US Election 2024: Grumpy Old Men

[Solauren]

The problem with going after Harris's record, is she actually has a long career in the public service, and it's a damn good record, with only minor gaffes here and there. She can honestly claim to be tough on crime, concerned about immigration, pro-environment while not being anti-business, pro-choice, and has marched in Pride parades.

The only people that would have a problem with her, are probably suffering from a cult-mentality over an issue or two or three.

I think a lot of Republicans Senators and Congressfolk realize that, and already realize what Juggernaught her campaign will likely be. We could be looking at a a humiliating steamroll if things are handled right.

And they have no idea how to do handle that, after spending years preparing to go after Biden. This is a woman all their current plans and tactics will not work against, so they're defaulting to what they normally at least try to hide; barely concealed racism and sexism.

Hopefully this will convince the more sane-minded and rational members of the Republic party (yes, they do still exist) that it's time to start tossing their more questionable members.

[bilateralrope]

Some Republicans are threatening legal challenges to keep Biden on the ballot. But will they work?

By Melissa Quinn

Updated on: July 23, 2024 / 4:00 PM EDT / CBS News

Washington — Allies of former President Donald Trump have floated the possibility of legal challenges to try to keep President Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket, even though he has ended his campaign, but election law experts believe it's unlikely such court fights aimed at blocking Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential candidacy will gain traction in the federal courts.

In an interview with ABC News' "This Week" hours before Mr. Biden dropped out of the presidential race, House Speaker Mike Johnson suggested Republicans could bring lawsuits in states where he is not on the ballot.

"Every state has its own system and in some of these, it's not possible to simply just switch out a candidate who has been chosen through the democratic — small D — democratic process over such a long period of time," he said Sunday. "So, it would be wrong and I think unlawful in accordance to some of these state rules for a handful of people to go in the backroom and switch it out because they don't like the candidate any longer. That's not how this is supposed to work."

But David Becker, CBS News election law contributor, said he believes Johnson is being "misadvised" about the viability of legal paths to challenging Democrats' likely nomination of Vice President Kamala Harris, who is set to be the party's choice to take on former President Donald Trump in November.

"Let's think about what that would actually mean," he told "The Daily Report with John Dickerson" on Monday. "That would mean that somehow there is something in the law that would enable the Republican Party to dictate who the Democratic Party's nominee is, and there's nothing in the law that says that, nor would it be the opposite."

He said there is "absolutely no legal basis" for such claims and expects courts to dispose of them quickly.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that is overseeing the Project 2025 transition initiative, has also indicated that it is readying a legal fight to keep Mr. Biden on the ballot. The group's Oversight Project said in a June memo that there is the potential for pre-election litigation in three states: Georgia, Nevada and Wisconsin.

"The process for substitution and withdrawal presents many election integrity issues," Mike Howell, the project's executive director, wrote. "Adherence to the law in some states may result in that process being unsuccessful for the purposes of another candidate being on the ballot."

The Oversight Project then said on social media Sunday after Mr. Biden announced his withdrawal from the presidential race that it has been "preparing for this moment for months."

No lawsuits have been filed and, if Trump's allies do follow through on their threats, challenges may not be brought for weeks. The Trump campaign has not said whether it will pursue its own court fight. Still, there's skepticism that courts have a role to play in the matter.

"I think there's low likelihood that anyone even sues, much less that anyone will be successful," Derek Muller, a professor at University of Notre Dame who specializes in election law, told CBS News.

There are several reasons why any lawsuits that are filed will likely fail, he said, including confusion by prospective challengers over ballot-access deadlines for presidential candidates and whether they would even have the legal right to sue in federal court, a concept known as standing. One of the earliest ballot-access deadlines is Aug. 20, in Washington state, Muller said, and Democrats are expected to wrap up their nominating process in early August with a virtual roll call vote of state delegations, during which the party is poised to officially nominate Harris for president.

"Courts are very deferential to how parties go about conducting their business," Muller said. "Democrats and Republicans have extensive sets of rules, they have lawyers who vet those rules. For the virtual roll call and rules proposed tomorrow, they're going to cross their t's and dot their i's to make sure they're following the rules. You can't show up and say, 'Joe Biden is really your nominee.'"

The Democratic National Committee's rules committee is set to meet Wednesday to approve or adjust proposed rules for the nominating process.

Mr. Biden announced his decision to exit the 2024 race ahead of Democrats' long-planned virtual roll call vote and the party's convention, which kicks off Aug. 19 in Chicago. During the roll call, state delegations will announce the presidential candidate they are voting for. To win the nomination, a candidate needs to secure votes from a majority of delegates, or an estimated 1,976 of the 3,949 pledged delegates.

Mr. Biden amassed enough delegates in March to clinch the party's nomination, and the Democratic National Committee's rules do not explicitly address what happens to those delegates now that he has left the race. Instead, they state that delegates pledged to a candidate "shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them."

