What the hell happened to JD Vance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He found a grift by pandering to the rubes.

+1
Grifters grift.

I don't think this is just a grift. After the popularity of his book, he was given a number of platforms including tv appearances, speaking engagements and venture capital etc. After his initial surge in popularity, he tried to be a thoughtful, reasonable, nuanced voice speaking to what he saw as some of the structural problems in this country. He just realized that this was not viable for him in a post-Trump era and pivoted era.

Heard much from Ramesh Ponnuru lately? Yuval Levin? Reihan Salam? Erick Erickson? These guys were, at one point, supposed to be conversation-shapers at the vanguard of new conservatism and J.D. was dabbling in that conversation and ideological hand wringing. Trump has sucked all of the energy out of the room and now political branding is defined by reference to Trump, until he is off the scene for good.

Unlike someone like Trump, JD has been thinking about running for public office for quite a while and curating his steps with that in mind. He fashions himself a serious person and a serious thinker. But you have to survive in this game. He made his choice, but I don't think it was all a grift, so much as it was an attempt to keep his fledgling political career from running into immediate headwinds.

It will be interesting to see how they start positioning once Trump is gone for good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Buttigieg's read of JD Vance was brutal but spot on when he went on Bill Maher 2 nights ago.

Thanks for this! I enjoyed watching it. I want to be friends with Buttigieg. https://youtu.be/7XuIEg_Y4fM?si=2l35quuRmvj_NOkq

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would love to know the background (ethnicity, immigration status) of the nanny that Jd Vance & his wife have used over the years to take care of their 3 young kids while they both pursue their careers...I am sure his wife is totally thrilled about toeing the BS line about women staying at home and raising the kids.....

The last I read was that she is no longer listed at her law firm. I guess she's quit her job to support JD's campaign. How about that sofa story that is making the rounds? Barf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He's a decent dude, and his wife is great. But he's quite ambitious and made the political calculus a while ago that the National Review brand of conservatism was not a viable path for his political fortunes. He can be thoughtful and nuanced (and some of his writings reflect this, even if you do not agree with him), but nobody is buying that these days, especially with the specter of Trumpism looming. He's had to walk back a number of his anti-Trump opinions in order to try to carve out a niche. This is the calculus that has been made, but it does not appear to be working.

Look at Asha Rangappa, who was at YLS at the same time as JD and is now a twitter warrior. These things happen when visibility, attention, ambition, scrutiny and brand-building enter the mix.

As evidenced by Ted Cruz at the SCOTUS confirmation hearings recently, you would be surprised (or perhaps not) by the number of esteemed, venerable people who are completely obsessed with their twitter mentions and the concomitant attention high. Sign of the times.

Welp, I guess it worked!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He found a grift by pandering to the rubes.

+1
Grifters grift.

I don't think this is just a grift. After the popularity of his book, he was given a number of platforms including tv appearances, speaking engagements and venture capital etc. After his initial surge in popularity, he tried to be a thoughtful, reasonable, nuanced voice speaking to what he saw as some of the structural problems in this country. He just realized that this was not viable for him in a post-Trump era and pivoted era.

Heard much from Ramesh Ponnuru lately? Yuval Levin? Reihan Salam? Erick Erickson? These guys were, at one point, supposed to be conversation-shapers at the vanguard of new conservatism and J.D. was dabbling in that conversation and ideological hand wringing. Trump has sucked all of the energy out of the room and now political branding is defined by reference to Trump, until he is off the scene for good.

Unlike someone like Trump, JD has been thinking about running for public office for quite a while and curating his steps with that in mind. He fashions himself a serious person and a serious thinker. But you have to survive in this game. He made his choice, but I don't think it was all a grift, so much as it was an attempt to keep his fledgling political career from running into immediate headwinds.

It will be interesting to see how they start positioning once Trump is gone for good.

