Trump’s Secret Weapon: The Genius of Choosing Senator JD Vance as VP

By REVOLVER NEWS    27 March 2024

By all accounts, President Trump’s search for a running mate is entering the home stretch.

Most reports have Trump down to a small stable of likely picks, and on Tuesday, Bloomberg released a report that, if true, narrows the field even more:

Donald Trump has ruled out Vivek Ramaswamy as his running mate and is instead eyeing the entrepreneur for a Cabinet job, according to people familiar with the matter, as the Republican presidential nominee sizes up a possible administration.

Trump personally told Ramaswamy he won’t be his vice presidential pick, according to people briefed on the discussion, but is considering him for posts including Homeland Security secretary.

Trump is known to change his mind about personnel and policy, but for now, he isn’t satisfied with his roster of vice presidential possibilities. Stefanik, the No. 3 House Republican, is seen as lacking a national profile, fundraising base, or ability to deliver her home of New York state, a long-held pipe dream for Trump, a Queens native. But she’s likely to have a Cabinet role, people close to Trump said.

Trump has complained that Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, one of his former White House press secretaries, waited too long to endorse him. Senator Katie Britt of Alabama botched her odds because of her widely-panned response to Biden’s State of the Union, and was already viewed skeptically by Trump hardliners as an ally of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

And just like that, four of the 12 leading contenders that Axios profiled just two weeks ago are out—for now, anyway.

Many expect Trump to choose a woman, a black, or a Hispanic to be his running mate, operating on the thesis that Trump just needs more diversity points to get over the hump next fall.

We will, of course, support President Trump, no matter his choice. We want Trump to win in 2024, and we want his political revolution to win in the annals of history. Making the right call for vice president is crucial to both of those desires. And in Revolver’s view, simply picking a “diverse” candidate is not the way to go. Instead, the answer is clear: Among the names still being considered for the role of Donald Trump’s running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance leads the pack.

With any vice presidential choice, there are two primary factors to consider. First, does the choice boost the presidential ticket’s chances of winning? Second, would the choice be desirable as an actual U.S. president, acting as the successor to the president who came before?

Many of the popular vice presidential choices fulfill neither of these criteria (who votes Trump because Kristi Noem is on the ticket?). Some fulfill one. Vance fulfills both.

How? Allow us to explain.

Vance Emphasizes Trump’s Strengths

To begin, let’s take a step back to 2016. While everyone is obviously fed up with Mike Pence today, back in 2016, he was a brilliant strategic choice by Trump for a running mate. As a total political neophyte, Trump needed an experienced colleague to reassure voters that while he was bringing change, he wasn’t bringing sheer chaos. Pence, a former representative and sitting governor, provided that. Trump also needed a running mate who would reassure the Republican base that they weren’t being tricked into backing a “fake Republican.” Finally, and most importantly, Trump also needed a running mate who filled those two roles but who also wouldn’t melt down and abandon the ticket over a fake scandal like the Access Hollywood tape. Pence capably filled that role; in 2016, he was the right man for the spot. In fact, in the landscape of 2016, Pence was one of the only choices who could get Trump over the hump to victory.

But 2024 is a very different race at a very different time, and that calls for a very different kind of vice presidential pick. In 2016, the VP choice needed to bolster a potential vulnerability. In 2024, Trump should choose a running mate who emphasizes his strengths. 

What are those strengths?

  • Trump has overwhelming anti-establishment credibility. He is hated by the right people.
  • Trump has a reflexive hatred of America’s “political bullshit.” He doesn’t fall for or repeat D.C.-concocted scams like “Ukraine is central to American security” or “Illegal immigrants do the jobs Americans won’t do.” This gives Trump an unbeatable reputation as a tells-it-like-it-is straight talker.
  • Unapologetic America-first nationalism. Doesn’t pretend the rest of the world’s people are just like Americans, except when they’re better.
  • Trump has an intuitive ability to speak to the concerns and priorities of the “forgotten man” in middle America.
  • Trump was obviously better at the job than the sitting incumbent.

It’s possible that Trump will spend weeks of peak campaign season in a courtroom in Florida, New York, Fulton County, or Washington, D.C. It’s even possible that, after a politically motivated conviction, an equally politically motivated judge orders Trump imprisoned pending his appeal. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that Donald Trump will spend a portion of next fall or even Election Night itself behind bars. Far more than in 2016 or 2020, President Trump should have a partner who can speak powerfully to the same core issues that made him such a dynamic political force from the moment he descended the Trump Tower escalator in 2015.