"Nothing in the rules requires that the delegates choose Joe Biden as their candidate for president even though he won the Democratic primaries," Erwin Chemerinsky, dean at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Mr. Biden endorsed Harris for the Democratic presidential nomination and since announcing Sunday her intent to "earn and win" the nod, Harris has notched the support of at least 27 state delegations, surpassing the number of delegates she will need to win the nomination. If those endorsements hold, she will be officially nominated for president next month.

"As we stand here today, the Democratic Party does not have an official nominee," Becker said. "But that was true two days ago before Biden withdrew as well. He was not on any ballots yet because no Democratic nominee had been finalized, and ballots had not been finalized in any state and aren't going to be for several weeks until after the Democratic convention."

After the Democratic ticket is cemented, the names of the party's picks for president and vice president will be submitted to state election officials to appear on ballots in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, he said.

The Supreme Court has heard this year one case involving access to the 2024 ballot, which stemmed from an effort by Colorado voters to keep Trump off the state's primary and general election ballot under an obscure provision of the 14th Amendment.

Unlike prospective challenges involving Democrats' presidential nominee, the interpretation of a provision of the Constitution was at the center of that case. The Supreme Court unanimously said states could not bar Trump from the ballot using the measure, Section 3, which prohibits oath-taking insurrectionists from holding public office.

Becker noted that in that case, decided in March, all nine justices "expressed a real concern that any single state or group of states could somehow dictate the outcome of a presidential election by enacting a patchwork of laws that would enable different ballot access for major candidates."

"It's one of the reasons I'm 100% confident that when we get to the fall, all 50 states will have whatever the Democratic duly nominated ticket is," he said.

They seem desperate to be running against Biden.

[Dominus Atheos]

To be completely fair, given the current make up of the Supreme Court and how nakedly partisan they are, I'd give about 20% odds to a ruling that says the following:

1. Under "equal protection under the law" the 14 million people who voted in the primary for Joe Biden are legally entitled to seeing him on the ballot of all 50 states this november and can't take him off under any circumstances.

2. As she is (or will be) the nominee of a major party, all 50 states must also list Kamala Harris on the ballot as well and can't take her off under any circumstances.

3. Per existing election rules, the candidate with a simple plurality of the votes is awarded all electoral votes, so if the Kamala ballot option gets 40%, the Biden option get 15%, and Trump gets 45%, Trump wins that state.

[Ralin]

Again, Biden privately warning the Court that he can and will have them carted off to Guantanamo if they try to subvert the election has started to seem like a serious possibility. Can't say it wouldn't be justified either.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Again, Biden privately warning the Court that he can and will have them carted off to Guantanamo if they try to subvert the election has started to seem like a serious possibility. Can't say it wouldn't be justified either.

He could do that if and when the various cases involving Trump make their way to the Supreme Court as they surely will

[Solauren]

Some Republicans are threatening legal challenges to keep Biden on the ballot. But will they work?

By Melissa Quinn

Updated on: July 23, 2024 / 4:00 PM EDT / CBS News

Washington — Allies of former President Donald Trump have floated the possibility of legal challenges to try to keep President Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket, even though he has ended his campaign, but election law experts believe it's unlikely such court fights aimed at blocking Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential candidacy will gain traction in the federal courts.

In an interview with ABC News' "This Week" hours before Mr. Biden dropped out of the presidential race, House Speaker Mike Johnson suggested Republicans could bring lawsuits in states where he is not on the ballot.

"Every state has its own system and in some of these, it's not possible to simply just switch out a candidate who has been chosen through the democratic — small D — democratic process over such a long period of time," he said Sunday. "So, it would be wrong and I think unlawful in accordance to some of these state rules for a handful of people to go in the backroom and switch it out because they don't like the candidate any longer. That's not how this is supposed to work."

But David Becker, CBS News election law contributor, said he believes Johnson is being "misadvised" about the viability of legal paths to challenging Democrats' likely nomination of Vice President Kamala Harris, who is set to be the party's choice to take on former President Donald Trump in November.

"Let's think about what that would actually mean," he told "The Daily Report with John Dickerson" on Monday. "That would mean that somehow there is something in the law that would enable the Republican Party to dictate who the Democratic Party's nominee is, and there's nothing in the law that says that, nor would it be the opposite."

He said there is "absolutely no legal basis" for such claims and expects courts to dispose of them quickly.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that is overseeing the Project 2025 transition initiative, has also indicated that it is readying a legal fight to keep Mr. Biden on the ballot. The group's Oversight Project said in a June memo that there is the potential for pre-election litigation in three states: Georgia, Nevada and Wisconsin.

"The process for substitution and withdrawal presents many election integrity issues," Mike Howell, the project's executive director, wrote. "Adherence to the law in some states may result in that process being unsuccessful for the purposes of another candidate being on the ballot."

