Vance's audition to lead GOP a chilling success

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

By Tressie McMillan Cottom / The New York Times

What you saw Tuesday in the vice presidential debate was an audition for the leader of the post-Trump Republican Party.

Over and over again Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, successfully distanced himself from his long, well-documented track record of inflammatory statements on everything from reproductive health to immigrants. Those Americans who tuned in to the debate saw an affable, reasonable Vance (no matter how many times he lied). That should terrify anyone who cares about democracy.

In many ways, Vance proved that there will be another Donald Trump, one who is just as sinister but far better produced for middle-of-the road voters. It does not matter if Vance was only pretending to align with Trump’s combative politics and disastrous policy proposals. What matters is that Vance has proved that he will change all of his fundamental beliefs in order to win.

I don’t mean the dreaded “flip-flopping” that is too often applied to a politician who dares to change her mind. I mean a deliberate strategy of supporting any position in the name of procuring power. That was Trump’s best political innovation.

https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/cottom-vances-audition-to-lead-gop-a-chilling-success/

[Dan]

1. I am really curious

What is this GOP party?

The ones of Trump - where a lot of GOP voters are people that have never voted before, and some who actually wanted a receipt when they voted?

Or, the GOP voters who left the Democratic Party after the Civil Rights legislation passed during the 1960’s?

Are they the GOP limited government voters and moderate social issue voters?

Or are they the Evangelicals of Pro-Life and let them die after being born?

I am not sure what the GOP party stands for and who they are, so who does Vance think the GOP Voters are in the post-Trump period?

[lees1975]

2. When Republicans are looking at the root causes of their electoral defeat this November, in a post-election analysis,

I think they'll conclude that more damage was done to Trump's chances of winning by Vance's debate performance than by his own failure. If you look at the kind of reaction he got from independents and "undecided" voters, one thing that was very clear is that he didn't add a single vote to the base. Even some of the more clueless responses were put off by his twisting of facts and insertion of lies, and if you caught it, the attempt to associate her name with everything he thinks is a negative on the Democratic side, even some things that are obvious benefits to her.

There seems to be a general conclusion that he hinted, not always so subtly, that it's going to be handed over to him and he might do things a little differently. Handed over as in the not too distant future.