Doesn’t matter anymore. So what if people ask questions? He’s still got that shiny new 10 million dollars a year job. Why would he care?
I mean, Clarence Thomas is pretty much openly taking bribes and he doesn’t care about “questions” either.
Walz is everyone’s favorite uncle. Vance is the uncle you never leave alone with your kid.
Yup, haha!
Let us not forget the Masked Singer.
Neatly done!
I thought this was an interesting interview between Ben Meiselas and Anthony Scaramucci (da Moooch):
Da Mooch says there’s a 40% chance that Trump will drop out of the race and a 40% chance that he will dump Vance (I’m not sure how those two stats relate, but clearly these are just rough numbers, lol).
Has he ever made a correct prediction? Why does anyone care about that clown’s insights?
He actually comes across as cool and funny to me, but YMMV.
Say what you will, but he knows Trump and knows other people who know Trump, so he has a sort of insider’s take on things.
Sure–but “cool and funny” isn’t the same as “very good at making predictions”.
I predicted that DeSantis would be a catastrophic failure of a candidate and that JD Vance would be a disaster for the ticket when other people here were arguing otherwise.
But you do have a point. I think it’s fun to make interesting predictions that have some plausibility to them.
I’ve stolen this.
Aren’t you leaving out some of your other predictions? 
In any case Scaramucci can make 40% predictions all day long. They’re never going to look wrong and he’ll keep get invited to opine by people that like his predictions.
Among other notable predictions that were…sliiiiiiiiiiiiiightly less accurate. Pro top: you might not want to call attention to the accuracy of your political prescience. (And I’ll say it again: these clickbait-y sites you keep citing are worth the paper they are printed on, in terms of predictions, at least).
Of course. I just meant to point out that I had gotten some contrarian things I predicted right.
They do help keep one fully abreast of what’s going on the presidential election, however. Like on a minute-by-minute scale. 
Oh, I also had an argument here like last year or so in a thread about Harris’s likability that she would be a great candidate. It was like everyone on the board against myself and like two other people.
I didnt have any issues with Harris is something happened to Biden.
This isn’t meant to be particularly focused on yourself, but there is a tendency in punditry to use intensifiers, saying something is a disaster when it is just a small negative.
Vance and Trump have similar approval/disapproval polling, and I think for similar reasons. So I question that Vance is really pulling Trump down. I think that if Trump picked a woman, it would have helped him a bit by sending a signal that he isn’t right-wing seven ways to Sunday. Same if he picked Rubio. But Vance just shows that a Trump administration will be Trumpy.
Palin was a real problem for the GOP because the things about her that turned off some potential voters (weird extremist) were different from McCain’s potential turnoffs (Washington insider RINO). Trump and Vance have the same negatives (weird extremist).
P.S. This is one of those posts where I half think I am wrong.
I’d been wondering how many Scaramuccis Vance would last.
That kind of thing is hard to poll and would be hard to prove even if there were polling. But it’s hard to imagine a worse candidate than Vance has proven to be. He has been polled as the VP pick with the lowest favorability in modern history, and he’s garnered a ton of bad press. If he hasn’t dragged down Trump, perhaps no one could have done so. But there’s another factor that you allude to:
I think the pick of Mike Pence really helped Trump by helping create the “permission structure” for Evangelicals and, yes, normal people to vote for him. A woman would do the same kind of thing for women. Vance doesn’t help normalize Trump, so it’s a missed opportunity. How big is that opportunity cost? Again, hard to compute and prove.
Interesting point, and you may be right. At the same time, however, Palin was a woman with the potential benefits that come with that, despite her idiocy.
I think even experts in the field would have a hard time defending a position based on hard data instead of commensensical arguments.
LOL. I don’t think the Trump of 2016 would have kept him on this long. At the same time, I don’t think he would have picked him in the first place (he was listening to smarter people then, not Tucker Carlson and his idiot sons, per rumor). I think the main reason why Trump hasn’t ditched him is that Trump is tired and out of it and barely able to make any moves at present.