The Oversight Project then said on social media Sunday after Mr. Biden announced his withdrawal from the presidential race that it has been "preparing for this moment for months."

No lawsuits have been filed and, if Trump's allies do follow through on their threats, challenges may not be brought for weeks. The Trump campaign has not said whether it will pursue its own court fight. Still, there's skepticism that courts have a role to play in the matter.

"I think there's low likelihood that anyone even sues, much less that anyone will be successful," Derek Muller, a professor at University of Notre Dame who specializes in election law, told CBS News.

There are several reasons why any lawsuits that are filed will likely fail, he said, including confusion by prospective challengers over ballot-access deadlines for presidential candidates and whether they would even have the legal right to sue in federal court, a concept known as standing. One of the earliest ballot-access deadlines is Aug. 20, in Washington state, Muller said, and Democrats are expected to wrap up their nominating process in early August with a virtual roll call vote of state delegations, during which the party is poised to officially nominate Harris for president.

"Courts are very deferential to how parties go about conducting their business," Muller said. "Democrats and Republicans have extensive sets of rules, they have lawyers who vet those rules. For the virtual roll call and rules proposed tomorrow, they're going to cross their t's and dot their i's to make sure they're following the rules. You can't show up and say, 'Joe Biden is really your nominee.'"

The Democratic National Committee's rules committee is set to meet Wednesday to approve or adjust proposed rules for the nominating process.

Mr. Biden announced his decision to exit the 2024 race ahead of Democrats' long-planned virtual roll call vote and the party's convention, which kicks off Aug. 19 in Chicago. During the roll call, state delegations will announce the presidential candidate they are voting for. To win the nomination, a candidate needs to secure votes from a majority of delegates, or an estimated 1,976 of the 3,949 pledged delegates.

Mr. Biden amassed enough delegates in March to clinch the party's nomination, and the Democratic National Committee's rules do not explicitly address what happens to those delegates now that he has left the race. Instead, they state that delegates pledged to a candidate "shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them."

"Nothing in the rules requires that the delegates choose Joe Biden as their candidate for president even though he won the Democratic primaries," Erwin Chemerinsky, dean at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Mr. Biden endorsed Harris for the Democratic presidential nomination and since announcing Sunday her intent to "earn and win" the nod, Harris has notched the support of at least 27 state delegations, surpassing the number of delegates she will need to win the nomination. If those endorsements hold, she will be officially nominated for president next month.

"As we stand here today, the Democratic Party does not have an official nominee," Becker said. "But that was true two days ago before Biden withdrew as well. He was not on any ballots yet because no Democratic nominee had been finalized, and ballots had not been finalized in any state and aren't going to be for several weeks until after the Democratic convention."

After the Democratic ticket is cemented, the names of the party's picks for president and vice president will be submitted to state election officials to appear on ballots in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, he said.

The Supreme Court has heard this year one case involving access to the 2024 ballot, which stemmed from an effort by Colorado voters to keep Trump off the state's primary and general election ballot under an obscure provision of the 14th Amendment.

Unlike prospective challenges involving Democrats' presidential nominee, the interpretation of a provision of the Constitution was at the center of that case. The Supreme Court unanimously said states could not bar Trump from the ballot using the measure, Section 3, which prohibits oath-taking insurrectionists from holding public office.

Becker noted that in that case, decided in March, all nine justices "expressed a real concern that any single state or group of states could somehow dictate the outcome of a presidential election by enacting a patchwork of laws that would enable different ballot access for major candidates."

"It's one of the reasons I'm 100% confident that when we get to the fall, all 50 states will have whatever the Democratic duly nominated ticket is," he said.

They seem desperate to be running against Biden.

So, they're attempting to force someone to do something against their will? Isn't that, oh, illegal?

[Ralin]

No. It is not illegal to file lawsuits attempting to force a political party to keep someone on the ballot or prevent them from putting someone on it. What a ridiculous question.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

The Dems tried doing that to keep Trump off the ballot and look how that turned out.

[Solauren]

No. It is not illegal to file lawsuits attempting to force a political party to keep someone on the ballot or prevent them from putting someone on it. What a ridiculous question.

No, I mean if they are successful, and keep him on the ballot. Isn't that in itself going against his publically stated position?

It's like if a smoker were to quit smoking, and a lawsuit making it so they have to still smoke.

[bilateralrope]

Exclusive: CNN survey finds 48 states say Harris can get on ballot instead of Biden, rejecting claim switch breaks state laws

By Daniel Dale, Casey Gannon and Paula Reid, CNN
Published 6:00 AM EDT, Fri July 26, 2024

Washington
CNN
—
The election authorities of at least 48 states, both Republicans and Democrats, say there are no obstacles that would prevent Vice President Kamala Harris from getting on election ballots if she becomes the official Democratic presidential nominee, as expected.

