2 posts were merged into an existing topic: Trump expected to attend wake for fallen NYPD officer as he ramps up rhetoric on crime {And other posts he made added after #25}
Knowing him, he will likely pick someone unknown and non controversial.
Never heard this idea before, but looking at his Wikipedia article, makes a lot of sense.
Or will the same Evangelicals who do not want a woman also have a problem with a Catholic?
Pluses for Trump:
Italian
Hispanic
By GOP standards, moderate on abortion
NYPD disciplinary record insures Democrats will not be eager to see Trump ousted from the presidency
Lots of fun 'n games here.
But I maintain that Trump isn’t going to pick someone that takes some limelight off him and will do the same as he did in 2016, choose someone conservative but boring. And the safest bet is Mike Pompeo.
He brings a wealth of experience. He’s remained loyal to Trump and probably scored points with him by not running for POTUS in 2024.
Trump will be a lame duck the moment he resumes office. He has his legacy to think about and I can see Pompeo easily coat tailing his way into the White House in 2028.
A smart sit-on-my-lead pick for Trump, and I refuse to think he’s not smart.
This choice cements in weak-kneed Trump supporters who do not want to admit to themselves how crazy the guy at the top of the ticket really is.
Pompeo is pitch perfect on abortion for appealing to median voters without alienating the base:
I am wondering if Shanahan increases chances that Trump will pick a woman. But cornering the sexist vote makes more sense.
But this position is increasingly out-of-line with where the antiabortion right is, who never railed against Roe v Wade out of high-minded federalist principles but because they see abortion as murdering babies. They’re not content to let the Lord help Californians see the vital nature of protecting the unborn over time. Their next push is a nationwide ban, and Trump can’t afford to lose them.
Lose them to who? Biden?
Lose them to staying home on election day AKA to Biden?
Via his Supreme Court picks Trump has done multitudes more for the pro-life crowd than any of the previous 5 Republican Presidents combined. When faced with 4 more years of Biden I highly doubt they are going to abandon Trump because of his VP pick.
On every issue on the right I see Pompeo as the level headed choice.
Likeliest: Noem. Dark horse: Tulsi Gabbard. Will make Vladimir happy and trump would sell picking a (former) Dem as, gag, a gesture of unity.
Given the two candidates are the oldest in our nation’s history, I think it matters a great deal more than usual.
I really meant how much does in matter insofar as helping the Trump ticket get elected.
Somebody said earlier in the thread that a good running mate rarely helps a candidate’s chances, but a bad running mate can harm them.
That’s exactly what I was going to say.
I do not want to hijack this thread into a discussion of Sarah Palin, but I believe the general consensus was that picking her as VP really hurt the McCain campaign because she seemed like a stunt pick and her portrayal in the media (based on her own words and the reactions to them) were a distraction and reflected very poorly on McCain and his candidacy. More people were talking about her than McCain, which is really not what you want when you’re trying to run for POTUS!
My point is that we can point to that and probably other times when a bad VP pick really screwed up a campaign. So yeah, while people often talk about which VP will help bring in whatever demographic, in reality it’s more about who isn’t going to work against you. Boring VP picks are probably the best ones in most cases.
OTOH ours is the Earth timeline that has a President Trump in it. It is no longer predictable what is a “choice that can hurt a candidate’s campaign”.
If Trump wanted a running mate that would guarantee headlines and ensure that people will think he’s a decisive, bold leader who makes his own decisions and doesn’t take it safe, then he’d choose Paul Manafort.
Agreed, but in cases where the candidate is seen as ‘boring’ (Al Gore, Hillary Clinton,) perhaps a splashier pick would have helped. DiFi or Andrew Cuomo for Gore, Bernie or Booker for Clinton, say. Certainly, Joe Lieberman and Tim Kaine did nothing to move the needle.
I would be willing to lay down a sizable bet in Vegas that Trump picks a woman. I’m just hoping he picks the wrong one (like MTG.)
Tulsi Gabbard would certainly be the “exciting” pick and the one I’d advise him to make, at least on paper. Or one of the African-American choices.
Just to be clear, she’s the one you’d advise him to pick if you were on his side?
As to whether she would be helpful to him, Gabbard has no children. Few voters might admit to it if asked in a poll, but I think that a female candidate will benefit politically from being a mother. Maybe Trump should tell the women under consideration that if anyone can show him a positive pregnancy test, they have the job. If this supreme obnoxiousness leaks out, it will be just the sort of bad publicity he thrives on.
Probably. He can say he’s brought over a “Democrat” and as a lady person and not white she’s a bonus. In their minds. The best, safe pick would be…Larry Hogan? Mike Flynn?
Seriously, given how heavily RFK Jr. has pivoted into traditional Republican/MAGA talking points (still an outlier on environmental issues) if Trump made him the VP candidate instead of having him run independent, I could see that as giving Trump an edge. I don’t think he’d do it at ALL, given Trump’s demands for loyalty and someone he could dominate, but in terms of giving him an electoral edge, I think it would be viable.
I will take a long shot: he could pick one of his children. For these reasons:
-
“Why would I want to give any recognition or authority to some nobody?”
-
Just his name on stickers, banners, campaign materials (Just TRUMP, not TRUMP/Trump)
-
His children are uniquely biddable because he has something to hold over them that he doesn’t over anyone else: their inheritance.
(Actually, I’d bet that in his withered heart of hearts, he’d prefer no vice-president at all, but that would be so flagrantly against the rules that I think it wouldn’t fly even among the but what if we didn’t . . . crowd.)