Based on what I'm reading, the right-wing commenting class is in general agreement that Willard's selection of Pablo Ryan has fundamentally altered the nature of the presidential campaign by shifting the focus from a referendum on Obama to a referendum on tea party ideology. I'm no expert, but this seems like a strategic mistake to me.
Reagan won the White House largely by asking people if they were better off than they had been four years earlier. That seems like an approach that should've worked for Romney, since most people seem to believe they're worse off now than they were in 2008. On the other hand, the tea party movement had its glory days in 2010 and has been losing altitude since then. If I was betting, I'd bet 75 percent of Americans don't know any details of the so-called Ryan budget plan, assuming they've heard of it at all, and will have trouble seeing how it puts extra Twinkies in their lunch sacks.
Maybe the National Review and Weekly Standard opinion shapers are right, though. Maybe what the country needs is chance to rule on the tea party agenda at the national level and settle things once and for all.
Reagan won the White House largely by asking people if they were better off than they had been four years earlier. That seems like an approach that should've worked for Romney, since most people seem to believe they're worse off now than they were in 2008. On the other hand, the tea party movement had its glory days in 2010 and has been losing altitude since then. If I was betting, I'd bet 75 percent of Americans don't know any details of the so-called Ryan budget plan, assuming they've heard of it at all, and will have trouble seeing how it puts extra Twinkies in their lunch sacks.
Maybe the National Review and Weekly Standard opinion shapers are right, though. Maybe what the country needs is chance to rule on the tea party agenda at the national level and settle things once and for all.
No comments:
Post a Comment