The findings of a CNN survey of all 50 states undercut the claims of House Speaker Mike Johnson, who said both before and after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race on Sunday that there are legal “impediments” in some states to a party switching presidential candidates as the Democrats did. There was not a single state election authority that told CNN Harris would face a ballot issue as the official nominee; election authorities in two states, Florida and Montana, did not respond to requests for comment, but a review of the states’ ballot access rules suggests Harris is not likely to face an issue there either.

Johnson, a lawyer, said on ABC News Sunday that “it would be wrong and I think unlawful in accordance to some of these state rules for a handful of people to go in the backroom and switch it out because they’re – they don’t like the candidate any longer.” He said on CNN Monday that “in some of the states, there are impediments to just switching someone out like that.”

But experts on election law say that is not true, since the Democrats never named Biden as the official 2024 nominee or submitted his name to the states as their 2024 nominee. And election authorities around the country have now confirmed – telling CNN or saying in public statements that Harris will not face any obstacles getting on their ballots if she is formally chosen as the Democratic nominee next month.

The 48 states (plus the District of Columbia) whose election authorities have said the official Democratic nominee will not have ballot issues include the seven states with the closest margins in the 2020 election, which are widely considered the key swing states again in 2024: Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan and Nevada. The 48 states also include the 15 states where former President Donald Trump, the Republicans’ 2024 nominee, had his highest share of the vote in 2020.

Johnson’s office did not respond to CNN’s requests to identify the “impediments” he claimed some states have.

Since Biden was never the official nominee, states say there’s no problem for Harris

The election authorities in 48 states and the District of Columbia offered highly similar comments explaining why Harris does not face any hurdles getting on the ballot there.

In general, they explained that they receive the names of a major party’s presidential nominee after the nominee is officially chosen by the party; that the Democratic convention has not been held yet (it’s scheduled for in-person events on August 19-22, with an official nomination vote to be held virtually earlier in the month); and that their state’s deadline for receiving the party nominees’ names has not arrived yet.

Patrick Gannon, spokesperson for the bipartisan North Carolina State Board of Elections, said in an email: “Political parties nominate their presidential and vice-presidential candidates at their conventions and then inform the State Board of Elections of those persons’ names. The Democratic Party has not yet had its convention, nor has it informed the State Board of its presidential and vice-presidential candidates’ names.
When they do, those candidates’ names will be placed on the ballot.”

Gabriel Sterling, chief operating officer for Republican Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, wrote on social media: “So it’s understood, Biden dropping out will not impact Georgia ballots. As the Democrats haven’t had a convention, there is no ‘nominee’ to replace.”

Even the Republican election authorities of reliably pro-Trump states throughout the country definitively said Harris would not have issues there if she were chosen as nominee at the convention.

Chelsea Carattini, spokesperson for Republican Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane, said in an interview: “There’s no issue. We basically just wait for the major parties to do their national conventions, and once completed, they send us the certificate of nomination for whomever is selected.”

Michon Lindstrom, spokesperson for Republican Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams, said in an interview: “No, there is no issue with Kamala being on the ballot because Joe Biden was never the official nominee.”

Rachel Soulek, director of South Dakota’s elections division under Republican Secretary of State Monae Johnson, said in an email: “South Dakota will have no issues with the Democratic Party’s nominations.”

Landon Palmer, a spokesperson for Republican West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner, said in an email: “The candidate that will appear on West Virginia’s ballot in November will be the candidate that is nominated by the DNC. Presuming that is Kamala Harris, then there will be no issues.”

Laney Rawls, spokesperson for Republican Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen, said in an email: “Major parties have until August 23, 2024 to certify to the Secretary of State’s office their Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates” under a provision of Alabama law Rawls identified. She added, “The Secretary of State’s office will certify lawfully submitted party certifications on August 28, 2024.”

Experts say issue is settled

CNN’s Tierney Sneed reported Sunday that Trump allies have discussed whether or not they have grounds to mount a challenge on the replacement of Biden with Harris, according to a source familiar with the discussions.

It’s impossible to say for certain whether a particular court in a particular state might rule that the state’s elections authority was wrong. But experts say that is unlikely.

Derek Muller, a University of Notre Dame law professor who is an expert on election law, said in an email: “Democrats do not have a nominee yet. The nomination formally happens at the convention. Any litigation before the convention challenging the identity of the nominee is about something that hasn’t yet happened. Any challenges after the convention would be challenges to a nominee who received the support of the convention delegates under convention rules. It’s essentially impossible to argue that the nominee is not the true nominee of the party at that point.”

It sounds like the lawsuits, if they are ever filed, are going to keep failing until they hit SCOTUS. Then things get unpredictable.

So, they're attempting to force someone to do something against their will? Isn't that, oh, illegal?

Attempting to enslave the person in charge of the entire US military seems like a very suicidal idea.

[Ralin]

No, I mean if they are successful, and keep him on the ballot. Isn't that in itself going against his publically stated position?

