The choice Mitt didn’t make

If Romney wanted to be bold with his V.P. pick, he could have gone in a less toxic direction

Published August 14, 2012 12:30PM (EDT)

Three days after tapping Paul Ryan as his running mate, Mitt Romney will apparently anoint Chris Christie as the Republican convention’s keynote speaker later today. A good case can be made that he got these picks backward.

The early returns on his Ryan selection aren’t encouraging, at least if you’re a Republican. Before his selection, there was already evidence that he would be a polarizing presence on a national ticket. In polling this spring, more than 40 percent of Americans didn’t know who the Wisconsin congressman is, but among those who recognized his name, 28 percent viewed him favorably and 29 percent saw him unfavorably. Among independents, his favorable/unfavorable score was 21-26 percent.

Initial polling in the wake of Saturday’s announcement suggests the same pattern is holding as more voters learn about Ryan. An ABC poll released Monday gave him a shaky 38-33 percent favorable mark, while a USA Today/Gallup survey found slightly more voters rating him a “fair” or “poor” V.P. choice than an “excellent” or “pretty good” one – the worst marks for a newly minted running mate since Dan Quayle in 1988.

Hopeful Republicans contend that Ryan will shine in the national spotlight and that his strong communication skills and winning personality will turn these numbers around and allow him to fend off attacks from his opponents (as one GOP House member predicted on Monday, “He’ll roll right over them with knowledge”). But Ryan’s first solo day on the campaign trail was a rough one, and the basic unpopularity of his budget priorities – a radical change to Medicare and steep tax cuts for the rich -- is well-established. It’s hard to imagine him emerging from the coming onslaught of media scrutiny and Democratic attacks with anything better than middling poll numbers. As Nate Silver noted Monday night, most V.P. choices post their best polling scores just after they’re announced.

Combined with the potential of Ryan and his budget plan to harm the party’s down-ballot prospects, this is why the consensus of the GOP’s professional class seems to be that there’s little to no upside to having him on the ticket. As Politico reports today:

In more than three dozen interviews with Republican strategists and campaign operatives — old hands and rising next-generation conservatives alike — the most common reactions to Ryan ranged from gnawing apprehension to hair-on-fire anger that Romney has practically ceded the election.

So why did Romney pick him? The best explanation points to two factors: (1) He genuinely likes Ryan and had developed a rapport with him over the past year; (2) It was becoming apparent that his strategy of running as a generic non-Obama candidate wasn’t working as well as he’d hoped and that an extra jolt was needed.

Of course, Ryan wasn’t the only “bold” choice Romney could have made, which brings us to Christie. Picking the New Jersey governor would have been just as surprising and commanded just as much media attention, and it would have generated a similarly strong response from the GOP base. But it wouldn’t have stirred anything like the apprehension that Republicans are now feeling.

Sure, Christie would have been a risky pick, in that he might have gone off-message at any moment, and his explosive temper could have caused trouble for the ticket. But there’s also a good chance his strong personality would have played well with general election voters, and he would not have brought to the race the profound Ayn Rand-ian baggage that Ryan totes. If Romney was intent on shaking up the race with his V.P. pick, Christie would have been a smarter gamble. But Romney doesn’t enjoy the kind of personal chemistry with Christie that he does with Ryan. In fact, there have been signs that Christie rubbed the Romney camp the wrong way. At the very least, he gave Romney reason to doubt whether he’d be a real team player as a running mate. That’s not the case with Ryan.

So, instead, Christie will get the most prominent convention speaking slot for a non-candidate. The delegates will love him, obviously, just like they’ll love Ryan. But how many of them will be thinking the roles should be reversed?


By Steve Kornacki

Steve Kornacki is an MSNBC host and political correspondent. Previously, he hosted “Up with Steve Kornacki” on Saturday and Sunday 8-10 a.m. ET and was a co-host on MSNBC’s ensemble show “The Cycle.” He has written for the New York Observer, covered Congress for Roll Call, and was the politics editor for Salon. His book, which focuses on the political history of the 1990s, is due out in 2017.

MORE FROM Steve Kornacki


Related Topics ------------------------------------------

Opening Shot