mtutiger

She's, umm, married to a Jewish guy. And has Jewish stepkids...

Does this guy even have a spiritual life?

There may end up being one, but not clear why he pulled out as of this one. His rationale doesn't make a whole lot of sense Hence why conclusions are being drawn.

Wait, what now?

This screams Shapiro, Cooper or Walz to me... But could be a diversion, who knows

Mitt Romney is another example - I've said some charitable things lately about him, but he had to shapeshift *a lot* during that 2012 Election to appease the more extreme views of the GOP. It just goes with the territory. I think the bolded is what makes today a lot different. "Evolving" or "flip flopping" has always been a feature of this game, but the degree to which ambitious pols (particularly in today's GOP) will entirely change their persona in the pursuit of power and the degree to which it is just sorta priced in (ie. "that's just politics") is really breathtaking to me. Aside from JD Vance, the other one I'd put in this category is Elise Stefanik.... after the heel turn she made, in a logical world, she would never be taken seriously or believed ever again. But it's not a logical world, is it?

I remember reading his book back in 2016 and 2017 and thought it was interesting enough.... he didn't *seem* like a bad guy. Not trying to whitewash anything per se, but I would have been surprised if you'd have told me eight years later that this is who he'd be. The degree to which he so quickly changed his views after deciding to become to run for the Senate Seat in Ohio was such a red flag. Just 180'd on so many things. The most charitable answer to this is that he's trying to play the role that is required of someone subservient to Trump in this GOP culture and is just coming across awkward, but the other possibilities here (including that this is just who the guy is, or that he just doesn't have any true beliefs and will just say anything for power) seem more likely here.

In this case, I think it highlights a difference in tone / tenor of campaign having switched from Biden to Harris. I'd consider that interesting, but OMMV

The "sarcasm" bit just reminds me of how many defenses to these statements in the Trump era boils down to things like "he's trying to be funny" or "it was a joke" yet.... often time the comments themselves are incredibly unfunny or are clearly not jokes at all.

Also, he's got nothing against the cats.... Now the women OTOH....

Oh my word

I would also add that while the threat posed by a potential Trump/Vance presidency are real, the Harris campaign and other Dems need to balance those stakes with the need to project both a more positive image and an image of being "happy warriors" in this fight. Because this will draw a distinct contrast between the dark vision that Trump/Vance is putting forward. Engage in the serious stuff, but don't lose your humanity in the process.

I don't think anyone is dismissing JD Vance or Donald Trump at this point. But ridicule and humiliation are really powerful weapons against these types of people and they should be employed whenever the opportunity proves worthy. Now, with the couch thing, I don't know the veracity of it, but in terms of things he has said and done, they should be addressed including through these concepts.

Again, his comments framing higher tax rates as "punishment" for childless families is kinda the issue here IMO. Just no political sense whatsoever.

For sure, not saying it isn't a "thing", but just don't know, to the extent that it distracts from other issues with Vance, how much of a "thing" it really is out there. FWIW, I mentioned it to my wife yesterday (who doesn't follow this stuff like I do) and she hadn't heard about it.... but she had mentioned the "cat lady" comments to me and has seen other comments of his that have surfaced.

Vance also shares a ticket with a guy who has engaged in this sort of **** repeatedly over the years without much of any consequences. It's not a huge surprise that he's not getting much of any sympathy.

It's a fair point and was his rebuttal.... just an odd way to argue his point though, although people do tend to make odd arguments when they go onto the Charlie Kirk Show.

I'm actually not sold that the furniture thing is getting a whole lot of play off the internet, TBH.

I'm sure it won't last like it has, but what has been striking about the past few days, at least since Kamala became the heir apparent to this ticket, is how Trump's campaign has become a real target for humiliation in a way that we haven't often seen over the past eight years.... usually, they are the ones doing it, but the shoe seems to be on the other foot for the time being. Picking Vance was a huge mistake and part of the reason they are in this situation as well... he's not a good candidate for this, and all the evidence was there before they chose him anyway.

Also get a higher tax rate...

They removed it, but still, WTF

I don't think it changes much in terms of the overall race dynamics, the blue wall is important (with PA being the most paramount), but having contingency plans in the event that those states don't sweep seems key.

Glad someone in the mainstream press has decided to start asking questions on this