4 ms·

This seems like a bit of a reach. Vance was among a few other choices where the main deciding factor was how to retain Congress if and when Trump wins, along wi

This seems like a bit of a reach. Vance was among a few other choices where the main deciding factor was how to retain Congress if and when Trump wins, along with likely appeasing the GOP establishment, not the tech establishment. Trump has more power over the machinery of the GOP than he did in 16 or 20, but certain donors on the GOP side would rather Kamala win, and Trump disappear. Vance, like Pence, is a bridge between Trump's populism and whatever the GOP stood for when McCain and Romney were their nominees (losing?). I am in the orbit of two of the potential picks. The choice for VP this year was highly, highly strategic. Though Trump has momentum on his side, the Democrats are still the Democrats and they would have a good chance getting a ham sandwich elected with their machinery.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Vance was among a few other choices where the main deciding factor was how to retain Congress if and when Trump wins My impression was Vance doesn’t have a great reputation among the Senate GOP. He’s new and weird and has no track record for deal making, on the Senate floor or off it. > appeasing the GOP establishment Vance is not an establishment pick. The hawks hate him. The Chamber of Commerce folks hate him. Vance-ism is almost across the board a repudiation of Reaganism. > in the orbit of two of the potential picks. The choice for VP this year was highly, highly strategic What is the strategy? What votes does Vance pick up that Trump didn’t have already? Ohio isn’t a swing state. Vance is a donor candidate, guaranteed to attract hundreds of millions from certain right-wing Silicon Valley personalities. I’m open to being convinced of some hidden brilliance. But I’m simply not seeing it. Vance was a loyalty play smuggled in when Trump had a decisive lead. There is a decent chance he costs the GOP the Presidency.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Vance was among a few other choices where the main deciding factor was how to retain Congress if and when Trump wins My impression was Vance doesn’t have a great reputation among the Senate GOP. He’s new and weird and has no track record for deal making, on the Senate floor or off it. > appeasing the GOP establishment Vance is not an establishment pick. The hawks hate him. The Chamber of Commerce folks hate him. Vance-ism is almost across the board a repudiation of Reaganism. > in the orbit of two of the potential picks. The choice for VP this year was highly, highly strategic What is the strategy? What votes does Vance pick up that Trump didn’t have already? Ohio isn’t a swing state. Vance is a donor candidate, guaranteed to attract hundreds of millions from certain right-wing Silicon Valley personalities. I’m open to being convinced of some hidden brilliance. But I’m simply not seeing it. Vance was a loyalty play smuggled in when Trump had a decisive lead. There is a decent chance he costs the GOP the Presidency.