Political Animal
Blog
Back right after the 2012 elections, I did a little historical digging about the fate of failed vice presidential nominees over the years, and discovered the only one in the modern era who actually ascended to the presidency was Paul Ryan’s ghostly nemesis Franklin D. Roosevelt.
So I was interested to read Steve Kornacki’s column today about Ryan’s current trajectory in the GOP given the parallel experience of vice presidential losers since 1972.
Steve sets the goal of determining whether being second in command on a losing ticket has enhanced or diminished a politician’s political standing (he excludes the two Veeps who won before they lost, Mondale and Quayle). Even he concedes the experience enhanced Lloyd Bentsen’s reputation (nobody blamed him for Dukakis’ poor performance), and lifted Sarah Palin from provincial obscurity to fame and fortune, if not higher office. And it’s really not that clear others on his list fatally lost caste thanks to a failed Veep run.
Sargent Shriver’s 1972 Veep candidacy should come with a giant asterisk ruling out any comparisons (or so we can all hope): he was the last-minute replacement on a doomed ticket and a constant reminder of George McGovern’s first choice, Tom Eagleton, and his subsequent controversial abandonment of the Missourian for a previously undisclosed mental health record.
Yes, Bob Dole had a poor debate performance in 1976 that may have hurt the ticket in a very close race, but Ford’s debate flub is remembered as more significant, and ‘76 did not materially affect Dole’s climb to power in the Senate, which eventually gave him his presidential shot in 1996. No, Ferraro never won another political contest after ‘84, but that was probably more because of revelations about her husband’s finances and her own missteps in New York politics than anything she did or didn’t do as a Veep candidate. No, Jack Kemp never had a comeback from his ‘96 Veep gig with Dole, but you could argue he was already pretty much at the end of his career by then, and was no longer perceived as representing any wave of the future. Yes, some Democrats blamed Lieberman for Gore’s loss in 2000, but these were mostly retroactive criticisms from people angry at Lieberman’s later political career (Gore would not have been in a position to get robbed in Florida had Lieberman not been on the ticket to vastly boost Democratic margins in South Florida). And Lieberman’s later decline and fall as a Democrat were largely the result of his stubborn and enthusiastic support for the Iraq War, which hadn’t happened in 2000 even if it was already a distant gleam in George W. Bush’s eye.
Similarly, John Edwards stint as Veep candidate in 2004 wasn’t really the cause of his 2008 defeat: it was a candidate field dominated by two larger-than-life figures, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And even then, Edwards came pretty close to winning Iowa and keeping himself viable, assuming his Other Problems had remained obscure.
I’d say the Jack Kemp example is the best one Steve offers for a bad Veep candidacy curtailing one’s future prospects, and it’s not that strong. And the most important thing to remember about Paul Ryan is that he is 43 years old, younger than any of the people on Kornacki’s list, and in fact the youngest Veep nominee in either party since a guy named Richard Nixon back in 1952. Turns out Nixon had a long future of ups and downs. The same could be true of Ryan.
Facebook
Twitter
c u n d gulag on March 13, 2013 12:24 PM:
Lyin' Ryan will be politically viable for decades to come, as long as our MSM stays cowardly, compliant, and complicit.
And I don't see that changing any time soon, since why would millionaire reporters and punTWIT's bite the corporate hands that feed them?
Yesterday, I heard that NBC had Luke Russert, another winner of "The Lucky Sperm Met A Lucky Egg Club," live-tweeting about "Privatizing Ryan's" budget.
If you don't see a problem there, you're probably the kind of person who'll like a Ryan Presidency.
Josef K on March 13, 2013 12:31 PM:
The same could be true of Ryan.
I'd say this is a given, considering how over-the-cliff the current Republican caucus is, both ideologically and emotionally. Ryan's gift seems to be the ability to offer the most outrageous and lunatic notions with an air of sincerity and respectability, something the rest of the forthing GOP isn't able to accomplish. Its a sad, sad commentary on these clods.
cmdicely on March 13, 2013 12:32 PM:
Yes, some Democrats blamed Lieberman for Gore's loss in 2000, but these were mostly retroactive criticisms from people angry at Lieberman's later political career
Nice rewriting history there, but the criticism was notable when he was selected (lots of Dems perceived that one of Gore's best assets was Clinton's high job approval ratings, and choosing Lieberman, especially with it being made very clear that it was intended to keep Lieberman's attacks on Clinton over the Lewinsky scandal fresh in the minds of voters, was a way to waste that asset), intensified during the campaign, after election day during the recount controversy.
