Let me say at the outset that that nothing would please me more than the idea of House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., beating President Obama with an intelligent, ideas-focused presidential campaign, and winning a mandate to implement genuine entitlement reform. But unfortunately, I can’t help but consider the obstacles to Ryan’s candidacy. The most obvious is his youth and lack of executive experience. While Obama overcame these problems to win, he had a number of advantages over Ryan (such as an adoring media, his vote against the Iraq war, the excitement generated by the prospect of electing the first black president, and the fact that he was a Senator rather than a member of the House). Jim Antle makes a number of additional strong points about why Ryan would be taking a big risk by running. But I’d offer an additional question: would Ryan be able to put together a broad enough coalition to win the nomination? This brings me to the Bill Bradley reference in the headline.
Bradley was a very popular candidate among liberals, received high-profile endorsements, and was able to raise money in his 2000 primary fight against Al Gore. But the problem was, he wasn’t able to expand his constituency far beyond educated and affluent white voters. He came respectably close to Gore in New Hampshire, but he was ultimately swamped because of his inability to expand his appeal to working class voters, blacks and other important groups within the Democratic electorate. And I wonder if Ryan wouldn’t run into a similar problem in a Republican primary.
For those of us who follow this stuff for a living, it’s refreshing to watch the rise of a politician like Ryan – somebody who is not only willing to offer solutions to our long-term challenges, but who is able to defend his policies articulately, displaying mastery of the details. Should he run, he’ll be treated to glowing coverage by many conservative pundits and would likely win a number of key endorsements. But would he be able to appeal to a broad enough voter base to fend off his rivals in enough states to win the nomination? Or would his appeal be limited, as Bradley’s was?
Roughly speaking, with some overlap, this season’s Republican electorate is divided among social conservatives, tea party voters, and a more moderate bloc. While Ryan has a case to make to all of these groups, he’ll also have a lot of competition. In various ways, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul and Herman Cain are appealing to branches of the tea parties. Ryan’s vote for policies such as TARP, the Medicare prescription drug bill, and the deal to hike the debt ceiling, will be a liability among this group. Just imagine how different the 2008 campaign would have been if Obama had voted for the Iraq War instead of calling it a “dumb war” from the get go. While Ryan has a record that should appeal to social conservatives, he isn’t known for emphasizing those issues, so it would seem like “values voters” would be more inclined to vote for Bachmann, Perry or Rick Santorum. Ryan could make an appeal to more moderate voters who are seeking a so-called “reasonable” option. But a lot of people in this group may prefer Mitt Romney because of his executive experience, or worry that Ryan’s stances on entitlements would make him vulnerable in a general election.
You can drive yourself nuts trying to think of various scenarios. Could the Perry-Bachmann fight in Iowa leave an opening for Ryan among those looking for a more measured alternative? Could Ryan beat Romney in New Hampshire by ripping apart the Massachusetts health care law? What if it gets narrowed down to him vs. Perry? Or him vs. Romney? There are too many possible combinations to sort through. That’s why I think the more fundamental question is whether, given Ryan’s lack of executive experience, there’s a broad enough coalition that would welcome his message and choose him over the other alternatives.
I’d like to think that there’s a path to the nomination for Ryan, but I’ve been thinking about it all week, and it’s difficult to see.
