Lawrence Lindsey makes the case for Anybody But Romney by
pointing out that "safe" candidates--"low-beta" candidates, he
calls them--have a poor record in presidential elections. It's a
cute idea. If you're behind, take a chance. Lindsey reckons
Obama has the edge, other things equal, in November (the net
effect of incumbency, which helps him, and the bad economy,
which doesn't). So the GOP should gamble on a high-beta
candidate who will shake things up.  With subpar growth, but no
recession, President Obama might normally be expected to win
narrowly, say by 1 percentage point.  If that model is right and
the Republicans ran a "zero-beta" candidate, one with absolutely
no variability around the "normal" result, he would perform
quite respectably but lose. To be precise, he would lose by one
point, 50.5 to 49.5. A very low-beta candidate, say one with a
variability equivalent to half a point, would have an equal
chance of producing a "tie" or losing 51-49. A high-beta
candidate, with 10 times the variability o