I’ve spent a bit of time this weekend reading about the Paul Ryan pick. At this point, I feel as though I have a feel for the basic arguments for and against it, politically. (The substantive arguments are going to hinge on whether you like his plan.) What’s interesting about this is how it’s playing out like oh so many political debates of recent history: on one side are all manner of abstract, theoretical, inside and meta-arguments, and on the other side are facts, reasonable interpretations, tautological arguments, you know, concrete stuff. Even without going into the specifics, if you’re confronted by this kind of split, choose the latter side. That’s what I did when the Iraq War came up, which had a pretty similar split.

With Ryan, the arguments that are supposed to politically favor his pick are basically as follows. Since Romney had to back Ryan’s plan, he might as well let the best spokesperson for the plan do his thing. Romney will now not have to worry about a conservative revolt. Ryan has a significant following in the media, which will help with framing, working the refs, etc. These are arguments, but they’re not concrete. Admittedly, Romney hasn’t been all that effective a communicator, but when it comes to policy he believes in, he’s usually not too bad in making a case. His defense of his own statewide healthcare plan last year got a pretty enthusiastic hearing from a lot of liberals–can’t find the link because there’s been just a bit of Romney healthcare stuff in the past year, but I do remember Jonathan Cohn saying that he thought Romney’s defense of the mandate was stronger than Obama’s. Likewise, the odds of a conservative revolt to a Portman or Pawlenty pick (isn’t it weird how almost all the VP contenders had last names starting with P or R?) were incredibly remote. If anything, picking someone like Huckabee (who wasn’t in the running) and telling elite conservatives who didn’t like it to shove it would undoubtedly have worked to his advantage with the public, giving him a desperately needed example of independence from the base. And while Ryan might be able to push media coverage, he’s at the bottom of the ticket.

On the other hand, the arguments against Ryan are strong. By formally associating himself with Ryan, Romney now has no real way of politically disassociating himself with Ryan’s Plan. Which means troubles with seniors, moderates, and frustrated independents. Attempts to weasel out of it will be seen as John Kerry-esque flip-flopping. Ryan will bring over few votes–I think the notion that he’ll help in Wisconsin more than marginally is a pipe dream–and while his selection will indeed change the race, it changes it to the Democrats’ favor. With a pick like this it’s all about the rollout, the first impression, and that didn’t go so well. The words “worst since Quayle” speak volumes about the wisdom of this pick. Ryan admittedly isn’t a pick for the general electorate, but for the primary electorate, which is part of why it is so unwise to pick him.

Contrast this with Obama’s pick of Joe Biden. Biden, I’d argue, was a very solid pick. He held some level of appeal to the very working-class white voters who were skeptical of Obama. His “gaffes”–typically either inelegantly stated correct things, or impolitic but honest statements–are deprecated by the debating society types in Washington, but with most voters they establish a humanness and authenticity that few politicians genuinely possess. They set off Obama’s smoothness perfectly. And Biden’s resume was a good contrast with Obama’s–lots of experience, knowledge of foreign policy issues, and a well-known and reassuring presence on the national stage. (Also, he had none of the negatives bad VP picks have: an independent power base from which to manipulate policy, psychological leverage over the president, no incentives to be loyal.) Putting aside all the other stuff, Ryan is a substandard pick for all these reasons. He has more power really than Romney, which will be a severe constraint on a prospective Romney Administration. He is temperamentally and ideologically highly similar to Romney, both of which are minuses with the electorate. Ryan doesn’t address Romney’s weakness with any part of the general electorate and doesn’t add any particular policy chops to the ticket (I’m assuming Mitt already knows government finance basics from his gubernatorial days). Both men are deeply dishonest, highly ambitious, ignorant of foreign affairs and harshly partisan, though Ryan is less often regarded as these. Ryan’s strengths are essentially Romney’s, and his weaknesses are essentially Romney’s too. He is, basically, a slightly better version of Mitt Romney, who the public has expressed little affection for. I would expect Ryan, therefore, to fare only slightly better with the electorate than Romney.