Zorro on March 13, 2013 1:24 PM:
There are enormous differences between Ryan + Nixon, of course. For one thing, Nixon was very much in the mainstream of the so-called post-war liberal consensus- so much so that Obama is governing considerably to Nixon's right in virtually every way. While I'll grant that Ryan's conservatism isn't out of the mainstream, it is to the right wing of even today's GOP.
The biggest contrast is between the men themselves. Nixon, whatever his policies, was almost entirely amoral. Ryan, whatever his policies, has never been accused of anything even vaguely Nixonian.
In short, the comparison doesn't really work.
-Z
Rieux on March 13, 2013 1:58 PM:
Seems to me Kornacki is flatly wrong about both Edwards and Palin.
He declares that Edwards' "success in the early days of the '08 cycle, though, came in spite of his presence on the '04 ticket -- not because of it"; that's nonsense. Edwards was a serious contender at the beginning of the '08 primary almost entirely because of the name recognition and prominence he earned by being Kerry's running mate. Had it not been for his presence on the '04 general-election ticket, he would have been a little-known '04 primary also-ran (like Kucinich, Clark, and Sharpton), and no one would have given him a chance in hell to compete seriously against Clinton.
As for Palin, Kornacki argues that she never had much of a chance at winning the Republican nomination in 2012. I'm not convinced of that--but regardless, every single ounce of chance she had in the '12 primary was obviously the direct result of being McCain's running mate. Kornacki notices that being picked by McCain resulted in Palin gaining vast levels of notoriety, not to mention money--but he doesn't see that the pick also gained Palin scads of newfound supporters... some proportion of whom would presumably have been willing to vote for her in a GOP primary?
Maybe Sarah Palin, Failed VP Candidate, would have been shellacked by Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and the rest in 2012 (though I doubt it)--but how can Kornacki believe that that Palin would have fared worse in the GOP nomination fight than Sarah Palin, Extremely Obscure Governor of Alaska, would have?
Both Edwards and Palin failed to get their parties' nomination in the following election cycle, and perhaps Kornacki is correct that neither one really stood a serious chance. Regardless, it seems to me unquestionable that their chances were better because of (in Palin's case, they were absolutely entirely the result of) the publicity they gained from being on the national ticket. Ergo Kornacki is wrong about those two.
meady on March 13, 2013 3:03 PM:
I dunno. My gut and nothing else says Ryan is as far as he will ever get. He is young, white and fit. Right now in the GOP that seems to trump intelligence and political savvy. But in the long run, I just don't think he has it. He comes across as whiney and tiresome and just not that likeable (butt more likeable than Romney). I don't know anyone who quotes Paul Ryan's positions to strengthen any of their arguments...and I do know a lot of rank and file "Republicans" (eg people who reflexibly vote Republican because they always have, no real thought towards policy. The Republican position is always assumed correct). Caveat, I am ex-military. Nobody is really talking about him at all.
jkl; on March 13, 2013 3:28 PM:
Agree with Meady. Ryan peaked. Untrustworthy, carrying the baggage of a hypocritical personal history having used Social Security benefits and probable student loans-- considering his extremist positions on the safety net of Medicare and Social Security, calling the poor and elderly "takers."
Charlie Pierce nailed it--Pauy Ryan is a zombie-eyed granny starver.
Intergrity and character are critical. Pau Ryan blew it with all that televised lying with the Mitt, even with trivial matters like his marathon time.
He was marginalized the past couple of days both on Fox News and CNBC by right leaning interviewers who called him out on his stuff.
Ryan is so eager to emerge, he blurted out that his goal was to destroy health care for American people.
What a stupid remark on camera.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Peter C on March 13, 2013 3:30 PM:
Well, as much as we should lose no opportunity to tag Ryan with the 'VP-Loser' label, I don't think it is wise to use history as a determining factor for someones political popularity. If people voted based upon qualifications, history might have some bearing, but with politics being such a beauty and popularity contest, the experiences of Nixon or Bentsen don't really apply.
I'm similarly leery of guessing Ashley Judd's chances by looking at previous Kentucky Senate campaigns or Obama's losing margin in Kentucky. Some of Judd's strength as a candidate comes from being an attactive NON-POLITICIAN running against an unattractive politician in a year when politicians are unpopular. If she were running as a politician, the unpopularity of politicians would not be a distinguishing factor between her and McConnell.
However, I think history cannot be considered when one side attempts a paradigm shift or when the outcome is so influenced by something as unquantifiable as 'personality'.