Trump chooses J.D. Vance as his running mate.

Plus, a reader question about controversial interviews.

I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today's read: 13 minutes.

🇺🇸

Former President Donald Trump has chosen his running mate. Plus, a reader asks about how we handle controversial interviews.

Correction.

In our "Quick hits" section yesterday, we said "President Biden will conduct a live interview with NBC's Lester Holt at 9:00 pm ET on Monday night." In fact, the interview was not live, but recorded for tape delay. We regret the error, which may have been some wishful thinking.

This is our 110th correction in Tangle's 258-week history and our first correction since June 24th. We track corrections and place them at the top of the newsletter in an effort to maximize transparency with our readers.

Secret service story.

In light of recent events, this Friday we are going to do a deep dive on the Secret Service. If you have questions about the Secret Service or its history that you want answered, feel free to write in and let us know.

Quick hits.

Much remains unknown about the 20-year-old shooter who attempted to assassinate Donald Trump. The FBI has accessed his phone and interviewed neighbors, but found little insight into his motive. (The investigation)
Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has endorsed Donald Trump and pledged to start donating $45 million a month to a Trump-supporting super PAC, fundamentally upending the cash battle in the 2024 election. (The pledge)
Fed Chairman Jerome Powell indicated the central bank won’t wait until inflation is below 2% to cut interest rates. (The comments)
In a blow to President Biden, the Teamsters union is considering backing no candidate in the 2024 presidential race. (The decision)
Special Counsel Jack Smith will appeal the dismissal of Trump’s classified documents case. (The appeal)

Today's topic.

J.D. Vance. On Monday, former President Donald Trump announced freshman Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) as his running mate for the 2024 election. Before his election to the Senate, Vance was best known as the author of “Hillbilly Elegy,” which describes his experience growing up in a poverty-stricken home in Ohio. Vance, 39, is the first millennial nominated to either party's major ticket. If elected, he would become one of the youngest and least experienced vice presidents in U.S. history, with less than two years spent as an elected official.

Trump announced the decision in a post on Truth Social, writing that Vance “will be strongly focused on the people he fought so brilliantly for, the American Workers and Farmers in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Minnesota, and far beyond.”

Vance served in the U.S. Marine Corps during the Iraq War. After his service, he attended The Ohio State University and Yale Law School, then worked for several law and venture capital firms. In 2022, he won the Republican Ohio Senate primary (with Trump’s endorsement) to replace outgoing Sen. Rob Portman (R), then defeated Rep. Tim Ryan (D) in the general election.

Vance was once an outspoken Trump critic, calling him “America’s Hitler” in a private message and publicly characterizing Trump as "cultural heroin” (among other disparaging remarks) during his first presidential campaign in 2016. However, since Trump’s 2020 campaign, Vance has been a vocal ally, backing his claims of election fraud in 2020 and bringing many technology investors closer to his campaign.

Vance and six others were announced as candidates on Trump’s vice presidential shortlist three weeks ago. Some speculated Trump might tap a running mate to appeal to moderates, independents and women, but he chose someone with views largely aligned with his own populist politics. Vance is expected to have major appeal with working class voters in the Midwestern battleground states, which will be key to winning the race.

In 2016, Trump tapped Mike Pence to serve as his vice president, largely as an appeal to Evangelical and religious voters. Pence was deeply loyal to Trump until he rejected his calls to stop Congress from certifying Biden's election win on January 6, a decision Vance disagreed with. Pence has not endorsed Trump's re-election bid.

Today, we are going to break down some views on Vance as Trump's vice president pick from the right and left, then my take.

What the right is saying.

The right mostly supports the pick, calling Vance a strong complement to Trump.
Some say the selection represents the end of the pre-Trump Republican Party.
Others say Vance is unlikely to have an outsized impact on the race but could make some meaningful contributions.

In The American Spectator, Mike Ortiz wrote “why J.D. Vance is Trump’s ideal running mate.”

