If you were Trump would Vance have been your VP pick?

[CouchPotato]

I guess the thread title explains it all. Would you have picked Vance? Is there anyone else you might have chosen above him. I really have no opinion on the matter myself, but I am interested in what everyone else thinks.

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, CouchPotato said:

I guess the thread title explains it all. Would you have picked Vance? Is there anyone else you might have chosen above him. I really have no opinion on the matter myself, but I am interested in what everyone else thinks.

I like Vance, but I like Vivek Ramaswamy more. Vivek would've been my pick. 

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

I guess the thread title explains it all. Would you have picked Vance? Is there anyone else you might have chosen above him. I really have no opinion on the matter myself, but I am interested in what everyone else thinks.

Noooope. As a raging narcissist, Trump thinks more Trump is the right answer for everything. "Let's add another objectively unqualified celebrity populist flamethrower to the ticket and see if that helps."

Trump was in no danger of losing his cultishly devoted base (who aren't politically sophisticated and will applaud this "more" strategy heartily). He didn't need to double down there. A smarter campaign would have taken advantage of the opportunity to diversify the portfolio and appeal to other facets of the party and to independent voters. 

America is polarized enough that it's nearly binary, so this misstep may not cost him the race, but it certainly won't help him broaden his appeal or provide any sense that we have a good backup plan for a POTUS who is pushing 80 years old.

It's not comforting to look in the cockpit of the plane and see one erratic old pilot joined by an erratic student pilot just getting his first flight hours.

 

[Five of swords]

4 hours ago, Hodad said:

Noooope. As a raging narcissist, Trump thinks more Trump is the right answer for everything. "Let's add another objectively unqualified celebrity populist flamethrower to the ticket and see if that helps."

Trump was in no danger of losing his cultishly devoted base (who aren't politically sophisticated and will applaud this "more" strategy heartily). He didn't need to double down there. A smarter campaign would have taken advantage of the opportunity to diversify the portfolio and appeal to other facets of the party and to independent voters. 

America is polarized enough that it's nearly binary, so this misstep may not cost him the race, but it certainly won't help him broaden his appeal or provide any sense that we have a good backup plan for a POTUS who is pushing 80 years old.

It's not comforting to look in the cockpit of the plane and see one erratic old pilot joined by an erratic student pilot just getting his first flight hours.

 

Vance the populist? Lol

[User]

If I were Trump... sure. If I were my own person as a Presidential candidate, no. Then again, I would be doing a lot of things differently. 

 

[User]

5 hours ago, Hodad said:

"Let's add another objectively unqualified celebrity populist flamethrower to the ticket and see if that helps."

It is comical how devoted to this talking point you are, while running away from any debate around how absurd it is. 

5 hours ago, Hodad said:

It's not comforting to look in the cockpit of the plane and see one erratic old pilot joined by an erratic student pilot just getting his first flight hours.

This isn't a plane and I highly doubt you were making these arguments about Kamala when Biden was running against Trump 4 years ago. 

[CouchPotato]

6 hours ago, Hodad said:

America is polarized enough that it's nearly binary, so this misstep may not cost him the race, but it certainly won't help him broaden his appeal or provide any sense that we have a good backup plan for a POTUS who is pushing 80 years old.

Is there anyone you would see as having been a more solid pick for Trump? 

[Legato]

Trump should have picked Kamala Harris, after all, she has lots of "experience". lol 

[Aristides]

He is a great pick for the Democrats. A poster boy for everything that is wrong with MAGA.

[Nationalist]

6 hours ago, Hodad said:

Noooope. As a raging narcissist, Trump thinks more Trump is the right answer for everything. "Let's add another objectively unqualified celebrity populist flamethrower to the ticket and see if that helps."

Trump was in no danger of losing his cultishly devoted base (who aren't politically sophisticated and will applaud this "more" strategy heartily). He didn't need to double down there. A smarter campaign would have taken advantage of the opportunity to diversify the portfolio and appeal to other facets of the party and to independent voters. 

