Donald Trump's selection of Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) as his running mate in the 2024 presidential has gone from bad to worse as the more the public gets to know about the Ohio Republican and his controversial views, the less they like him.
With recent polling showing Vance to be even more unpopular than the much derided Gov. Sarah Palin who was part of Sen. John McCain's losing 2008 presidential bid, the selection of the Ohio Republican by Trump opened the door, once again, to questions about the former president's lack of judgment.
As political scientists Julia Azari, of Marquette University and William Adler, of Northeastern Illinois University, wrote for MSNBC, it has now reached the point where Trump is stuck with Vance for better or worse.
ALSO READ: How Harris is snatching power from the press
Noting the VP candidates are, at the very least, expected to do no harm to a presidential candidate, they pointed out that Vance has become a millstone around Trump's neck made even worse. comparatively, by Vice President Kamala Harris selecting folksy Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) as her running mate.
As they wrote it is not impossible to get Vance to step down if Trump or his close allies can convince him to take one for the GOP team, but dropping him from the ticket to this late date would come at a possible greater cost.
Adding that it was unlikely to happen, they wrote, "The main purpose of the vice presidential candidate, beyond avoiding harm or generating negative news cycles, is to highlight the presidential candidate’s judgment and values."
"Because Trump has already served as president, most people have already made up their minds about how they feel about these factors," they elaborated. "Dumping Vance would almost certainly generate a news cycle that would be negative for the former president, casting doubt on his judgment and drawing further attention to his running mate’s missteps and flaws."
They concluded, "It’s likely simply too late for Trump to pick someone else. And VP candidate replacements happen so rarely, and are so closely connected to campaign disasters like McGovern’s in 1972, that it would be hard to achieve the quiet, under-the-radar rollout that might have been the wiser strategy in the first place."
You can read more here.