“It is not just the mainstream media that is afraid of Vance. It is also the establishment Republican donor class, who have voiced serious concern over what his promotion to the vice presidency would mean, ideologically, for the future of the party,” Ortiz said. “In terms of policy, he has consistently sided with the so-called populist faction of the Republican Party, supporting working-class American families and upholding an ‘America first’ agenda abroad. For instance, Vance has not only been a staunch advocate for steel workers in the U.S., but he has also been a leading voice against further U.S. funding of the war in Ukraine.”

“Vance seems to understand the concerns of working-class Americans, not merely as the result of theoretical pondering, but most especially because he is himself a son of rural Appalachia, and is therefore familiar with the struggles of those whom Trump has rightfully called ‘the forgotten men and women of our country,’” Ortiz wrote. “Vance is certainly the best alternative for the Trump ticket… It is time for an ‘America first,’ common-good conservatism to revitalize the institutions and social fabric of our once-great nation.”

In National Review, Philip Klein said Vance “represents another nail in coffin of Reagan Republicanism.”

“During his short political career, Vance… has been a leader of a movement aimed at wrestling away the Republican Party from the orthodoxy of free markets and muscular foreign policy. Instead, Vance’s vision is for a Republican Party that embraces large government programs, is more open to taxing corporations, that shows more foreign-policy restraint, and that wields the power of the state in the culture wars,” Klein wrote. “If there is any straight line between Vance’s economic views from the time when he hated Trump to his time as a Trump booster, it’s a belief that the party had to move away from limited-government ideology.”

“On foreign policy, Vance has not only shown an unease at getting involved in foreign conflicts, but has been reluctant to offer moral support for defending American values abroad even rhetorically. Vance has portrayed his opposition to the Ukraine war as a pragmatic matter of math. But his rhetoric has gone beyond merely arguing that Americans shouldn’t spend money on aid, to a proud lack of interest,” Klein said. “Those who want to bury Reaganite conservatism hope that because Trump is limited to one term, Vance would now be set up to be his natural heir in 2028.”

In The Washington Examiner, Tiana Lowe Doescher suggested “Vance probably doesn’t improve Trump election odds much, but he won’t hurt them either.”

Vance “doesn’t expand the former president’s electoral map much, and the more limited-government-minded wing of the party has plenty of salient policy disagreements with the Yale Law grad-cum-venture capitalist. But Vance probably will not harm Trump’s electoral prospects, and his raw intelligence and charisma render him a populist with a much broader appeal than some of his fellow travelers,” Doescher wrote. “Vice presidential picks often do little to influence voter preferences, and if they do ever sway opinions, they tend to be net negative additions.”

“We’ll see whether Trump and Vance focus on themes simply to enthuse the MAGA base as the Republican National Convention commences, and it’s fully possible that President Joe Biden’s precipitous drop in the polling means that Trump doesn’t feel the need to appeal to the center. But contrary to some of the panic from my own laissez-faire wing of the conservative movement, I remain hopeful that Vance can prove a persuasive communicator and, even better, a purveyor of the empathy all too devoid of politics these days.”

What the left is saying.

The left is alarmed by the pick, suggesting Vance will ensure the MAGA movement persists after Trump.
Some say Vance’s appeal is solely to the right flank of the Republican Party.
Others say voters’ negative view of Vance will hurt Trump’s election chances.

In Slate, Alexander Sammon wrote about “what J.D. Vance brings to the ticket.”

“Vance is perhaps the foremost political representative of the ‘new right,’ the strain of populist conservatism that has appeared to gain some purchase with younger Republicans in recent years,” Sammon said. “Vance is also close to a newer brand of Silicon Valley conservatism that is more recently ascendant in the GOP, best embodied by new arch-right zealots like venture capitalist and podcaster David Sacks.”

“Although the frenzy around a vice presidential pick is usually pretty politically inconsequential, in this case it might be meaningful… It would not be inconceivable to see Vance in the driver’s seat of this presidency if the two of them beat out Biden-Harris in November,” Sammon wrote. “Vance, who shares Trump’s positions on mass deportations, tariffs, and foreign policy, sends a very strong message about where the Republican Party is headed under Trump’s reconsolidated control.”