America is polarized enough that it's nearly binary, so this misstep may not cost him the race, but it certainly won't help him broaden his appeal or provide any sense that we have a good backup plan for a POTUS who is pushing 80 years old.

It's not comforting to look in the cockpit of the plane and see one erratic old pilot joined by an erratic student pilot just getting his first flight hours.

 

So don't fly...and enjoy the election...

[sharkman]

11 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

I guess the thread title explains it all. Would you have picked Vance? Is there anyone else you might have chosen above him. I really have no opinion on the matter myself, but I am interested in what everyone else thinks.

Do you remember Trump’s first term?  He didn’t have the time to properly vet people and or didn’t realize how dedicated the left was to damage his administration.  So he brought in a lot of people with divided loyalties, shall we say, and had to get rid of them.

With this VP pick the left would have loved to get a double agent of sorts in that position.  This is how insidious they have become. Bottom line?  Vance is not one of them.  His humble upbringing, his military record and the like.  He will make an excellent president in 2028.
 

 

[Nationalist]

IMO...the only better pick would have been DeSantis...but he's busy.

[Aristides]

Trump is now the oldest person ever to run for president. Who in their right mind would want Vance for president.

[User]

28 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Trump is now the oldest person ever to run for president. Who in their right mind would want Vance for president.

Well, we said the same thing about Harris... and here we are. 

[Michael Hardner]

Vance agrees with Federal response to women travelling from state to state for abortions.

I don't think that flies politically, at least in my opinion.  
 

 

[Hodad]

5 hours ago, Five of swords said:

Vance the populist? Lol

That's certainly how they'll campaign. Up with the workers, down with the elite! Let's invite a teamster! 

Not how they'll govern, of course.

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

Is there anyone you would see as having been a more solid pick for Trump? 

Elise Stefanik.

Women's rights were such a powerful issue in the midterms. JD Vance is the sort of guy who thinks the Handmaid's Tale is more roadmap than cautionary tale. A more moderate woman might have helped temper the backlash from women voters. 

[Five of swords]

51 minutes ago, Hodad said:

That's certainly how they'll campaign. Up with the workers, down with the elite! Let's invite a teamster! 

Not how they'll govern, of course.

Vance's famous book, hillbilly elegy, is all about how the poor whites in appalachia deserve to be poor. Can he actually pretend to be a populist?

[Rebound]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

IMO...the only better pick would have been DeSantis...but he's busy.

Trump certainly couldn’t pick anyone from his former administration, cause they all hate him. 

[User]

32 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Trump certainly couldn’t pick anyone from his former administration, cause they all hate him. 

This is so absurdly false. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, User said:

This is so absurdly false. 

 

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-former-donald-trump-officials-refusing-endorse-him-1882733

Agreed.  Here's only 11 ... not all of them.

Like his former chief of staff:

 

Quote

Between July 2017 and January 2019, John Kelly, a former Marine Corps general, served as Trump's White House chief of staff.

Speaking to CNN in October 2023, Kelly described Trump as "a person that has no idea what America stands for and has no idea what America is all about.

"A person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law."

Asked about the prospect of a second Trump White House term, Kelly added: "God help us."

 

[Nationalist]

40 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Trump certainly couldn’t pick anyone from his former administration, cause they all hate him. 

Blah...blah...woof...woof...

[User]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Agreed.  Here's only 11 ... not all of them.

LOL, almost half of that list is a bunch of lower-level folks no one would really ever remember from any administration whose names only have any meaning today because they oppose Trump. 
 

 

 

 

[CdnFox]

I don't think he's a great choice. The purpose of a vice president is to give the impression to those that the presidential candidate doesn't appeal to that their voice will also be heard. It can also be to shore up support in states where you feel you could be more competitive but aren't at the moment. For a somewhat chaotic candidate like trump, the choice should have been someone who was more stable, little more mainstream, and reliable.

I think his pic reflected that he thought he would be up against Biden and he should have realized that might not be true. I don't think it's a fatal choice but I think he could have gotten a lot more mileage out of other opportunities.

[Aristides]

The ones he had to pardon still like him.