I think every Republican will be defined by reference to Trump even after he is gone from office and especially if he wins this election. He has such a strong hold on his voter base that he simply cannot be ignored. Similar to how every Republican framed themselves by reference to Reagan prior to Trump, Trump will cast a long shadow. Trumpism is not going away any time soon. JD just read the tealeaves and adapted quickly, lest he perish politically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He found a grift by pandering to the rubes.

+1
Grifters grift.

I don't think this is just a grift. After the popularity of his book, he was given a number of platforms including tv appearances, speaking engagements and venture capital etc. After his initial surge in popularity, he tried to be a thoughtful, reasonable, nuanced voice speaking to what he saw as some of the structural problems in this country. He just realized that this was not viable for him in a post-Trump era and pivoted era.

Heard much from Ramesh Ponnuru lately? Yuval Levin? Reihan Salam? Erick Erickson? These guys were, at one point, supposed to be conversation-shapers at the vanguard of new conservatism and J.D. was dabbling in that conversation and ideological hand wringing. Trump has sucked all of the energy out of the room and now political branding is defined by reference to Trump, until he is off the scene for good.

Unlike someone like Trump, JD has been thinking about running for public office for quite a while and curating his steps with that in mind. He fashions himself a serious person and a serious thinker. But you have to survive in this game. He made his choice, but I don't think it was all a grift, so much as it was an attempt to keep his fledgling political career from running into immediate headwinds.

It will be interesting to see how they start positioning once Trump is gone for good.

I think every Republican will be defined by reference to Trump even after he is gone from office and especially if he wins this election. He has such a strong hold on his voter base that he simply cannot be ignored. Similar to how every Republican framed themselves by reference to Reagan prior to Trump, Trump will cast a long shadow. Trumpism is not going away any time soon. JD just read the tealeaves and adapted quickly, lest he perish politically.

Republicans always regroup quickly. They are not defined by anything except but what their corporate overlords tell them to be defined by. They are only trying desperately to hang onto and use Trump as a useful idiot but he is A. Not that useful and B. Completely insane.

Remember how they were going to redefine themselves after Obama was elected? They didn’t come up with any policy changes, the Koch brothers just started funding Tea Party groups. And enough addled white people were enraged by the election of a black man that it largely worked. These people play off rage, desperation, and racism in red states. As long as the people in red states keep falling for it, Republicans will keep winning without ever changing their actual policy position.

Remember that Trump only had one major piece of legislation besides Covid: tax cuts for wealthy people. That is what this is all about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s just shocking to me. Clearly a smart & educated dude; grew up lower-middle class, entered the marines then graduated from Ohio State in only two years, then Yale Law. His wife was a Gates Cambridge Scholar, then attended Yale Law and is a successful lawyer. In his book, he criticized Fox.

Now he’s on Twitter rambling about illegal immigrants and yada yada.

Do you realize that a lot of Republicans don’t watch Fox? I know, it is hard to comprehend this when you are so brainwashed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He found a grift by pandering to the rubes.

+1
Grifters grift.

I don't think this is just a grift. After the popularity of his book, he was given a number of platforms including tv appearances, speaking engagements and venture capital etc. After his initial surge in popularity, he tried to be a thoughtful, reasonable, nuanced voice speaking to what he saw as some of the structural problems in this country. He just realized that this was not viable for him in a post-Trump era and pivoted era.

Heard much from Ramesh Ponnuru lately? Yuval Levin? Reihan Salam? Erick Erickson? These guys were, at one point, supposed to be conversation-shapers at the vanguard of new conservatism and J.D. was dabbling in that conversation and ideological hand wringing. Trump has sucked all of the energy out of the room and now political branding is defined by reference to Trump, until he is off the scene for good.

Unlike someone like Trump, JD has been thinking about running for public office for quite a while and curating his steps with that in mind. He fashions himself a serious person and a serious thinker. But you have to survive in this game. He made his choice, but I don't think it was all a grift, so much as it was an attempt to keep his fledgling political career from running into immediate headwinds.

It will be interesting to see how they start positioning once Trump is gone for good.