In Bloomberg, Patricia Lopez said “Vance is red meat for Trump’s MAGA base.”

“It’s a shrewd and calculated pick — a nod to Trump’s base. More than any of the other contenders, Vance’s selection shows that Trump wants to lock down the MAGA faithful and ensure they turn out — even if that means losing more moderate and independent voters. Vance’s rhetoric is at times harsher and hotter than Trump’s and his positions more extreme,” Lopez wrote. “His selection also sends a clear message to the country that Trump is building a movement that will reshape the nation, not just for one term, but for the future.”

“Trump, who briefly spoke of unity after a bullet grazed his ear at the rally, appears to have already veered from that path, choosing a running mate who seldom reaches out to the other side unless it’s to deliver a throat punch,” Lopez said. “On cultural issues Vance has indicated his willingness to consider a federal 15-week abortion ban, but ever-conscious of Trump’s shifting positions on the issue, has downplayed it… Vance has shown he is nothing if not flexible, and doubtless will remain closely attuned to Trump’s shifting whims as he searches for what’s most politically expedient.”

In The Columbus Dispatch, Christopher Devine argued “Vance will hurt Trump's reelection chances.”

“Vance will have limited appeal to voters outside the Republican Party base. This is partly because Vance often conducts himself as a hysterical partisan – for example, by claiming that the Biden campaign was ‘directly’ to blame for Saturday’s assassination attempt against Trump before any facts about the shooter were known,” Devine wrote. “Another factor is the increasing unpopularity of vice presidential candidates in recent years… In this polarized political climate, running mates tend to be wildly popular among co-partisans, despised by their opponents and received coolly by independents. We should expect the same for Vance.”

“Running mates have mostly indirect effects, by influencing voters’ perceptions of the presidential candidate. This was evident in 2008. Voters who doubted Sarah Palin’s readiness to be president also came to doubt John McCain’s judgment, and, in turn, were less likely to support him,” Devine said. “Voters may conclude that Trump, in a second term, will not be focused on enacting his legislative agenda, or advancing the national interest, but pursuing ‘retribution’ against his opponents… This may appeal to Trump, but it is unlikely to appeal to voters.”

My take.

Reminder: "My take" is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism, or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

Vance simultaneously has an impressive resume and nowhere near adequate experience.
Trump is taking a risk picking someone so aligned with him, betting on energizing his base over reaching out to moderates.
I find it hard to get a read on Vance, who seems willing to change his image for expediency.

I'll break up my response into three parts: Vance's resume, the politics of choosing him, and my own personal read on the man.

Vance's resume is a decidedly mixed bag. On the one hand, he has just about everything you can ask for in a vice presidential candidate. He has written a bestselling book that lays out his life story and worldview, served in the military, served in the Senate, appeals to swing state voters, and is a Yale-educated lawyer and entrepreneur who is well-connected in the tech world.

On the other hand, if elected he would arguably become the least experienced vice president ever: His only time in elected office is less than two years in the Senate. If Trump wins, he'll be second in line to the presidency, with almost no executive experience of any kind. As I’ve written before, qualifications matter for a position this important. And while Vance has a diverse set of experiences, he has no real expertise. Past running mates have typically been additive in a way that fills the nominee's weak spots or blind spots — J.D. Vance is more a Trump acolyte than a Trump co-pilot.

On the politics of this decision, tapping J.D. Vance sends a message about where Trump's campaign and candidacy are headed — and it's certainly not in a "big tent" direction.

With Vance, Trump is not trying to appeal to women, Evangelical voters or moderates, whom some pundits thought he should focus on with his pick. This is a double-down on Trump's brand of populism and on targeting the "blue wall" in the Midwest. It's also Trump leaning into the next generation of conservatism — one of populist ideals that have quite a bit of overlap with some progressive ideals.

