.@MEPFuller is stupid smart about the House, its leadership, and its political dynamics. You should read this.
For me, Paul Ryan always seemed too personally ambitious to excel as speaker. I think that played out. Ryan failed to grasp limits of his ideas and his position. As a result, he often led with out a following, either forcing or enabling others to take the helm.
His AHCA plan was so unpopular it was abandoned by nearly the entire political spectrum: groups on the left, right, business, consumers... I often joke it deserves an award as most the unpopular major policy proposal in history. Really, I'm kind of half joking.
He failed to effectively serve the House as an institution. The Senate rolled the House on most major policies. House influence ranged from mild to irrelevant in negotiations. Ryan was unable to create leverage and as a result the Senate drafted most details.
He was uninterested and unengaged with the committee system for too long (e.g. Nunes). Member discipline wasn't particularly swift. House prestige, generally, took a hit Ryan vis-a-vis other branches of government.
Many point to the tough political situation Ryan inherited. The reality is he presided over the largest Republican majorities of the 21st century, and the 4th and 7th largest of the last 100 years. Every majority has schisms. Leaders are judged on navigating those divisions.
Ultimately, Ryan was not a particularly adept guide. He was not as intentionally nefarious as Gingrich but he also wasn't as effective, either. He balanced between too central on policy and too aloof politically. Managing his brand diminished the lower chamber.