Who does that the best? Clearly, Vance.

At this point, nobody is developing a first impression of Donald Trump. The whole world knows what he is about and what he isn’t. Instead, what Trump ought to do is maximize the level of excitement for his candidacy: convert the lukewarm into the passionate, and the passionate into votes in ballot boxes. Instead of looking for geographic “balance” or college admissions-style “diversity” points, Trump should be looking to maximize what has always been his greatest political asset: the narrative of his candidacy. Donald Trump, smasher of idols. Donald Trump, humiliator of the Washington elites. Donald Trump, savior of Middle America, and the Forgotten Man. Donald Trump, the man in a red tie and a red hat, will make America great again.

And no politician on the national stage embodies the political narrative of the Trump revolution more than Ohio’s junior senator. From the beginning, fate has linked their destinies and their personal stories. Trump turned the decline, dysfunction, and hopeful revitalization of middle America and its people into the biggest issue in the country. Meanwhile, Vance’s memoir Hillbilly Elegy, about growing up with a pill-addicted mother in a fading Ohio town, was, from the moment of its release, understood not merely as a memoir but as the key to grasping Trump’s unexpected and tremendous political appeal. The themes of Hillbilly Elegy helped thousands of people grasp what had happened to their country and why so many were ready to roll the dice on a reality TV show businessman to fix it. Ironically, at the time of the book’s release, Vance wasn’t yet a Trump supporter, but the overlap of his life with Trump’s message was so powerful that the two have been linked together ever since. And when Vance pivoted from memoirist to politician, he didn’t just become a supporter of President Trump. He became Trump’s most visionary, most articulate, and best supporter.

Vance’s role as a Trump super-supporter is so strong that news outlets can’t help gushing about it at length. In fact, Politico just did so, with a staggering 9,000-word article that tries to frame J.D. Vance as an “ominous” ultra-MAGAite but actually just makes him look awesome.


In certain conservative circles, Vance has emerged as the standard-bearer of the “New Right,” a loose movement of young, edgy and elite conservatives trying to take the ideological revolution that began under Trump — including his overt embrace of nationalism, his hard-line stance on immigration, his vocal opposition of U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts like Ukraine and his overt skepticism toward certain liberal democratic principles — in an even more radical direction. Unlike Trump’s more conventional Republican followers, Vance’s New Right cohort see Trump as merely the first step in a broader populist-nationalist revolution that is already reshaping the American right — and, if they get their way, that will soon reshape America as a whole.

Just like Trump, Vance has a fearless streak. He’s unafraid of being denounced as too extreme, too “racist,” or even too cringe. He vocally opposed U.S. involvement in Ukraine when it was a position held by virtually no one except himself, Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, and, of course, Revolver. He runs funny ads asking if voters think they’re racist. And best of all, he shares articles from naughty right-wing websites about how American airports are appalling hellholes.

Vance Is Loyal

Vance’s entire political career, from the beginning, has been as a supporter of Trump and an avatar of Trumpism. Most high-profile Republicans are simply not that way. They were first elected ten, twenty, or *shudder* forty-nine years ago.They entered politics as members of a Republican Party that had different standout issues, different rhetoric, a different political style, and different priorities. There’s a reason that practically zero elected Republicans supported Trump in 2015, and in 2016, a huge share of them only begrudgingly supported “the Republican nominee.”

It’s not that Vance deserves to be “rewarded” for loyalty. That’s irrelevant, and nobody is ever “owed” a vice presidential slot.

But Washington has spent nearly a decade earnestly normalizing the idea of using the 25th Amendment to yank a president from office. Beltway insiders repeatedly floated the idea during Trump’s first term, and the trauma of being “governed” by Joe Biden’s shambling husk has caused plenty of Republicans to imagine a Cabinet coup.

So let’s just scuttle the idea from the start. Don’t simply “trust” that a Republican who has been in office since 2010 or 2000 or even earlier will have authentically evolved away from Bush-era “conservatism” towards alignment with Trump. Give Donald Trump a true believer and a fellow traveler.

