This is who the libs are trying to convince is their best shot!
"Multiple Democratic leaders contend that if people don’t start feeling more positive about the next person in the line of succession, they might turn away from the ticket entirely. They’re urging allies to stop the Harris pile-on, if only for Biden’s sake – or for Democrats’ sake, or the party’s future."
I'm not Republican, so let's take that for whatever it's worth. However, I don't see how Vance is necessarily the best pick right now for a few reasons.
1. Legacy. Probably the real reason Trump picked him is because he wants someone to carry on his legacy should something happen to him. The issue is that I see JD more as an opportunist. He is getting roasted by his own party for a reason. I am open to the possibility of him changing, time will tell.
2. Vance doesn't really add anything to the ticket for Trump. I see the strategy, win rural whites in Appalachia. The thing is, Trump was their only voting choice anyway. Trump is the type of candidate who is very cut and dry. You either love him or hate him. Few people overall are indifferent to him unless you live in a bubble.
3. Bad optics. This one is heavy on interpretation. I know people shouldn't focus on race, but it would be disinfectant to not reference it. The fact of the matter is, in this heavily woke/diverse sensitive climate,(whatever) you have two upper class white guys on the ticket. The Republicans aren't really getting anyone outside their standard bread and butter. I acknowledge their are black/Hispanics who vote Trump, but it's NOT at a level to swing states that are otherwise Blue and Purple.
Feel free to debate my points, but I'm just being objective about this Vance decision.
@ggofv - I'm a staunch Republican but I agree with most of what you said. Maybe he'll turn out more of Trump’s target audience but he's Trump’s loyal understudy. Pretty sure he picked Pence to assuage the religious right who was suspicious of him, but Vance doesn't provide any sort of balance.
Youngkin could have put Virginia in play and has executive presence. Scott would have helped with blacks and could have been the nice guy to Trump’s rough edge. Rubio could have brought more Hispanics (though I never bought him as a serious choice).
I disagree on a couple things. 1. Vance may be an opportunist but show me a congressman who isn't and I'll show you a man with twenty fingers. 2. Wokeness/DEI is on the wane. It peaked in 2020, now corporations are cutting DEI budgets left and right, and "woke" has been clearly established as an insult. But as well, like you mentioned with rural white males, the DEI crowd was never going to vote for Trump anyways. Blacks and Hispanics who vote for Trump probably feel offended by the notion that being non white means you have to be a Democrat.
But Trump doesn't need to expand the map if he re-creates 2016. Harris is left of Biden and lacks his white working class appeal. She isn't "safe" or "normal" like Biden was (or rather, campaigned on) after 4 years of the loose cannon Trump win everyone was fatigued with. She is uncharismatic (didn't win a single delegate in 2020) and incompetent at her VP role, owning the border failure (to an extent it was intractable but Democrats are highly disfavored in this area and Biden publicly put her in charge of it).
Yeah there's a lot of baseball left to be played, but I think Harris has more downside than upside. Trump is polling a full 10 points better than he was against Biden in 2020. Talking away tossups he wins more EVs than he did in 2016. Harris won't be shiny and new forever.
5 comments
"Multiple Democratic leaders contend that if people don’t start feeling more positive about the next person in the line of succession, they might turn away from the ticket entirely. They’re urging allies to stop the Harris pile-on, if only for Biden’s sake – or for Democrats’ sake, or the party’s future."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/12/politics/…
Title says it all.
1. Legacy. Probably the real reason Trump picked him is because he wants someone to carry on his legacy should something happen to him. The issue is that I see JD more as an opportunist. He is getting roasted by his own party for a reason. I am open to the possibility of him changing, time will tell.
2. Vance doesn't really add anything to the ticket for Trump. I see the strategy, win rural whites in Appalachia.
The thing is, Trump was their only voting choice anyway. Trump is the type of candidate who is very cut and dry. You either love him or hate him. Few people overall are indifferent to him unless you live in a bubble.
3. Bad optics. This one is heavy on interpretation. I know people shouldn't focus on race, but it would be disinfectant to not reference it. The fact of the matter is, in this heavily woke/diverse sensitive climate,(whatever)
you have two upper class white guys on the ticket. The Republicans aren't really getting anyone outside their standard bread and butter. I acknowledge their are black/Hispanics who vote Trump, but it's NOT at a level to swing states that are otherwise Blue and Purple.
Feel free to debate my points, but I'm just being objective about this Vance decision.
Youngkin could have put Virginia in play and has executive presence. Scott would have helped with blacks and could have been the nice guy to Trump’s rough edge. Rubio could have brought more Hispanics (though I never bought him as a serious choice).
I disagree on a couple things. 1. Vance may be an opportunist but show me a congressman who isn't and I'll show you a man with twenty fingers. 2. Wokeness/DEI is on the wane. It peaked in 2020, now corporations are cutting DEI budgets left and right, and "woke" has been clearly established as an insult. But as well, like you mentioned with rural white males, the DEI crowd was never going to vote for Trump anyways. Blacks and Hispanics who vote for Trump probably feel offended by the notion that being non white means you have to be a Democrat.
But Trump doesn't need to expand the map if he re-creates 2016. Harris is left of Biden and lacks his white working class appeal. She isn't "safe" or "normal" like Biden was (or rather, campaigned on) after 4 years of the loose cannon Trump win everyone was fatigued with. She is uncharismatic (didn't win a single delegate in 2020) and incompetent at her VP role, owning the border failure (to an extent it was intractable but Democrats are highly disfavored in this area and Biden publicly put her in charge of it).
Yeah there's a lot of baseball left to be played, but I think Harris has more downside than upside. Trump is polling a full 10 points better than he was against Biden in 2020. Talking away tossups he wins more EVs than he did in 2016. Harris won't be shiny and new forever.