(Pollster.com sans Rasmussen and Gallup trackers.)
CNN:
"I saw that excitement four years ago when John McCain appointed Sarah Palin as well," Axelrod continued. "There were huge crowds, much of the same kind of reaction. I don't think it worked out very well. When the reality catches up with the moment, it's not going to be a plus for Gov. Romney."
Thomas Edsall:
Which bring us to another problematic aspect of Romney’s decision to pick Ryan. The very qualities that attract the right to Ryan — his ideological purity and his verbal dexterity in making the case for smaller government — are very likely to eclipse Romney, who despite the boldness of his choice still projects a weak political persona and ideological ambiguity. No candidate willingly demotes himself from first to second fiddle, but Romney has chosen to do so.
Why? This was a decision made from weakness. The parallel with McCain is unavoidable. McCain chose Palin for one reason, and one reason only ... he knew he was losing. From Romney's perspective, Ryan was the best move from a choice of bad moves, but that doesn't mean it was a winning move. Reserve judgment for at least a month before deciding that.
Mark Blumenthal:
Paul Ryan Is Still Unknown, Has Vulnerable Budget Plan, Polls Show
That's what I'm talking about. But don't worry. You don't need to know Ryan. It's his budget that's running, and that will be defined in short order.
WaPo in the great state of Florida:
“I know nothing about that gentleman,” said Stuart Joseph, 79, heaping sugar into his coffee.
And about Ryan’s plan to cut the federal budget?
“Nothing,” Joseph said, stirring.
About Ryan’s plan to restructure Medicare?
“Nope,” Joseph said, sipping.
Ryan’s relative obscurity here stands in contrast to the large crowds that greeted him and Romney at campaign stops this weekend in Virginia and North Carolina, and to pundits already speculating about whether Ryan will motivate Romney’s conservative base or spook baby boomers and seniors across Florida with his Medicare plan.
It's not either/or, it's both. But the latter is the more important group. The most interesting thing about this election, should Obama win, is the exposure of the idea that what conservatives think does not matter from an electoral standpoint, if they alienate everyone else. See Sarah Palin.
EJ Dionne:
In making Ryan his running mate, Mitt Romney guaranteed that this election will be about big principles, but he also underscored a little-noted transformation in American politics: Liberals and conservatives have switched sides on the matter of which camp constitutes the party of theory and which is the party of practice. Americans usually reject the party of theory, which is what conservatism has now become.
Jonathan Capehart:
As James Downie rightly argues, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) “is not a ‘courageous’ choice” for vice president by Mitt Romney. He is a risky pick who, as Nate Silver notes, “isn’t the most natural choice” to be Romney’s running mate. And after reading the coverage all weekend and this morning, the youthful, telegenic and ballsy Ryan is overshadowing the older, telegenic and hollow top of the ticket.
The empty suit obscured by the true believer? No one could have predicted ...
Michael Hirsch:
And with his veep choice Romney is sending a message to the American electorate, more forthrightly than ever, that he won't be moving to the middle after all. He seems to be affirming that he is just about as ideologically conservative and as captured by the GOP base as Obama has been painting him.
That about covers it.