It's like if a smoker were to quit smoking, and a lawsuit making it so they have to still smoke.

Courts can order people to do things they don't want to do. Lawsuits are a means of asking the court to do that. Having a person who has announced they are withdrawing from the election be kept on the ballot would be weird, but if a court orders it then clearly it's legal. Nor does it actually compel Biden personally to do anything.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

If they do actually try any such thing, it's only proof of how scared they are. They risked everything on Biden running for reelection, and it's blown up in their faces.

In the meantime...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... ments-area

‘What happened to any time, any place?’: Kamala Harris trolls Trump as he backs out of debate
Trump’s campaign team won’t commit to debating Harris – at least not yet – blaming Democratic instability

Joe Sommerlad

Kamala Harris has trolled Donald Trump by using his words against him after the Republican presidential nominee backed out of a proposed television debate.

“What happened to ‘any time, any place’?” the vice president posted on X late on Thursday night.

Trump had previously used those words back in March to lay down the gauntlet to President Joe Biden as the two rivals sparred about when and where they would face each other on the debate stage.

But, now that Biden has stepped aside and Harris has become the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, the former president appears to have gotten cold feet.

On Thursday, Harris was asked by reporters at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland about debating Trump.

She said she was “ready” to go head-to-head with the former president on stage but accused him of “backpedaling” on his commitment to the debate provisionally scheduled for September 10 on ABC News.

“I have agreed to the previously agreed upon September 10 debate,” she said.

“He agreed to that previously. Now, here he is backpedaling and I’m ready and I think the voters deserve to see the split screen that exists in this race on a debate stage and so I’m ready to go.”

Trump’s campaign team subsequently confirmed that he would not commit to debating Harris – at least not yet – blaming Democratic instability for the u-turn.

“Given the continued political chaos surrounding Crooked Joe Biden and the Democrat Party, general election details cannot be finalized until Democrats formally decide on their nominee,” the Trump campaign’s communications director Steven Cheung said in a statement.

“There is a strong sense by many in the Democrat Party – namely Barack Hussein Obama – that Kamala Harris is a Marxist fraud who cannot beat President Trump, and they are still holding out for someone ‘better.’

“Therefore, it would be inappropriate to schedule things with Harris because Democrats very well could still change their minds.”

Cheung’s offer of an explanation does not acknowledge that neither Biden nor Trump were their respective parties’ nominees during the first presidential debate in Atlanta on June 27. Like Harris, both candidates were merely the presumptive nominees at the time.

There now appears to be little doubt that Harris will be confirmed as the party’s presidential nominee at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago next month, as she has already secured more than enough delegates to meet the threshold and no major challengers have emerged to rival her.

The majority of party big beasts like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have also publicly backed her.

Former president Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama have now joined them in the wake of Cheung’s statement, backing Harris in a video posted to social media on Friday, having reportedly only withheld their endorsement so as not to overshadow Biden’s big moment as he exited the race.

Trump told reporters earlier this week that he would “absolutely” be prepared to debate Harris but alleged political bias at ABC News and hinted that he would prefer a more sympathetic conservative broadcaster like Fox News to host. Fox News has invited the two candidates to a debate on the network on September 17.

“Not only will there be another debate, but there should be multiple debates,” he said.

“We do think there should be some diversification in the outlets for who hosts a debate, but I think the public would be sold short if we only did one debate against Kamala Harris in the general election.”

I think this is what they call wimping out.

[Solauren]

Yeah, a 5 week lead time, with 'odds are its' her' is plenty of time to shift things for a preplaned debate.

The irony is, now he will look weak to his base, for 'ducking out, from a woman/black/asian (whichever works best to alienate them)'

[Ralin]

Or his base will be thrilled that he's treating her with disdain and ignoring her because she's not a 'real' candidate and they don't want to see more of her anyway. I think we've established at this point that his base will see what they want to see.

[bilateralrope]

Republicans are already souring on JD Vance

“I’m a little surprised they didn’t vet him as thoroughly as they should have,” said one GOP strategist.

By IRIE SENTNER and JARED MITOVICH
07/26/2024 05:19 PM EDT

JD Vance has had a difficult week, and some Republicans aren’t hiding their frustration.

Despite momentum after former President Donald Trump named him as his running mate, the Ohio senator started receiving unwanted attention after old clips resurfaced of him calling some Democrats “childless cat ladies” and suggesting parents should have more political power than non-parents.

Vance’s change of fortune also collided with the rise of Vice President Kamala Harris, who has broken fundraising records and is on a glide path to receiving the Democratic nomination after President Joe Biden bowed out of the race. And Harris — who would be the first Black and South Asian woman president and is running a campaign with the unofficial slogan “we’re not going back” — has made the contrast with the Trump-Vance ticket even more stark.

