smaller field or a non-Trump field, he could've been a strong candidate.
2008: Edwards didn't win a single primary or caucus. He came across as an "angry populist" and that doomed him. 2012: Romney ran to the right of Gingrich and Santorum, he wasn't going to be denied the nomination. 2016: even without Orange Slob in the race, Ryan most likely loses to Cruz, Kasich, or Rubio.
Edwards didn't win because he was running against two incredibly strong candidates. He lost to two better candidates not because he was perceived as an angry populist and certainly not because he was a failed VP candidate. I don't know how a Palin-Romney race would've gone, what I am much more comfortable in saying is if Palin did lose it wasn't going to be because of 2008. I think Ryan probably wouldn't lost in a non-Trump 16 field, but that's just because when you have a handful of candidates that are relatively even in terms of strength, no individual candidate is probabilistically likely to win. But, I don't think any of those people were a demonstrably stronger candidate than Ryan
I think he was perceived as all of the above and that's what hurt him. He was peddling a hot brand of left populism but it contrasted so sharply to his persona during his Senate term that, even if you agreed with his message, it seemed like it was coming from a snake oil peddler.
Not to mention his run in 2004. In 2004 he was MUCH more optimistic. Even with that though he only won two primaries: the two Carolinas. He wasn't as strong a candidate as he seemed.
Agreed. I was a college Junior during the 2008 primaries and was open to Edwards bc it seemed cute and progressive against the two behemoths. It did not take long to get turned off. Absolutely did not buy his schtick as a Southern guy turned progressive.
Ryan would have been crushed if he ran in 2016. Even if he ran instead of Scott Walker and occupied that country club lane, there was next to zero constituency for that in the 2016 iteration of the Republican Party. His platform would have been poison to them, and even if Trump hadn't been around as a contrast, somebody like Huckabee or Santorum would have risen in Trump's absence.
I don't really agree with you that someone would've risen in Trump's absence in his vein. If he hadn't been in the race it would've been some flavor of establishment type. I do think Jeb was probably DOA regardless. But Rubio or Cruz or Kasich and yeah Ryan if he had run. I actually don't think it would've been Ryan because I don't think particularly highly of his political abilities.
Regardless of any of that, what I'm much more certain of in this hypothetical is that if Ryan would've run in 2016 and lost that he was the losing VP candidate 4 years earlier would not have been the reason.
Only if Orange Slob gets back into the White House. If he doesn't - and I hope he doesn't - Vance will have the loser tag on him going into 2028. FDR notwithstanding, history has been anything BUT kind to losing Vice Presidential candidates when they run for President.
I think when you dig into it, especially recently, this becomes a little less clear. John Edwards was a strong 2008 candidate (the Rielle Hunter affair didn't come out until after he dropped out), but he just happened to be running against 2 even stronger ones. I think Palin would've been a very strong 2012 candidate. I'm not sure about Ryan in 2016 he probably would've been stuffed into the clown car with all the other non-Trump candidates, but in a smaller field or a non-Trump field, he could've been a strong candidate.
2008: Edwards didn't win a single primary or caucus. He came across as an "angry populist" and that doomed him. 2012: Romney ran to the right of Gingrich and Santorum, he wasn't going to be denied the nomination. 2016: even without Orange Slob in the race, Ryan most likely loses to Cruz, Kasich, or Rubio.
Edwards didn't win because he was running against two incredibly strong candidates. He lost to two better candidates not because he was perceived as an angry populist and certainly not because he was a failed VP candidate. I don't know how a Palin-Romney race would've gone, what I am much more comfortable in saying is if Palin did lose it wasn't going to be because of 2008. I think Ryan probably wouldn't lost in a non-Trump 16 field, but that's just because when you have a handful of candidates that are relatively even in terms of strength, no individual candidate is probabilistically likely to win. But, I don't think any of those people were a demonstrably stronger candidate than Ryan
I don't think Edwards was perceived as angry. Incredibly fake and shallow, maybe.
I think he was perceived as all of the above and that's what hurt him. He was peddling a hot brand of left populism but it contrasted so sharply to his persona during his Senate term that, even if you agreed with his message, it seemed like it was coming from a snake oil peddler.
Not to mention his run in 2004. In 2004 he was MUCH more optimistic. Even with that though he only won two primaries: the two Carolinas. He wasn't as strong a candidate as he seemed.
Definitely fake and shallow. It was a precursor of revelations to come.
Agreed. I was a college Junior during the 2008 primaries and was open to Edwards bc it seemed cute and progressive against the two behemoths. It did not take long to get turned off. Absolutely did not buy his schtick as a Southern guy turned progressive.
That film footage of the hair was devastating imo
Ryan would have been crushed if he ran in 2016. Even if he ran instead of Scott Walker and occupied that country club lane, there was next to zero constituency for that in the 2016 iteration of the Republican Party. His platform would have been poison to them, and even if Trump hadn't been around as a contrast, somebody like Huckabee or Santorum would have risen in Trump's absence.
I don't really agree with you that someone would've risen in Trump's absence in his vein. If he hadn't been in the race it would've been some flavor of establishment type. I do think Jeb was probably DOA regardless. But Rubio or Cruz or Kasich and yeah Ryan if he had run. I actually don't think it would've been Ryan because I don't think particularly highly of his political abilities.
Regardless of any of that, what I'm much more certain of in this hypothetical is that if Ryan would've run in 2016 and lost that he was the losing VP candidate 4 years earlier would not have been the reason.
I am thinking it would have been either Cruz or Rubio(leaning towards Cruz)
agree completely; there would not have been a trump 2.0
Palin would have lost a general election worse than Romney did.