Yes, Vance is going to hurt him with the voters he needs. He is already offending women without Children.

Trump thought he had this thing wrapped up, he needs a women to counter... Not Vance.

Vance talks too much crap for the VP choice. He needs to smile, be polite to everybody and when he has a debate, if he does, then he needs to explain his policy stances.

He was an underwhelming pick.

Still should have gone with Tulsi.

That said, the VP won't lose an election, that will be on Trump.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Vance talks too much crap for the VP choice. He needs to smile, be polite to everybody and when he has a debate, if he does, then he needs to explain his policy stances.

He was an underwhelming pick.

Still should have gone with Tulsi.

---

Agree with you, Forest. The announcement of Tulsi would bring many women voters to the tent. She is a veteran and loves our country. Best part would have been Kamala peeing her pantsuit upon the announcement.

dale.

not too late.

- kkm

{ sipping coffee }

william said:

---

dale.

not too late.

- kkm

{ sipping coffee }

---

I agree, the election has changed. If Dems can change out top, changing VP is not an issue. Gabbard would be better than Vance, he is a wildcard lightning rod. He is he LAST person Trump needed...

Here's the deal....Vance isn't talking about us as voters. He's talking about the leadership of this country not having a stake in the future of this country. He's talking about the LEADERSHIP of the demoncrat party not having a reason to care what this country looks like in 10, 20, 50 years.

Those in leadership with kids absolutely care about what this country looks like over the next 50 years, as we all should. However, those without children in leadership clearly do not care, as evidenced by things like the green new deal, and numerous other initiatives put forward by them that do nothing except put America behind the 8 ball on the world scale.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Now that the Dems have defended democracy and run a bait and switch and installed their 100 iq deitard?

I wasn't a fan of Vance as the pick personally

She'll put her accomplishments up against trumps she says lmao mmmmk

---

Should have gone with Ben Carson... but they are stuck with the guy now.

Republicans have a awful track record with picking VP candidates in my lifetime.

---

Still better than Palin.....but not much.

Is there a law saying they are stuck with him.
Go with a moderate woman now. Make the change.

He did say this in 2021. They should have vetted him better.
We always hear about "misogyny", but that was actual misogyny.

Yes, we all know some "cat ladies" and just like "old men yelling at clouds" there is
some truth to the "cat lady" myth, but man his statement was just stupid.

>born as james donald bowman
>changed middle name to david
>changes name again to jimmy hamel
>changed name to jd vance 10 years ago when he married his wife
>grew up in the suburbs of ohio
>not poor at all, went to yale

how do people fall for this “hillbilly elegy” shit pic.twitter.com/LjY5w5KMbl

— Jon Miller (@MillerStream) July 25, 2024

I thought JD Vance was strange and didnt love the pick but if he is really pissing off libs like Aniston than maybe i'm warming up to him. I do 100% agree that we need Americans to have more kids and we need less foreigners coming here. If things dont change we will be living in a totally different country in a couple of generations.

I still think there is something strange about JD but I'm willing to give him a chance.

Just like anything Trump says or does, the MSM and their allies are going to twist, distort, mischaracterize, and out and out lie about anything his VP choice has said or is saying whether it's Vance, Gabbard, Burgham, Carson, DeSantis, Rubio, etc. Had he picked Gabbard, who thinks these leftist piranhas would automatically lay off simply because Trump went with a woman? Personally I didn't necessarily think Vance was the best possible choice either, but again in the big picture I don't think it's going to matter much in the long run.

tommy1005 said:

---

Here's the deal....Vance isn't talking about us as voters. He's talking about the leadership of this country not having a stake in the future of this country. He's talking about the LEADERSHIP of the demoncrat party not having a reason to care what this country looks like in 10, 20, 50 years.

Those in leadership with kids absolutely care about what this country looks like over the next 50 years, as we all should. However, those without children in leadership clearly do not care, as evidenced by things like the green new deal, and numerous other initiatives put forward by them that do nothing except put America behind the 8 ball on the world scale.

---

If you have to explain it, you've already lost.

Johnny Bear said:

---

Just like anything Trump says or does, the MSM and their allies are going to twist, distort, mischaracterize, and out and out lie about anything his VP choice has said or is saying whether it's Vance, Gabbard, Burgham, Carson, DeSantis, Rubio, etc. Had he picked Gabbard, who thinks these leftist piranhas would automatically lay off simply because Trump went with a woman? Personally I didn't necessarily think Vance was the best possible choice either, but again in the big picture I don't think it's going to matter much in the long run.