Vance Is a Winner

Like Trump, Vance leapt right into politics without doing much to build up experience at lower levels. The Ohio Senate job is the first office he ever ran for. The competition for it was intense, with six viable candidates at one point or another. Just like the 2016 presidential primary, it was a bitter, multi-sided race. In the first poll with Vance as a candidate, he polled at 2% support. Mitch McConnell did everything he could to stop him. The Club for Growth spent millions of dollars trying to derail his rise. Yet they all failed, and with a boost from Trump himself, Vance climbed his way from minor candidate, to contender, to nominee, to U.S. Senator.

In politics, there is no substitute for victory, and Vance has shown he has a natural talent for winning those victories.

Vance Understands the Most Critical Issues

Two years ago, when he was still just a primary candidate for the Senate, Vance did an interview with Revolver. We asked him what he would consider the #1 issue to resolve if he were Senate Majority Leader. His response has aged like a fine Chardonnay:

I personally think the southern border crisis is a historic catastrophe, so I’d focus my efforts there. And there is a jarring contrast between that crisis and the one in Ukraine: for four years, Congressional Democrats (and Republicans) refused to give Donald Trump $4bn for a border wall; they gave Joe Biden $14bn for aide to Ukraine in a week.

Fresh Off Debate Victory, America First Senate Candidate J.D. Vance Talks With Revolver About His Plans to Take Back the Country

Vance also elaborated on his Ukraine position in a way that showed it wasn’t just a one-off and that he had a serious understanding of what makes a “Trumpian” foreign policy work:

The most important thing is to separate moralizing from strategic interest. The media always accused Trump of being a “Putin stooge” or being “pro-Russia” for saying that he had a good relationship with Putin. It’s just such a preposterous argument. To be an effective negotiator, you need to accept that the other party has distinct interests. … [I]f you walk in to a foreign policy dispute obsessing over who the ”bad guy” is, you’ll make stupid decisions. Trump is maybe the first American president of my lifetime who understood this.

Most right-wing media sells Trump short on foreign policy. You hear all the time that Putin would have never invaded Ukraine because “Trump was strong.” That is true, but Trump was also smart! He didn’t antagonize every world leader. He accepted that other countries — even those led by evil men — have strategic goals that we need to acknowledge. Remember how every media outlet attacked Trump for being evil because he said something polite about a rival’s leader? Trump’s response was always: “it’s actually important to be able to talk to people.” This is just so obvious, yet 99 percent of the establishment ignored it.

A lot of things flow from this. For example, because very few people in the current establishment think strategically — but they can moralize all day long — we should inherently mistrust them and give them as little power as possible. We should avoid military conflict if possible, because the mediocrities in that same establishment are driven more by emotional considerations than the interest of their country.

This is more than just a matter of Vance being able to give a good interview answer. Can you imagine a politician who can deftly talk about the Ukraine war and America’s geopolitical interests like that getting to face Kamala Harris in a vice presidential debate?

How about in a White House? More so than any politician in American history, Donald Trump has to worry about frauds and saboteurs beneath him diverting and ruining his presidential agenda. Trump is only one very busy man and will need enforcers in his administration to ensure MAGA is carried out. From 2017 through 2020, Mike Pence didn’t provide that. Vance can, and that’s a recipe for a vastly more effective Trump White House.

Vance Has Savvy on Republicans’ Toughest Issue

It would be easy for us to simply tout Vance as a firebreathing MAGA winger who will be the most based candidate at all times. Plenty of our readers would like it. But actually, that isn’t what Vance is, and it shouldn’t be.

Politics is, ultimately, a popularity contest and a means of hashing out disagreements. Some politicians recognize that, and some find it easier to never compromise and also never win a national election. The challenge is getting candidates who know the difference between compromising on policy and compromising on values.

Vance has capably navigated one of the thorniest issues for Republicans in the past two election cycles: abortion. Ever since the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, a “Dobbs effect” has cost Republicans votes in many of the same states they are looking to win next November. Strict abortion laws have repeatedly gone before the public in up-or-down votes, and they have repeatedly lost. Trump himself is reportedly worried that having a veep pick who calls for a national abortion ban would turn away swing voters, and he’s right to worry.