I think every Republican will be defined by reference to Trump even after he is gone from office and especially if he wins this election. He has such a strong hold on his voter base that he simply cannot be ignored. Similar to how every Republican framed themselves by reference to Reagan prior to Trump, Trump will cast a long shadow. Trumpism is not going away any time soon. JD just read the tealeaves and adapted quickly, lest he perish politically.

Republicans always regroup quickly. They are not defined by anything except but what their corporate overlords tell them to be defined by. They are only trying desperately to hang onto and use Trump as a useful idiot but he is A. Not that useful and B. Completely insane.

Remember how they were going to redefine themselves after Obama was elected? They didn’t come up with any policy changes, the Koch brothers just started funding Tea Party groups. And enough addled white people were enraged by the election of a black man that it largely worked. These people play off rage, desperation, and racism in red states. As long as the people in red states keep falling for it, Republicans will keep winning without ever changing their actual policy position.

Remember that Trump only had one major piece of legislation besides Covid: tax cuts for wealthy people. That is what this is all about.

I think you have the reading of this wrong. After Obama was elected the Romney's, Cruz's and Rubio's of the world were still blathering on about a "Shining City on a Hill". Now, you rarely still hear much mention of Reagan. Trump is the new reference point and he will be for some time. Also, legislation is such a very limited rubric to measure Trump's impact.

[Anonymous]

JD Vance is a major advocate of menstrual surveillance, local cops having the right to pull obgyn records to see who and who isn’t menstruating and who might be planning a trip to an abortion rights state.

He is one of a handful of Senators that signed a pledge for this. Ie legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He found a grift by pandering to the rubes.

+1
Grifters grift.

I don't think this is just a grift. After the popularity of his book, he was given a number of platforms including tv appearances, speaking engagements and venture capital etc. After his initial surge in popularity, he tried to be a thoughtful, reasonable, nuanced voice speaking to what he saw as some of the structural problems in this country. He just realized that this was not viable for him in a post-Trump era and pivoted era.

Heard much from Ramesh Ponnuru lately? Yuval Levin? Reihan Salam? Erick Erickson? These guys were, at one point, supposed to be conversation-shapers at the vanguard of new conservatism and J.D. was dabbling in that conversation and ideological hand wringing. Trump has sucked all of the energy out of the room and now political branding is defined by reference to Trump, until he is off the scene for good.

Unlike someone like Trump, JD has been thinking about running for public office for quite a while and curating his steps with that in mind. He fashions himself a serious person and a serious thinker. But you have to survive in this game. He made his choice, but I don't think it was all a grift, so much as it was an attempt to keep his fledgling political career from running into immediate headwinds.

It will be interesting to see how they start positioning once Trump is gone for good.

I think every Republican will be defined by reference to Trump even after he is gone from office and especially if he wins this election. He has such a strong hold on his voter base that he simply cannot be ignored. Similar to how every Republican framed themselves by reference to Reagan prior to Trump, Trump will cast a long shadow. Trumpism is not going away any time soon. JD just read the tealeaves and adapted quickly, lest he perish politically.

Republicans always regroup quickly. They are not defined by anything except but what their corporate overlords tell them to be defined by. They are only trying desperately to hang onto and use Trump as a useful idiot but he is A. Not that useful and B. Completely insane.

Remember how they were going to redefine themselves after Obama was elected? They didn’t come up with any policy changes, the Koch brothers just started funding Tea Party groups. And enough addled white people were enraged by the election of a black man that it largely worked. These people play off rage, desperation, and racism in red states. As long as the people in red states keep falling for it, Republicans will keep winning without ever changing their actual policy position.

Remember that Trump only had one major piece of legislation besides Covid: tax cuts for wealthy people. That is what this is all about.

I think you have the reading of this wrong. After Obama was elected the Romney's, Cruz's and Rubio's of the world were still blathering on about a "Shining City on a Hill". Now, you rarely still hear much mention of Reagan. Trump is the new reference point and he will be for some time. Also, legislation is such a very limited rubric to measure Trump's impact.

