Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
The veepstakes is odd.

My impression was that Trump was going to go with a conservative young mom- Katie Britt, Elsie Stefanik or Sarah Huckabee Sanders. But they've disappeared from the conversation. I do still think this may be the likeliest outcome.

Rubio seems like a decent unity choice. The main problem is that he's from Trump's home state, although I wonder if Trump's purported unwillingness to change his residency back is real or just speculation.

Tim Scott would be similar to Rubio, though not as gifted a campaigner. It would be a safe, diverse choice. Republicans might try to bait Democrats into saying racist things. For example, if a staffer for a Democrat says that he's an oreo.

Governor Doug Burgum of North Dakota has been mentioned, as a bland, safe choice.

Noem's obviously out.

JD Vance is really close to Donald Trump Jr, and gives actual policy suggestions based on Trump's nonsense ideas. I hope it's not him, because he would be the worst President. He seems to have worse instincts than Trump on foreign policy, as well as significantly greater discipline and understanding of the levers of power, in addition to being inexperienced. He seems he'll be able to make bad decisions, and carry it all out.

Tulsi Gabbard is also a possibility. It would be part of an effort to paint Democrats as crazy, to show that former Democrats are with Trump.

Trump would probably think Israel isn't aggressive enough.

I think this is an example of people thinking a civics test will get the outcomes they want.

The power to make answering civics questions mandatory to be able to vote is very ripe for abuse. We could all imagine racist administrators figuring out questions that would weed out African American women or favor white men who support them.

It's interesting to see if there are any tests about civics knowledge across demographics. Are black women more likely to be able to name a Supreme Court justice than white men are? A horrifying statistic is that a majority of Americans couldn't name any Supreme Court justice.

It would be very easy to bias a test. For example, you could ask questions more relevant to particular communities (IE- asking about mayors and city councils if you want to count urban voters more) or that some sides may not want to address (IE- asking for a description of originalism as a way to exclude any liberal who thinks it doesn't apply to amendments.)
As crazy as Trump can be, I still think he might consider naming his daughter as his VP. After Pence, I doubt he would trust anyone else.