There are a lot of Republicans who, bluntly, pander to the pro-life movement by making big promises that are also a complete political fantasy. Remember back in September 2022, when Lindsey Graham introduced a 15-week abortion ban into the Senate? It was the height of self-serving political idiocy. The ban was never going to pass, but it garnered a mountain of media coverage, especially from the most shrill corners of the left. By mobilizing the opposition, Graham’s bill made pro-abortion votes at the state level more likely to pass and pro-abortion Democrats more likely to win. The only winners were abortionists, Democrats, and Lindsey Graham, who bolstered his “true conservative” credentials well ahead of a 2026 primary challenge.

Vance, on the other hand, is an actual serious thinker on the issue. After Ohio voters tossed out a post-Dobbs pro-life law, Vance responded with what was hard to say but had to be said:

For pro lifers, last night was a gut punch. No sugar coating it.

Giving up on the unborn is not an option. It’s politically dumb and morally repugnant. Instead, we need to understand why we lost this battle so we can win the war.

I was very involved in the “no” campaign for issue 1, so let me share a few insights.

First, we got creamed among voters who disliked both Issue 1 and also Ohio’s current law (heartbeat bill). We saw this consistently in polling and in conversations. “I don’t like Issue 1, but I’d rather have that extreme than the other extreme.” This is a political fact, not my opinion.

Second, we have to recognize how much voters mistrust us (meaning elected Republicans) on this issue. Having an unplanned pregnancy is scary. Best case, you’re looking at social scorn and thousands of dollars of unexpected medical bills. We need people to see us as the pro-life party, not just the anti-abortion party.

Third, as Donald Trump has said, “you’ve got to have the exceptions.” I am as pro life as anyone, and I want to save as many babies as possible. This is not about moral legitimacy but political reality. I’ve seen dozens of good polls on the abortion question in the last few months, many of them done in Ohio. Give people a choice between abortion restrictions very early in pregnancy with exceptions, or the pro choice position, and the pro life view has a fighting chance. Give people a heartbeat bill with no exceptions and it loses 65-35. (The reason we didn’t lose 65-35 last night is that some people who hate “no exceptions” restrictions will still refuse to vote for things like Issue 1).

Fourth, we’ve spent so much time winning a legal argument on abortion that we’ve fallen behind on the moral argument. I talked to so many decent people who voted yes on Issue 1, and their reasons varied. Some described themselves as “pro life” but hated the lack of a rape exception in Ohio law. Some were worried that Ohio law would prevent them from addressing an ectopic pregnancy, or a late term miscarriage. Some didn’t understand the “viability” standard in Issue 1, and thought that of course you should be able to abort a “non-viable” pregnancy as that would be a danger to the mother. You can criticize the propaganda effort on the other side for lying to people about these issues or confusing the populace, but it suggests we have to do a much better job of persuasion. And I’m not just talking about 30 second TV commercials–I’m talking about sustained, years long efforts to show the heart of the pro life movement.

Fifth, money. We got outspent big time on Issue 1, and across the country. Republicans are almost always outspent by Democrats. Relatedly, Democrats are better at turning out in off year elections. The national party should be focused on two, and only two issues: how to juice turnout in off year elections and how to close the finance gap with Democrats.

A lot of people put their heart and soul into this campaign. The local right to life organizations in Ohio, The Center for Christian Virtue, SBA, Governor Dewine, and so many others. I tip my hat to them.

A lot of people are celebrating right now, and I don’t care about that. I do care about the fact that because we lost, many innocent children will never have a chance to live their dreams.

There is something sociopathic about a political movement that tells young women (and men) that it is liberating to murder their own children. So let’s keep fighting for our country’s children, and let’s find a way to win.

For pro lifers, last night was a gut punch. No sugar coating it.

Giving up on the unborn is not an option. It’s politically dumb and morally repugnant. Instead, we need to understand why we lost this battle so we can win the war.

I was very involved in the “no” campaign for…

— J.D. Vance (@JDVance1) November 8, 2023

Vance threads the needle: The pro-life movement is a key part of the Republican coalition and should be supported, but the political strength for sweeping bans in purple states or at the national level is not there. Loudly promising them hurts the cause rather than helping it. For the time being, pro-life campaigners have to focus on long-term persuasion and preserving gains already made before they are wiped out by a voter backlash.


Donald Trump has already achieved more in one lifetime than anyone else living: billionaire businessman, TV superstar, most famous man on earth, U.S. president. Trump is one of the few men of whom it can genuinely be asked: What else does he even have left to achieve?