It’s all starting to get some Republicans worried — and frustrated. Some, like Arizona Republican operative Chuck Coughlin, conceded that Vance has had a “tough week.”

“Nothing like a baptism by fire,” Coughlin said.

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro bluntly questioned whether Trump should have picked Vance, saying on his show: “If you had a time machine, if you go back two weeks, would [Trump] have picked JD Vance again? I doubt it.”

Other Republicans also wondered aloud if the Trump campaign had truly anticipated the tidal wave of resurfaced comments, book writings and remarks that would come with picking a 39-year-old, recently elected senator who had grown up online and was firmly seated on the right of the Republican Party.

“Of the people that were mentioned as finalists, he had the most risk, because he had never been vetted nationally,” said Bill McCoshen, a Republican strategist in Wisconsin. “Doug Burgum ran for president, he had been vetted, mostly. Marco Rubio has run for president, he had been vetted. JD Vance hadn’t. So there was risk in the pick. And we’re going to see over the next 102 days how he stands up to the bright lights of a national campaign.”

One House Republican lawmaker suggested those vetting concerns weren’t just coming from the pundit class.

“Find me one publicly elected official in the Senate who is pushing JD Vance other than Mike Lee,” said the Republican lawmaker, who was granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter. “I’ll wait.”

Since Harris began her presidential campaign, Democrats have begun to go on offense against Vance, and polls suggest these attacks are beginning to take a hit. Vance averages a net favorability rating of negative 5 percent across all polls, lower than any vice presidential nominee in history, CNN analyst Harry Enten said this week — a lower figure than former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, perhaps the most infamous GOP running mate pick.

Vance’s favorability was underwater by 3 percentage points in two polls of a Harris-Trump race released this week by the New York Times/Siena College and NPR/PBS News/Marist College — the latter of which found that 28 percent of registered voters hold a favorable view of Vance, while 31 percent viewed him unfavorably. Forty-one percent were unsure or have not heard of him, the Marist poll found.

The lawmaker accused Donald Trump Jr. of pushing Vance as a means of securing a legacy for the former president. Instead, Republicans have mounting worries after a week of resurfaced clips of Vance calling Harris and other Democrats “childless cat ladies” and suggesting parents should have more political power than non-parents.

The Harris campaign, in response to Vance’s comments, issued a statement titled “Happy World IVF Day To Everyone Except JD Vance.” Even actress Jennifer Aniston, who does not have children, weighed in: “Mr. Vance, I pray that your daughter is fortunate enough to bear children of her own one day. I hope she will not need to turn to IVF as a second option. Because you are trying to take that away from her, too.”

Critics also highlighted Vance’s authoring of the foreword to an upcoming book by Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation who has advocated for a “second American revolution” he hopes will remain “bloodless.” Roberts is the head of Project 2025 — a far-right policy blueprint from which Trump has fought to distance himself.

In a review of the book, Vance wrote: “We are now all realizing that it’s time to circle the wagons and load the muskets. In the fights that lie ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon.”

“I’m a little surprised they didn’t vet him as thoroughly as they should have, or if they did, did they not know he was writing the forward to Kevin Roberts’ book,” said a Republican strategist and veteran of multiple presidential campaigns, granted anonymity to speak freely. “So, you’ve got Trump trashing this Project 2025, and Vance writing the forward.”

And that’s not to mention the countless memes suggesting Vance had intimate relations with a couch in his youth following a disinformation post on social media, made worse by the fact that the Associated Press published an article with the headline “No, JD Vance did not have sex with a couch,” then retracting it because the story “didn’t go through our standard editing process,” according to AP spokesperson Nicole Meir.

Vance spokesperson Luke Schroeder referred POLITICO to reports that Vance rallies this week had reached capacity and news reports on the seven-figure fundraising events he held.

Vance was picked during an entirely different phase of the presidential race — the Biden-Trump matchup of just a week ago — as a way to energize a base that was already strongly unified behind Trump rather than pick up any new constituencies, experts said.

“Vance was not a political pick,” said Joshua Novotney, a Republican political strategist in Pennsylvania. “He was not chosen to get a leg-up in some area, he was chosen as someone who Trump trusted and wanted to serve with.”

Contenders for the Democratic veepstakes have gone on the offensive against Vance, too. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear slammed the “Hillbilly Elegy” author as a “phony,” saying “he ain’t from here” and accusing him of writing his memoir to “profit off our people.” Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said “people like JD Vance know nothing about small town America,” adding: “none of my hillbilly cousins went to Yale.” And Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said he’d met a lot of people like Vance at Harvard “who would say whatever they needed to to get ahead.”

Despite Vance’s arguably awful week, Trump has insisted he has no regrets picking the Ohio senator, telling Fox News on Thursday that he wouldn’t have picked differently had he known Harris would take the top of the ticket.

