WHAT DOES VANCE DO FOR TRUMP’S RE-ELECTION PROSPECTS? NOTHING OR WORSE: Sean Trende: Trump’s VP Pick Won’t Help Him Win Election. Trende is one of America’s most astute political observers. Perhaps his most pertinent point is that Vance was hardly an electoral juggernaut in Ohio:

His performance in the state has been underwhelming, to say the least. Consider his run in 2022 compared to the rest of the statewide Republican ticket. Mike DeWine won the governorship by 25 percentage points. Dave Yost won the attorney general race by 20 points. Keith Faber (auditor) won by 18. Frank LaRose (secretary of state) won by 21. Robert Sprague (treasurer) won by 18. The GOP Supreme Court justices won by between 12 and 18 points.

J.D. Vance won his Senate seat by six points. It’s unclear, then, how he might help Trump carry Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Michigan.

By contrast: “Kim Reynolds of Iowa might have helped to flip Minnesota or Wisconsin. Rubio probably would have put away Arizona and Nevada and potentially put New Mexico fully in play. Youngkin could have made Virginia fully into a swing state.”

UPDATE: When I was growing up in Queens, I was a Mets fan, while my friends were Yankees fan. I remember trying to persuade them that the Mets were better than the Yankees–Kingman better than Chambliss at first base, for example. My arguments weren’t irrational, but they were very wrong. But that’s what fans do. Similarly, you may like Vance as Trump’s VP on ideological grounds (and you may discount what seems to be a very opportunistic change of heart on MAGA on his part). And it’s very likely the VP choice won’t make a difference, unless the election is really close it won’t. But if you are arguing Vance is a better choice than, say, Youngkin, or Tim Scott, or several others, purely from perspective of who is more likely to help Trump on the margin win the election, you are doing the Kingman/Chambliss thing.