But there is one thing left, and it’s something that Vance is central to. Donald Trump has already been a hugely successful U.S. president. Should he win another term, he will be successful again.

But the greatest rulers in history aren’t just judged on their own accomplishments but also those of their heirs. Two thousand years ago, Julius Caesar was the Donald Trump of his day: hated by the elites, loved by the masses, enormously energetic, and a political revolutionary who helped make Rome great again. But the most brilliant thing of all that Caesar did was name his teenaged grand-nephew Octavian his heir. Despite his youth, Caesar recognized Octavian’s brilliance. Octavian took Caesar’s political revolution to its completion, establishing an empire that lasted more than a thousand years. Thanks to that, even today, “Caesar” is remembered as perhaps the most influential man in human history other than Christ and Muhammad.

Now, let’s look back at that Politico profile of Vance:

[Vance] presented a sweeping and strikingly systematic account of the outlook that has shaped his tenure in office, premised upon a vision of the current moment in American history that is darker and more cataclysmic than anything he has described in public. He was candid about his desire to fundamentally transform the Republican Party, and he sketched the outlines of an agenda that would, in effect, amount to a radical restructuring of the American economy, U.S. foreign policy and even its constitutional order. He spoke about this project not in terms of election cycles but decades.

“It’s a long-term project,” Vance told me during one of our sit-downs in his Capitol Hill office. “The country wasn’t screwed in a 10-year period, and it’s not going to get unscrewed in a 10-year period.”

By picking Vance—by picking the second-youngest senator, a brilliant man who understands the MAGA impulse at its core and has a full career to bring it to fruition—Donald Trump doesn’t just have to make a play for a second term. He makes a play for immortality. As the 4th century was the Age of Constantine or the 9th was the Age of Charlemagne, Trump can make the 21st into the Age of the Donald.

So let’s mount up, and ride off towards greatness.

April 13, 2024 | 21 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

21 Comments / 21 Comments

  1. @Laura
    The issue of abortion must be left up to the states.

    In fact, the Constitution is either all powerful tool to push thru whatever policies the elected class care to champion, or it actually restricts centralized power to the listed powers described in the constitution and, as the Tenth Amendment makes clear, all other rights not described in the Constitution are reserved to be decided by the individual states.

    I am fiercely anti abortion, myself, but I would not support a federal directive for that or any other state issue. Doing so is how the Federal govt became the intolerable and intolerant enemy of the people as which it stands today. This is how Roe v Wade was held in place for 50yrs, and it is how election theft was organized by the federal govt with local support. The arbitrary adoption of ungranted authority is tyranny, and all freedom loving people in America should reconcile that govt by consent of the governed to the limit of the powers enshrined in the Constitution should be the limit of the authority of the Federal govt.

    Notably, without the adoption of the Tenth Amendment, the Constitution would not have been signed, and without the vigilance of enforcing the Tenth Amendment, the Constitution is just a power play to legitimize tyranny, no matter how moral or useful legitimizing tyranny might be for the moment.

  2. Trump has been wildly flip-flopping on abortion. He wanted Roe overturned and made it happen with his SC picks. Then when the GOP fared poorly in the 2022 midterms he blamed it on some states restrictive abortion laws. Then he announced he wants to make a deal with the dems for a national law of 15 weeks. Then he reversed that position last week by announcing it should be left up to the states. Then the AZ SC upheld its state’s strict abortion law. Trump responded by saying that law goes too far and will be corrected days after announcing it should be up to the states. Where does Trump actually stand on abortion? He’s incoherent on that issue. Any other Republican would be slammed by the party base for these multiple flip-flops.

    Her absolutist stance on abortion appears to have knocked her off Trump’s list. From 2 days ago.

  3. @Sebastien

    they’re all pretty much the same on Israel on the Republican side. Comparatively good but not great.

    Yes, I agree. So Trump will keep his promise to pick someone who is pro Israel, but I am not sure if there is really a political animal out there who is as pro Israel as Trump has demonstrated himself to be, which concerns me that we will wind up with another W in terms of supporting Israel, ie they will do so until it becomes politically expedient to do otherwise.