“He is essentially for the worker. He has seen the worker be horribly abused and taken advantage of and he is for the worker,” Trump said, describing the message of Vance’s book as one of the main reasons he picked the Ohio senator.

Yet strategists said the fringes of that “Hillbilly Elegy” message is making it even harder for Vance to benefit Trump on the electoral map.

“He’s Tucker Carlson’s boy right now, and that represents a certain segment of the base of the Republican Party,” Coughlin said. “I just don’t see how that projects to somebody who can grow the base, particularly if he’s stumbling over his own words.”

I'm guessing Vance was picked because Trump thinks he's more likely to do as he is told than other candidates.

[bilateralrope]

Republicans are already souring on JD Vance

“I’m a little surprised they didn’t vet him as thoroughly as they should have,” said one GOP strategist.

By IRIE SENTNER and JARED MITOVICH
07/26/2024 05:19 PM EDT

JD Vance has had a difficult week, and some Republicans aren’t hiding their frustration.

Despite momentum after former President Donald Trump named him as his running mate, the Ohio senator started receiving unwanted attention after old clips resurfaced of him calling some Democrats “childless cat ladies” and suggesting parents should have more political power than non-parents.

Vance’s change of fortune also collided with the rise of Vice President Kamala Harris, who has broken fundraising records and is on a glide path to receiving the Democratic nomination after President Joe Biden bowed out of the race. And Harris — who would be the first Black and South Asian woman president and is running a campaign with the unofficial slogan “we’re not going back” — has made the contrast with the Trump-Vance ticket even more stark.

It’s all starting to get some Republicans worried — and frustrated. Some, like Arizona Republican operative Chuck Coughlin, conceded that Vance has had a “tough week.”

“Nothing like a baptism by fire,” Coughlin said.

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro bluntly questioned whether Trump should have picked Vance, saying on his show: “If you had a time machine, if you go back two weeks, would [Trump] have picked JD Vance again? I doubt it.”

Other Republicans also wondered aloud if the Trump campaign had truly anticipated the tidal wave of resurfaced comments, book writings and remarks that would come with picking a 39-year-old, recently elected senator who had grown up online and was firmly seated on the right of the Republican Party.

“Of the people that were mentioned as finalists, he had the most risk, because he had never been vetted nationally,” said Bill McCoshen, a Republican strategist in Wisconsin. “Doug Burgum ran for president, he had been vetted, mostly. Marco Rubio has run for president, he had been vetted. JD Vance hadn’t. So there was risk in the pick. And we’re going to see over the next 102 days how he stands up to the bright lights of a national campaign.”

One House Republican lawmaker suggested those vetting concerns weren’t just coming from the pundit class.

“Find me one publicly elected official in the Senate who is pushing JD Vance other than Mike Lee,” said the Republican lawmaker, who was granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter. “I’ll wait.”

Since Harris began her presidential campaign, Democrats have begun to go on offense against Vance, and polls suggest these attacks are beginning to take a hit. Vance averages a net favorability rating of negative 5 percent across all polls, lower than any vice presidential nominee in history, CNN analyst Harry Enten said this week — a lower figure than former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, perhaps the most infamous GOP running mate pick.

Vance’s favorability was underwater by 3 percentage points in two polls of a Harris-Trump race released this week by the New York Times/Siena College and NPR/PBS News/Marist College — the latter of which found that 28 percent of registered voters hold a favorable view of Vance, while 31 percent viewed him unfavorably. Forty-one percent were unsure or have not heard of him, the Marist poll found.

The lawmaker accused Donald Trump Jr. of pushing Vance as a means of securing a legacy for the former president. Instead, Republicans have mounting worries after a week of resurfaced clips of Vance calling Harris and other Democrats “childless cat ladies” and suggesting parents should have more political power than non-parents.

The Harris campaign, in response to Vance’s comments, issued a statement titled “Happy World IVF Day To Everyone Except JD Vance.” Even actress Jennifer Aniston, who does not have children, weighed in: “Mr. Vance, I pray that your daughter is fortunate enough to bear children of her own one day. I hope she will not need to turn to IVF as a second option. Because you are trying to take that away from her, too.”

Critics also highlighted Vance’s authoring of the foreword to an upcoming book by Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation who has advocated for a “second American revolution” he hopes will remain “bloodless.” Roberts is the head of Project 2025 — a far-right policy blueprint from which Trump has fought to distance himself.

In a review of the book, Vance wrote: “We are now all realizing that it’s time to circle the wagons and load the muskets. In the fights that lie ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon.”

“I’m a little surprised they didn’t vet him as thoroughly as they should have, or if they did, did they not know he was writing the forward to Kevin Roberts’ book,” said a Republican strategist and veteran of multiple presidential campaigns, granted anonymity to speak freely. “So, you’ve got Trump trashing this Project 2025, and Vance writing the forward.”

