mtutiger

Could be, although Biden's issue in polling has been more about the cities and suburbs in each of these states (and concerns about turnout), and Vance (just looking at his political record) doesn't add anything for these people IMO Turnout wise in rural areas, I have a hard time seeing it juice turnout more than Donald Trump already does.

Whether you're more a fan of 538 or Nate's aggregator, the idea is that Trump is still in a band between 48ish-75%. Which last I checked, isn't 99%. Yet his campaign is acting like it's 99%. Reminds me of the old Fritz Hollings quote: "There's only two ways to run for public office: one is unopposed, the other is scared." I think he's favored to win at this point, but his campaign is running a little overconfident right now IMO

Another way to think about this: Trump picked Pence in 2016 at a time when his support with evangelical voters was shaky at best. Which was a demographic that he absolutely needed in order to win. One case where it probably did help picking one particular candidate over another. Trump's pick of Vance here will bring no one in that wasn't already in the tent when the day started. He's certainly the favorite to win the election, but not so much so according to the aggregators that he shouldn't have interest in trying to make appeals *beyond* the base. Maybe I'm wrong, but this signals to me that he doesn't think he needs to do that. Which reeks of some overconfidence.

Ultimately I think you are more right than wrong just given that VP picks don't tend to matter at all regardless.... but ultimately it's not really about how it impacts Trump's base; it's how it impacts the kinds of voters that are actually being fought over in this election. JD Vance is pretty far to the right on the issues with this set compared to a Doug Burgum or Glenn Youngkin. There's more risk here than I think you are letting on IMO

Ouch

Also the perception that Trump used the biography (and the people in it) for self-serving, brand related reasons.

The experiences in his book are what they are, I don't doubt them. But it's hard not to look at everything that has happened since and think that his time in VC defines his persona a lot more than the book does. That he's forgotten more about where he came from than what he remembers. I think that comes across to people, and is part of the reason (along with Ryan being a good candidate) as to why his showing was fairly poor in 2022's Ohio Senate race IMO

For what it's worth, my old man is pretty damn conservative and can't stand him.... doesn't think he's genuine.

I liked the book, but I also think he's also a much different person today than he was when he wrote that book.

When you consider that Trump doesn't have many more years ahead of him, one of the other candidates at least gives a glimmer of hope that there would be some sort of change in tonal direction after he leaves (regardless of how he leaves the stage). With Vance, he's likely to keep the center of the party in right wing nationalism.... win or lose, he'll likely be the favorite in 2028 for the nomination. Politically he's a weak peak, but it really doesn't matter if Trump wins IMO.

My biggest thing is the demonstrated ability and desire to just say and do anything for power.... I remember reading his book in 2016/2017 timeframe and he sounded nothing like the guy he is today. He just shed the persona altogether and shapeshifted into what he is today because he's thirsty for power. It doesn't really matter what side of the political spectrum, voters tend to notice people like that... a lot of Ohioans notice it from my understanding as well. Ultimately the VP pick brings very little to any ticket and generally doesn't change votes, and I don't expect this one to either. But even with that caveat applied, I don't see what Vance exactly brings to the ticket other than being someone who was willing to debase themselves in order to get into Trump's orbit and a dedication to the bigger picture, nationalistic right wing movement in the global sense.

Tim Ryan was a strong candidate in 2022 so that's partly why the Senate race was close, but some of that was just JD Vance being a really terrible candidate as well. He ran well behind pretty much every other statewide office runner in that election. Vance as a selection is a nod to the future and keeping the GOP firmly within the spectrum of the broader right wing movement globally, which is really a terrible thing. But the flipside is that he really lacks any sort of charisma or appeal outside of his VC base... people are likely to see him as a phony, as he is.

Youngkin would be similar to Burgum in that he would be more of a safe, "do not harm" pick.... but I think it's going to be Vance

Now the Republican Speaker... Looks like Politico had a legit angle here

The game show framing is... yikes

Such a unifying message

Just to tie what happened here to some of the comments made after the events of Saturday, I do think this ruling reminds us that some of the comments that dismiss the concerns about our government (ie. "no, the country isn't going to end if Trump is elected) seem a little too dismissive of the idea that another Trump term would drastically alter what this country looks like going forward.

OK

I would suggest that this wasn't luck at play here...

Is it too divisive to suggest that this ruling makes me worry about the state of our democracy?

Incredible

Actual member of Congress now more or less using this line...

Comment was more about controversy within Louisiana, although with the mix of Catholicism and Evangelicalism that exists there, you'd think it matters at least a little bit