  4. @Peloni You are undoubtedly right but there’s no reason not to root for him, is there? It’s like 2016, other than Mike Huckabee, who has left politics, I’m just assuming his daughter agrees with him but I don’t really know, they’re all pretty much the same on Israel on the Republican side. Comparatively good but not great. Except for Friedman, who enunciates our position to a tee. Imagine a president like that? We’ve never had one. It’s always been this nonsense “even-handedness” playing both sides against the middle, even if leaning now towards more this side, now towards the other, and with the boat changing direction every 4 or 8 years.

  5. @Sebastien

    He’s ruled out anybody with an absolutist position on abortion like Noem

    Good point. You are correct. I don’t think he will pick Noem.

    Regarding Friedman, I think he is too politically isolated on the issue of Israel, ie I watch a lot of interviews with Friedman, and am unaware of his positions on nearly any other topic. And as you note, Trump is not picking someone for VP, he is picking someone to pickup the reigns of leadership after him. I don’t think Friedman would be that man.

  6. What about Friedman?
    David Friedman presents: ‘The Future of Judea & Samaria’ sovereignty plan Former US Ambassador to Israel’s new proposal calls for full Israeli sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley, alongside Palestinian enclaves with maximum civilian autonomy subject to Israeli overriding security control.
    Mar 1, 2024, 1:09 AM (GMT+2)

    Former Ambassador Friedman: ‘America is holding Israel back’
    David Friedman, former US Ambassador to Israel, sums up the past six months: ‘Israel has the will and strength to eliminate Hamas and release the hostages. Right now, America is holding Israel back

    My comment: He looks old but he was born in August 1958. He’s 65. Though he has no executive experience as a governor. He has worn many distinguished hats but he was Trump’s bankruptcy lawyer. Can’t think of anybody less likely to betray him, can you? And the liberal elites HATE him. So, they will want to keep Trump in office for the duration. Don’t pooh pooh him. Can you name a single other politician out there who is saying everything we want to hear up front like this? He might approve the Jordan Option. I can pretty much guarantee the others won’t even if the Jordanian airforce hadn’t help shoot down Iranian missiles headed for Israel. It needs an American president to OK it to work, right? Today’s VP is normally tomorrow’s party pick for president.

  7. Oh, there it goes. How ’bout I just write in acronyms and you can try to guess what I mean . I took a cultural history course about Melville in college which analyzed him like that. 😀

  8. @Bear

    Her absolutist stance on abortion appears to have knocked her off Trump’s list. From 2 days ago.

    Kristi Noem

    Graphic: Intelligencer; Photos: Getty
    PROS: Kristi Noem has impeccable MAGA credentials. She has government experience but is no creature of “the swamp”; she served as South Dakota’s sole representative in the U.S. House for eight years before she was elected as the state’s first female governor in 2018. In 2020, she gained national attention for easing up on COVID restrictions faster than other governors and supporting Trump’s election-fraud lies. Noem has been issuing orders and legislation that put her at the center of hot culture-war issues, such as banning “critical race theory” and targeting transgender people. She was also the top pick for VP (tied with Vivek Ramaswamy) among attendees at the 2024 CPAC.
    CONS: South Dakota is a solidly red state with only three Electoral College votes. In 2023, several outlets reported that the married mother of three was having an “absurdly blatant” affair with Trump adviser Corey Lewandowski (she’s denied this). Trump is reportedly concerned that Noem is too strict on abortion; she has called herself an “absolutist” on the issue and has defended the lack of rape and incest exceptions in her state’s extreme abortion ban. In April, Puck reported that after landing on his “states rights” abortion stance Trump decided to cross abortion extremists off his short list — and that means Noem.
    LOYALTY CHECK: She can often be seen on Newsmax, Fox News, and other right-wing outlets almost openly campaigning for the job of Trump’s VP.
    “LOOK” CHECK: Noem passes with flying colors. She’s a former farm girl and beauty queen whose recent memoir, Not My First Rodeo, is “chock-full of folksy idioms and Bible verses,” per The Atlantic.
    TRUMP’S STANCE: He mentioned Noem (along with Tim Scott) as a potential VP pick in February 2024, saying she’s “been incredible fighting” for him. Noem was among the six people Trump (offhandedly) confirmed are on his shortlist during a February 20 Fox News town hall. Noem met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago on February 27.
    NOEM’S STANCE: When Newsmax asked her if she’d consider an offer to be Trump’s VP, she said “Oh, absolutely. I would in a heartbeat.”

    substanitating link to abortion question leads to:

    What about Ambassador Friedman as I mentioned before? He’s younger than he looks. He was born in 1958. He actually supports sovereignty albeit with some sort of joint rule arrangement with friendly Arab states over the Arab enclaves in the territories in which the Pals would only have legal residency.