And that’s not to mention the countless memes suggesting Vance had intimate relations with a couch in his youth following a disinformation post on social media, made worse by the fact that the Associated Press published an article with the headline “No, JD Vance did not have sex with a couch,” then retracting it because the story “didn’t go through our standard editing process,” according to AP spokesperson Nicole Meir.

Vance spokesperson Luke Schroeder referred POLITICO to reports that Vance rallies this week had reached capacity and news reports on the seven-figure fundraising events he held.

Vance was picked during an entirely different phase of the presidential race — the Biden-Trump matchup of just a week ago — as a way to energize a base that was already strongly unified behind Trump rather than pick up any new constituencies, experts said.

“Vance was not a political pick,” said Joshua Novotney, a Republican political strategist in Pennsylvania. “He was not chosen to get a leg-up in some area, he was chosen as someone who Trump trusted and wanted to serve with.”

Contenders for the Democratic veepstakes have gone on the offensive against Vance, too. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear slammed the “Hillbilly Elegy” author as a “phony,” saying “he ain’t from here” and accusing him of writing his memoir to “profit off our people.” Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said “people like JD Vance know nothing about small town America,” adding: “none of my hillbilly cousins went to Yale.” And Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said he’d met a lot of people like Vance at Harvard “who would say whatever they needed to to get ahead.”

Despite Vance’s arguably awful week, Trump has insisted he has no regrets picking the Ohio senator, telling Fox News on Thursday that he wouldn’t have picked differently had he known Harris would take the top of the ticket.

“He is essentially for the worker. He has seen the worker be horribly abused and taken advantage of and he is for the worker,” Trump said, describing the message of Vance’s book as one of the main reasons he picked the Ohio senator.

Yet strategists said the fringes of that “Hillbilly Elegy” message is making it even harder for Vance to benefit Trump on the electoral map.

“He’s Tucker Carlson’s boy right now, and that represents a certain segment of the base of the Republican Party,” Coughlin said. “I just don’t see how that projects to somebody who can grow the base, particularly if he’s stumbling over his own words.”

I'm guessing Vance was picked because Trump thinks he's more likely to do as he is told than other candidates.

[AniThyng]

What did they make of the fact his wife is Indian American and herself a lawyer from cali

[bilateralrope]

I'm not aware of anyone in the Republican party saying anything about his wife.

[LadyTevar]

I'm not aware of anyone in the Republican party saying anything about his wife.

Oh, they'll shove her into the background to keep up the facade of Strong White Male.

What's grinding my gears is some of the shit I'm hearing from Russian Bots/MAGArats/GOP "Sources"
"KAMALA WAS A CALL GIRL!!"
"KAMALA WAS SLEEPING WITH A MAJOR CALIFORNIA POLITICIAN TO GET HER JOB!"
"KAMALA DOESN"T HAVE CHILDREN AND SHOULDN"T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS!"

[bilateralrope]

I'm not aware of anyone in the Republican party saying anything about his wife.

Oh, they'll shove her into the background to keep up the facade of Strong White Male.

That could be a fun october surprise for them.

What's grinding my gears is some of the shit I'm hearing from Russian Bots/MAGArats/GOP "Sources"
"KAMALA WAS A CALL GIRL!!"
"KAMALA WAS SLEEPING WITH A MAJOR CALIFORNIA POLITICIAN TO GET HER JOB!"
"KAMALA DOESN"T HAVE CHILDREN AND SHOULDN"T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS!"

Right now they seem to be trying to find something, anything, they can hit her with. Hopefully people are paying attention to the sexism.

[Zaune]

Maybe the rumour about the rubber glove and the sofa cushions (which does admittedly sound like the kind of thing that sounds like a good idea at the time whemn you're a thirteen year-old boy...) was a result of someone deciding that turnabout is fair play?

[Elfdart]

They were peddling "Joe & The Hoe" stickers three years ago, so I'm not exactly shocked they're taking this line against Harris (some GOP mouth breather called her the original Hawk Tuah! Girl).



It doesn't help that she got a position on a regulatory board from Willie Brown while they were dating.

What is not disputed is that Brown gave Harris influential posts on two state regulatory boards. According to Politico, they paid her $400,000 over five years, on top of her salary as a prosecutor. Brown is also said to have given her a BMW.

But as far as "scandals" go, getting a job from your S.O. is baby shit -especially when it was 30 years ago. Which is why the media will make damn sure it gets a lot of traction.

[AniThyng]

That could be a fun october surprise for them.

How so? What does that mean?

[bilateralrope]

That could be a fun october surprise for them.

How so? What does that mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise

At the moment, a lot of the racist Trump supporters seem unaware of Vance's wife. If they find out late enough, they might have trouble coming up with a reason to still vote Trump before election day. Or they might shift the focus of the racism towards her and discourage other Trump supporters.

[Ralin]

Or they might ignore it once they've had their fun because she's just the person attached to the VP, who most people don't hugely care about anyway.