Walsh purports to set out that if Ryan loses he may have no future as a presidential candidate because, according to her "research" only one such candidate FDR, went on to win the presidency after losing as VP.
I set out, with a list of every losing VP candidates for the past 100 years that only three of them (some being dead at the next election) had a realistic chance for the nomination and one of the three won the presidency.
Thus Walsh's post is straw man specious and based on a distorted premise
Sullivan for his part AT THIS LINK sees a possible way out for Ryan from the supposed Romney sinking ship if Ryan wins his home state. However, even that salvation is apparently looking unlikely according to Sullivan's reading of the polls, and he sees an unprecedented (to Sullivan's understanding) situation arising:
That is conjecture of course (Wisconsin going for Obama by such a large margin) what is not conjecture is that Sullivan seems to have no knowledge of American political history-yet he holds himself out as a pundit.
Going back over the same 100 year history that I covered in the Walsh post, and in answer to his question "when was there a losing ticket that lost both home states of its candiates?" here, for Mr. Sullivan's information are seven such tickets.
1972 McGovern South Dakota/Shriver Maryland (born&died in Md.)
1956 Stevenson Ill./Kefauver Tenn.
1932 Landon Kansas/Knox Ill
1928 Hoover Cal./Curtis Kansas
1924 David W.Va./Bryan Nebraska
1920 Cox Ohio/Roosevelt N.Y
1912 Taft Ohio/Sherman N.Y.
Sullivan, who shares an anti-Palin obsession with Walsh, at least has the excuse of not being an American, but both destroy what credibility they may have by their, in his case openly admitted, bias and lack of research. Sullivan may call those who point out his errors as "Dishhead's" but that is just covering his error in advance with sarcasm and excuses his sloppy " research."