---

No, but Tulsi wouldn't call out women for not having babies! Geez, that is the demographic that Trump does worst, so alienate them more?

The_barBEARian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I have been trying to warn every conservative man I know - these JD comments are activating women across all sides, including my most conservative Trump supporting friends.

These comments have caused real pain and are just innately unchristian.

This is not who we are. https://t.co/VBpmDlzgEo

— Meghan McCain (@MeghanMcCain) July 25, 2024

---

The results speak for themselves.

Single women vote far left.

The more autonomy the west has given to women, who are more prone to making decision based on their feelings, the worse off the quality of life and plummeting demographics of the native born populations.

Men already had their hands full dealing with gays and weak soyjaks... allowing women voting rights tipped the balance.

---

What about married women who wanted kids but couldn't have them? Or married women with kids and an abusive husband? Or conservative women who never married?

Women will decide this election.

This was another Trump self-inflicted wound. It will end up coming back to bite him. Vance was not a strong candidate.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

tommy1005 said:

---

Here's the deal....Vance isn't talking about us as voters. He's talking about the leadership of this country not having a stake in the future of this country. He's talking about the LEADERSHIP of the demoncrat party not having a reason to care what this country looks like in 10, 20, 50 years.

Those in leadership with kids absolutely care about what this country looks like over the next 50 years, as we all should. However, those without children in leadership clearly do not care, as evidenced by things like the green new deal, and numerous other initiatives put forward by them that do nothing except put America behind the 8 ball on the world scale.

---

If you have to explain it, you've already lost.

---

That's true.

Kind of like Kamala and the border.

boognish_bear said:

---

My wife was pretty excited when Vance was first announced....but the more she hears now though the less enthusiasm she's having for the pick.

Agree that the top ticket is what really matters....but in a race that may end up having pretty tight margins any slight negative could be damaging.

---

This is how I feel as well. We can argue and debate whose worse between Trump & Kamala, but the average American has a poor opinion on both, making the VP picks way more consequential than a typical election.

IMO Vance was a terrible pick from a strategic front, as all he really does is represent the voter base that was already voting Trump to begin with.

BearWithMe said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

My wife was pretty excited when Vance was first announced....but the more she hears now though the less enthusiasm she's having for the pick.

Agree that the top ticket is what really matters....but in a race that may end up having pretty tight margins any slight negative could be damaging.

---

This is how I feel as well. We can argue and debate whose worse between Trump & Kamala, but the average American has a poor opinion on both, making the VP picks way more consequential than a typical election.

IMO Vance was a terrible pick from a strategic front, as all he really does is represent the voter base that was already voting Trump to begin with.

---

Vance was a hubris pick that is going to come back and bite Trump. Scott, Haley, Burchum, even Gabbard would have been good picks as they bring something to the table. Vance brings nothing and even looks like a grooming to continue 8 more years of Trump after he is done. That is going to be deterrent to vote for them.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Yes, Vance is going to hurt him with the voters he needs. He is already offending women without Children.

Trump thought he had this thing wrapped up, he needs a women to counter... Not Vance.

---

He was not likely to get those voters in the first place....they are one of the most Blue demographics out there.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

My wife was pretty excited when Vance was first announced....but the more she hears now though the less enthusiasm she's having for the pick.

Agree that the top ticket is what really matters....but in a race that may end up having pretty tight margins any slight negative could be damaging.

---

This is how I feel as well. We can argue and debate whose worse between Trump & Kamala, but the average American has a poor opinion on both, making the VP picks way more consequential than a typical election.

IMO Vance was a terrible pick from a strategic front, as all he really does is represent the voter base that was already voting Trump to begin with.

---

Vance was a hubris pick that is going to come back and bite Trump. Scott, Haley, Burchum, even Gabbard would have been good picks as they bring something to the table. Vance brings nothing and even looks like a grooming to continue 8 more years of Trump after he is done. That is going to be deterrent to vote for them.

---

100% agree. Any of the names mentioned would have been significantly better.

tommy1005 said:

---

Here's the deal....Vance isn't talking about us as voters. He's talking about the leadership of this country not having a stake in the future of this country. He's talking about the LEADERSHIP of the demoncrat party not having a reason to care what this country looks like in 10, 20, 50 years.

Those in leadership with kids absolutely care about what this country looks like over the next 50 years, as we all should. However, those without children in leadership clearly do not care, as evidenced by things like the green new deal, and numerous other initiatives put forward by them that do nothing except put America behind the 8 ball on the world scale.

---

that makes sense.. maybe you should help Vance explain it better, he sucked at getting that point across without sounding like a dewsh