Vance, remember, has teamed up with Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA) on bills that would crack down on Wall Street. At the RNC convention last night, Trump brought out Teamsters president Sean O'Brien to savage big businesses, a spectacle you don’t typically see at Republican gatherings. Vance also deals a blow to the more traditional establishment Republicans on foreign policy. Though he mostly follows the party line on Israel, Vance is broadly isolationist and has been very critical of American intervention abroad, including opposing any additional funding for Ukraine in its war against Russia.

To put it more plainly: Trump could have picked someone in the mold of Mike Pence — a running mate who could appeal to voters he was most worried about losing — but instead he chose someone who has mimicked him, his policies, and his approach to politics. That may or may not be the right decision, but it clearly is a strategic move to lean into energizing Trump’s base rather than appealing to a wider group of voters.

Perhaps the biggest divergence between Trump and Vance is also Vance's biggest weakness. Historically more conservative than Trump on abortion, Vance has said he does not believe in exceptions for rape or incest and has endorsed a 15-week federal abortion ban (though his most recent comments have supported Trump’s views). This will, predictably, become a major attack line from Democrats — one that I expect will be pretty effective.

As for my personal read on Vance, my feelings have changed over the years. I was one of the many Americans who read his book “Hillbilly Elegy,” and though Vance and I did not have the same upbringing, I saw in his stories familiar characters and themes that I recognized in my hometown in Pennsylvania. I appreciated how he communicated the experience of the white working poor in a way that liberals could better understand and empathize with. And in 2016, I was tremendously excited to see a blossoming conservative star who could speak to the weaknesses and blindspots of both major political parties with personal experience and candor.

But Vance — how do we say it? — he evolved. Not just on Trump, which is what gets the most attention, but on how he discusses and approaches his fellow Americans. Vance has explained this evolution, which I believe is partially genuine and partially about political expediency. But the man who came out on the other side was more venomous, less nuanced, and a lot angrier. He seems to have wholly embraced "grievance" politics, a constant state of victimhood both sides practice, and an ideology that is more centered on demonizing the other side than advocating for your own. By far my biggest gripe with him is that he has advanced claims that the 2020 election was fraudulent, a position there is still essentially no evidence for, one I’m not sure he even believes, and a talking point that is obviously for an audience of one.

Of course, there are things about Vance I still very much admire. This is a man who enlisted in the Marine Corps after 9/11 out of love for his country and came home from the experience ardently opposed to our wars abroad. He has broken with his party for some genuinely good policies (like clawing back pay from executives of failed banks) and has shown himself willing to work across the aisle. He seems both patriotic and open-minded, and the J.D. Vance of 2017 or 2018 would get a much more ringing endorsement from me.

But as much as I want to give people room to grow and change their minds, I also can't shake the feeling that I just don't know what he truly believes anymore. His time in public office has been too short — and his flip-flops too fast — for me to get an accurate read on who he is or trust what he says. That makes me deeply uneasy at a time when sussing out the future direction of our country is so critically important.

Take the survey: What do you think of Trump’s choice of J.D. Vance as his running mate? Let us know!

Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

I'm a firm believer that our politics would be a little bit better if everyone were reading balanced news that allows room for debate, disagreement, and multiple perspectives. If you can take 15 seconds to share Tangle with a few friends I'd really appreciate it — just click the button below and pick some people to email it to!

Share Tangle!

Your questions, answered.

Q: If a major controversial politician such as Trump, Biden, or RFK Jr requested an interview with you, would you accept it? Would you have any non-negotiable conditions for the interview? How would you handle the enviable backlash if you agree?

— D.A.K from Providence, Rhode Island

Tangle: Not only would I accept it in a heartbeat, but we’ve tried to get interviews with all of the aforementioned people. We’ve done interviews with well-known and controversial people before, such as the former Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly, so I already know what the criticism would be if I did land an interview with President Biden: You weren’t hard enough on him, so I guess you’re just being soft so you can get to talk to more people and chase clout. I thought you were supposed to be nonpartisan — how can you claim that when you’re giving so much air time to the sitting president during an election campaign?

