this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
612 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19090 readers
3977 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Some Republicans are starting to seriously regret Donald Trump’s vice presidential nominee, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance.

It’s been only one week since Vance was nominated at the Republican National Convention, and already his own party members are expressing severe doubts about Trump’s pick. The former president’s allies have acknowledged that nominating Vance was the product of Trump’s absolute certainty that he would be able to defeat Joe Biden in November. While Vance wouldn’t do much for swing voters or independents, he would likely shore up support among Trump’s base.

But ever since Biden passed the torch to Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party’s new presumptive nominee, Republicans have begun to sour on Vance.

“The road got a lot harder. He was the only pick that wasn’t the safe pick. And I think everyone has now realized that,” one House Republican told Axios Thursday, under the condition of anonymity.

Another House Republican told Axios that Vance “doesn’t add much.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Artyom@lemm.ee 38 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If you were an extreme project 2025 republican, Vance would have been the perfect candidate assuming that 1. The democrats would throw the election by running Biden with failing health. And 2. That Trump would die of a heart attack in a few years.

I legitimately can't think of another reason why they would have picked him. The Trump campaign and project 2025 were counting on both those facts being true.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's actually sadder. Trump doesn't want a VP that can claim any credit for his electoral victory. If he picked anyone that people will say "strengthened him", he'd hate that.

Pride goeth before the fall.

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

He also just wants a yes man, he REALLY didn't like that Pence found his conscience while he was cleaning up after the election and didn't go along with "the election was stolen and thus Donald Trump is still president". Vance has no political compass - he has a weathervane that points towards whatever he thinks will get him power, so that's perfect.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

And 2. That Trump would die of a heart attack in a few years.

Yeah, but donnie is/was a project 2025 guy. Was he on board with that aspect of things? With his diet/exercise plan, maybe he is? 🤣