I don’t think we actually disagree that much. We just disagree on how long they will hang onto Trump- I think if he loses this time they will take the hint and move onto something else. Authoritarianism is not worth losing more than this, tempting though it may be!

Republicans invoked Reagan for as long as it appealed to their sucker base, and once it didn’t anymore, they stopped. They pivot when they need to. They don’t actually care about anything including Trump or Reagan.

And Trump’s impact to US is not measured by tax cuts because we are regular poors who kind of need to live in a rule of law state. But to corporations/rich people, that’s what they care about most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How quickly Vance went from hero when he wrote the book to a campaign thief, a spouse beater, and a racist.

I’ve got whiplash

He was never a hero. He was promoted by elitists as a Trojan horse to appeal to the rubes. It has worked so far. He’s the Republican Senate nominee.

And here comes the revisionist history

I don't know anyone in real life who cared about that book. It was inorganically astroturfed by neocons and neolibs.

+1 The same people who spent all of 2017 and 2018 talking to Obama—>Trump voters in rural diners loved this book and have an outsized influence on our political discourse. They also spent two years writing takes about the diner guys while completely missing what was coming in 2018.

His tale wasn’t really that unique. He was born to a family who had assets (and a mom who was a nurse-it’s not like he was poor from Appalachia.) they just lost it due to drug use and bad choices

Now he's trying to pretend his mom's demise was due to drugs smuggled across the border - that's false. His mom's demise was from prescription drug abuse.

And real Appalachia is roasting the hell out of him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How quickly Vance went from hero when he wrote the book to a campaign thief, a spouse beater, and a racist.

I’ve got whiplash

He was never a hero. He was promoted by elitists as a Trojan horse to appeal to the rubes. It has worked so far. He’s the Republican Senate nominee.

And here comes the revisionist history

I don't know anyone in real life who cared about that book. It was inorganically astroturfed by neocons and neolibs.

+1 The same people who spent all of 2017 and 2018 talking to Obama—>Trump voters in rural diners loved this book and have an outsized influence on our political discourse. They also spent two years writing takes about the diner guys while completely missing what was coming in 2018.

His tale wasn’t really that unique. He was born to a family who had assets (and a mom who was a nurse-it’s not like he was poor from Appalachia.) they just lost it due to drug use and bad choices

Now he's trying to pretend his mom's demise was due to drugs smuggled across the border - that's false. His mom's demise was from prescription drug abuse.

And real Appalachia is roasting the hell out of him.

His mother started with oxy she was able to get at work (she was an RN in a hospital) but once she was caught and got fired she moved on to heroin.

I am not voting for him, but his opinions on who to blame for his family's generational substance abuse are not unusual. I come from a very similar background with an alcoholic parent, grandparents, uncles and cousins (plus plenty of drugs involved in there). People like us that grow up with absent and messed up parents and grandparents definitely are looking for someone and something to blame. We were given a very unfair set of circumstances. The different between Vance and me is that I am not running for office and I am not trying to govern based on my thoughts on who is to blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He's a decent dude, and his wife is great. But he's quite ambitious and made the political calculus a while ago that the National Review brand of conservatism was not a viable path for his political fortunes. He can be thoughtful and nuanced (and some of his writings reflect this, even if you do not agree with him), but nobody is buying that these days, especially with the specter of Trumpism looming. He's had to walk back a number of his anti-Trump opinions in order to try to carve out a niche. This is the calculus that has been made, but it does not appear to be working.

Look at Asha Rangappa, who was at YLS at the same time as JD and is now a twitter warrior. These things happen when visibility, attention, ambition, scrutiny and brand-building enter the mix.

As evidenced by Ted Cruz at the SCOTUS confirmation hearings recently, you would be surprised (or perhaps not) by the number of esteemed, venerable people who are completely obsessed with their twitter mentions and the concomitant attention high. Sign of the times.

Why did he need to be in politics to begin with? I don't see how he is even a good fit, he is extremely unlikable.

[Anonymous]

Typical power-hungry opportunist.

[Anonymous]

Demonratts just hate how he’s on the winning ticket.