comment: >
  
  Trump overturned Roe with his judicial picks. I think he’s on solid ground with evangelicals, seeing as they’ve tried but failed to overturn it for at least 40 years
context: Studies have shown who you pick as VP doesn’t make much difference. And particularly in this case, with Trump such a polarizing figure, everyone either loves him or hates him. 
  I can’t imagine there are any voters out there who would say “well I wasn’t going to vote for Trump but I really like Stefanik”, or “I was going to vote for Trump but I just hate Noem.” 
  At this point you are either Trump yes or Trump no, the running mate doesn’t matter. >
  
  Sarah Palin definitely didn’t help as a VP candidate. >
  
  Pence did, though. Lots of GOP voters assumed he'd be a steady hand at the wheel or something. At the very least, a conservative white guy who at least knew how to quote the bible correctly gave evangelicals license to vote for the serial womanizer, rapist, and all-around pimp of Babylon at the top of the ticket. >
  
  I'd say they were right.  If Trump had gone for an MTG figure do you think that person certifies the result on January 6 2021? >
  
  No. However I'm not sure that did much but delay the inevitable fate that the next Republican VP will decline to certify Democratic EC votes. >
  
  I wouldn't be as pessimistic as all that.  We don't know when there will next be a Republican President, we don't who it will be, we don't know who the Vice President will be.  Maybe with no Pence figure to offer cover the Democrats win 2024 convincingly and it's taken as a repudiation of Trumpism.
  For me part of believing in democracy is believing that the people will act as a check against the excesses of leaders like Trump.  If one doesn't believe that what's so great about democracy? >
  
  I have seen zero evidence that the Republican party wants to repudiate Trumpism. The strongest electoral pattern I have seen in my lifetime is that conservatives are increasingly authoritarian, and increasingly contemptuous of democracy itself. 
  I have no real faith in the Democratic party to head that off, and I don't see much evidence that they're trying, beyond hoping that somehow the oligarchs muzzle the fascists before the republic crumbles around us. So, I think it's likely we'll have another Republican president, because above all else Americans want to believe that nothing will fundamentally change, and that's the noose authoritarians will use to strangle the life out of our country. >
  
  MTG has no chance.  
  Gabbard would get him the most votes.
  Realistically I think Stefanik. >
  
  Stefanik would be the best choice, but Trump will choose whoever vows undying loyalty to him over the country (or the party even). That is his number one requirement, and he hates Pence for "betraying" him by not trying to overthrow the election. Guys like Trump are (rightly) paranoid about betrayal because he breaks the law and needs everyone to cover for him. >
  
  I have to wonder now, why did he accept Pence to run with him in the first place? Because he thought it'd help him win? Because the Republican establishment demanded it? >
  
  Pence brings the evangelical vote. Beyond the MAGAts. He needs the Bible thumper-Trumpers too. >
  
  I guess the question is, now that he's been burned so badly by Pence, will he prefer someone loyal even at the expense of his electability? And is that good news for Democrats? >
  
  I think the honest answer is that it probably doesn’t matter now who he picks to lock up the evangelical vote.