  9. @Bear

    Kristy Noem is the correct choice for VP.

    I think she should be a strong contender for the position. She acknowledged the election fraud in real time, opposed the psyop on January 6, and has proven herself to be a strong executive. I am however still greatly displeased with her having partially vetoed a bill on allowing trans genders in girls sport under pressure from the ACLU and the NAACP. Still, she would be an obvious candidate to consider for the job. Also, she has a very strong record on Israel and antisemitism.

  10. @Sebastien
    Carson would indeed be a surprise to many, but he is aligned very closely to Trump, and does not come from the Never Trumper branch of the party, but he lacks executive experience, which I believe is an important factor in gaining Trump’s support. Of course, this is a problem with many of the potential candidates suggested for VP, but I think it is a key interest in why Trump chose Pence and that Trump will be hard pressed to choose someone to follow him who has no such executive experience already. Just my own thoughts of course.

    As far as Carson’s position on Israel, he is quite supportive, and when he speaks of making peace, he focuses his remarks upon the peace between Israel and her neighbors rather than on between Israel and the genocidal Pals. He has also stated quite clearly that Hamas must be utterly destroyed and Israel should be given every support to do so.

  11. @Peloni

    I was just perusing some of the lists with their pros and cons as recently as one day ago and they all seem problematic. It’s my guess that he is going to make an unexpected choice of someone no one is looking at and that he will wait as long as possible to announce it, bearing in mind the Alinskyite dictum: “freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.” Demonizing someone successfully with a mob has to have to time to go through these stages.

    Though a number of pundits have guessed that the more extreme positions on abortion that some potential picks have compared to him would be a minus, but actually, that could be a shield for him because that would make them even less acceptable to a large portion of his opposition.

    However, of the lists I saw, the one candidate that even the View didn’t have the heart to attack was Ben Carson though they’d like his policies even less than Trump’s. And, he’s soft-spoken but he’s nobody’s pushover. He’s pro-Israel.

  12. @Sebastien

    Trump ruled out Sanders because she didn’t endorse him right away. I like her, too.

    It was a good reason to rule her out. Trump needs a VP who is solidly supportive of him, not someone who is hedging their bets.

    Stephanic is too small of a political character, though I have like her a great deal since she first appeared leading the Rep response to the Russia Hoax on a daily basis back in 2017-8. Her recent position on calling out antisemites in the universities has put her on the map, so to speak, but this is very recent, and I don’t really think that she is a serious consideration.

    Another point of contention which I have about Trump choosing either of the legislators, Stefanik or Vance is that neither of them are not governors, ie they lack any executive experience, though Vance was previously a venture capitalist indicating some of what might be needed for the VP position, but I had expected that Trump would choose a successful governor as his running mate.

    Also, Vance is not an isolationist. The US needs to disentangle itself from the Ukraine fiasco which has been mismanaged for the last decade, and pivot towards China. His position with Europe is also very much aligned with that of Trump. These are not isolationist views, and will likely be the positions held by anyone whom Trump might consider choosing as his running mate.

    Notably, Vance cosponsored an Israel only bill two weeks after October 7, demonstrating his strong support for Israel.

    I dislike the fact that Vance started out as a Never Trumper back in 2016, but he has come to be one of the greatest proponents of the MAGA platform, and it would appear Vance’s previous criticisms of Trump have not deterred Trump.

    Still, I am not convinced that Trump will choose either Stafanik or Vance.

  13. @Laura Whoever he picks, he or she will need to be someone who is as unacceptable to the globalist elites as he is, The Line of succession begins President, Vice President, House Speaker. If Trump can secure that triumvirate, he will be impeachment and assassination proof. And if he can get a hold of Nancy Reagan’s astrologer, as well, if that person is still alive 40 years later, maybe he can have a “tefllon presidency,” too. 😀

  14. I’d prefer Stefanik or Sanders. I’m concerned about Vance’s isolationism. BTW, I hope all is well with you Ted, keep safe.