|Clever move, refusing to run for an office you'd lose.|
When Paul Ryan announced vociferously that he wouldn't accept the nomination for president, I assumed it's because someone asked him to. 'Kay, maybe not:
It is very difficult for members of Ryan’s fan club to understand that outside of elite Republican donor circles, the pages of Beltway publications, and the green rooms of Sunday morning chat shows, Ryan is not that popular of a politician. Before Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, Ryan—as the author of budgets that slashed entitlements and discretionary spending programs—was the poster boy for Democratic opposition to the obstructionist right. This was just a few years ago. Mitt Romney knew this in 2012 when he selected Ryan as his vice presidential candidate: Ryan was the “risky” choice, but Romney went with him anyway as a means of rallying the Republican base behind the ticket. As Donald Trump's candidacy has proved, the Republican base isn't necessarily all that interested in cutting entitlements after all.Politico points out what should be obvious, that he's not running because he shouldn't:
The backdrop of all his denials is the political reality that Ryan would likely lose. Most public polling has him faring relatively poorly in a potential matchup with Clinton. Of course, polls shift, but Ryan would be forced to launch and run a presidential campaign in three months. His experience from 2012 would help, but even the most talented campaigner would be at a disadvantage on such a compressed timetable.One fact I hope more people will focus on when it comes to Paul Ryan: He's most famous for his merciless federal budget proposals that don't add up and have never been passed. That's like being famous for your basketball shot when you've never played in a game, but, oh well, nice work if you can get it.