And if I landed an interview with Trump or RFK Jr., I’m certain I’d get those criticisms along with the complaint that I’m “platforming a dangerous person.” But my response would be pretty similar to what I’ve told people in the past:

Not hard enough in the interview: That’s just my interviewing philosophy. I’m not the kind of interviewer — like Mehdi Hasan or Ben Shapiro — who draws his interviewee into a debate and tries to show holes in their worldview. I model myself more after people like Louis Theroux or Joe Rogan; I want to make the person I’m talking to comfortable enough to open up and speak candidly. I trust you, the reader, to make the appropriate judgments.

Unbalanced selection of interviews: Just like our topic selection, we get balanced over time, not every time. For each deep dive on the media being wrong about Trump and Russia, you’ll get an exploration into false election denialism claims. For every explainer about climate change, you’ll get a probing into corruption at the FBI. And for every interview with a person like Trump, you’ll get one with someone like Biden.

Platforming: To be honest, I’ve never taken this criticism seriously, and it’s also one sent from a very small but vocal number of people. “Dangerous” ideas don’t just become appealing because we’re talking about them; and remember, I don’t interview guests to attack or promote a worldview, so I’m not cosigning an idea by discussing it. I think our readers are perfectly capable of smelling B.S. on their own, and we always fact-check interviews and often annotate them to add important context.

As for my non-negotiables, that’s pretty simple: I get to choose the questions I ask and what I say. I don’t pre-screen questions. And if there are requests to keep something off the table, I inform my readers. That’s it. If President Biden came to me and said “I want an interview, but I only have five minutes and it’s just going to be audio,” I’d agree right there. But if he offered me an hour and a menu of acceptable questions, I’d say no thank you.

Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

The Democratic National Committee is quietly advancing plans that would technically nominate President Biden weeks before the party's convention. The plan is to train state party chairs on how to securely conduct electronic voting, and then open up virtual delegate voting before the DNC convention. If that happens, Biden could lock in a majority of his nearly 4,000 delegates’ votes in the next two weeks, narrowing the window for critics to push him out. Axios has the story.

Numbers.

3%. The percentage of registered voters who said they wanted Donald Trump to select J.D. Vance as his vice-presidential running mate, according to a June 2024 Harvard-Harris poll.
5%. The percentage of Republican voters who wanted Trump to select Vance.
12%. The percentage of registered voters who said they would be more likely to vote for Trump if he were to select Vance as his running mate.
20%. The percentage of registered voters who said they would be less likely to vote for Trump if he were to select Vance as his running mate.
-7%. The drop in support for Trump among veterans between 2016 and 2020, according to New York Times exit polling.
15%. The percentage of registered voters who said they had a favorable view of Vance in a May 2024 survey from Morning Consult and Bloomberg.
48%. The percentage of registered voters who said they had never heard of Vance.
14%. The percentage of millennials with a favorable view of Vance.
12%. The percentage of voters with a household income of less than $50,000 with a favorable view of Vance.
17%. The percentage of voters with a household income of over $100,000 with a favorable view of Vance.

The extras.

One year ago today we had just published a conversation with Dr. Joseph Fraiman about vaccine safety.
The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was our Friday edition going deep on Project 2025.
Nothing to do with politics: At last night’s Home Run Derby, perhaps the worst national anthem of all time.
Yesterday’s survey: 2,456 readers answered our survey on who is to blame for the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, with the shooter receiving the most blame. “Placing blame comes with an understanding; I can't understand the mind of a killer,” one respondent said.

Have a nice day.

In 2021, then-17-year-old Mason Branstrator broke a vertebra in his back while skiing. As a result, he was paralyzed from the waist down. After extensive hospitalization and physical rehabilitation, Branstrator began using a wheelchair to compete in a variety of adaptive sports including basketball, tennis, and (most recently) a marathon. Branstrator shares his journey on Instagram, where he has over 265,000 followers, inspiring others. The Uplift has the story.