Will Trump Actually Hand the GOP to JD Vance?

How do you feel about the situation? Super North people, you don't have to be a player.

How do I write down the answer? The phenomenon must be respected. In Greece? This is a job for Sponsor Jobs, with real profiles that are not passed. For example, for such a day and for a qualified talent with Sponsor Jobs. Master indeed, either on d.a/recruting.

Download the Pray.com app today. Hello and welcome back to another episode of Behind the Story. I am Daily Wire, DC Bureau of Chief Tim Rice, and joining me today is my friend and colleague, Daily Wire, managing editor, Dylan Halsman, Dylan, thank you so much for being here today. Hi, I'm excited to be here.

Lop behind the story, it's my favorite podcast. Yeah, let's do it every week, so I'm just more than honor to be on.

That's always nice to hear. We appreciate it.

We hope more people follow your lead. As listeners know, usually this is where I bring on a reporter, and we get to sort of behind the scenes scoop of how they got to a story that we published on our website. We're going to do a little bit of that with you. There is a piece that I want your most recent column that I want to use as a jumping off point.

Then we'll just chat and give the behind the story. Listeners, a little bit of that sweet sweet Dylan Halsman wisdom. So the piece is that I encourage everyone to go read this as always on dailywire.com.

“Since when has a little annoying thing ever hurt anyone?”

Some title, a lot of times actually. Dylan, why don't you just start by telling us what was the argument that you were making in this wonderful column? Yeah, I noticed in the last six weeks, four to six weeks, JD events are vice president. He's been getting a lot more attention. Usually vice presidents, we don't really think too much about them.

We don't pay that much attention to what they're doing. But ever since the Iran negotiation, you know, MOU situation or the kicked in the high gear, which is a couple months ago or so, he's really been in the spotlight a lot. He had the MOU where he was the face of it, and he was out there selling it to everyone. He had his book come out around that same time.

He was doing a book tour, doing a bunch of media. And suddenly, some of the statements he was making on foreign policy about Israel, about economics in his book, about religion in his book, started to catch people's attention, and people started to say, "Wait a second. Some of this doesn't sound quite right to me or it sounds like stuff that I like."

“That's what some Republicans and some conservatives were saying about some of his public comments.”

And so this entire discourse started where you had this kind of... Admittedly small online, I would say DC kind of based cadre within the Republican Party,

within the right, who were suddenly being very critical of JD bands.

And then you had the backlash to that, which was JD bands as allies in the media, political operatives, etc. Going very hard in the paint, trying to put down this, you know, beginnings of a rebellion, essentially happening, and acting very aggressively towards it. I wanted to write about that, and my thesis essentially was that look. JD bands is almost certainly going to be the 2020/8 Republican nominee.

I wouldn't put it at 100%, but it's overwhelmingly likely, I think, even people who like him or dislike him, all would kind of agree on that with the most part. He's almost certainly going to be the nominee, most Republicans, as of now, like him and view him positively. So why don't you just let the process play out? Why do we have to have this aggressive, you know, stamping out of any kind of criticism or resistance to him whatsoever,

specifically to get to the annoying thing or to kind of to wrap it all in a nice bow? I think what I noticed is that whenever people would make a criticism of vats and say, "Oh, I don't like what he said about, you know, common good economics in this book." Or I don't like how this Iran MOU is turning out, or I don't like that he has it. This is about Tucker Carlson.

Whatever the specific criticism has been, the response from his defenders has not been for the most part to, you know, actually respond to substance and pushback.

“It has been to say, "You need to shut up because he's going to be the nominee."”

They've spoken about it as if it's inevitable 100% certainty that he's going to be the nominee, which may be the case, but I just think it's one substantively not correct to argue that way, just to kind of an ethereal, you know, right in wrong sense, but too I think it's politically kind of foolish,

Yeah, any suggestion that Vans would not be the nominee or could legitimately be challenged by anyone was met with disdain?

We have two high-profile examples in recent years of an insider political apparatus, foisting a candidate on their party without allowing a normal, open challenge process to occur. Ask President Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris how that worked out. So I mean, it's funny, but it's true. And I guess what I'm wondering, though, is how do you, you're argument is clear,

“but so what do you think is the important thing there?”

Like why if everybody Democrats or Republicans, ProVans, anti-vans, everyone kind of acknowledges that there is, again, an 85 to 90% chance that he is going to be the nominee, why is it so important that we don't do a little anointing?

Like, what is it specifically?

I think it comes back to Donald Trump in the way that the Republican Party has operated under Trump, which is that it's essentially a cult of personality, a coalition of party. It's a coalition of a bunch of different groups generally on the right, all they're not even all on the right, who view Trump as their guy for one reason or another. But when you dig beneath the surface of what those groups all have in common,

it's some of them actually don't have very much in common. You know, the person who voted for Trump, let's say a Tucker Carlson acolyte voter who voted for Trump, because they thought he was going to be isolationist on foreign policy, and they wanted him to slam a bunch of tariffs everywhere.

Does not have that much in common necessarily in terms of their worldview and their political priorities,

with someone who voted for Trump, because he's been a super staunch ally of Israel forever, and believes nominally in capitalism, and wants to vote against Democrats, because they think they're socialist. Like those two groups of people, and you can split this off into seven or eight or nine different other pieces of coalition. You have the Mahah people, you have the Catholic integralist people who want us to do those common good stuff, and are arguing about Twitter on Twitter all the time about it.

You have the people that want tax cuts and nothing else, kind of the old garden Republicans, you have the movement conservatives, you have the libertarians, all these different groups, and Trump has the unique, I think, secret sauce, so to speak, of Trump, and his coalition management is that he has managed through his own personal will and personal appeal to keep all of those people together.

And so I think the idea that that's going to just transfer over to the next candidate, whoever it would be, even if it wasn't JD bands or whatever it was, the idea that that's going to transfer over seamlessly to a completely different person in personality,

“I think is foolish, and so then the question becomes, how does this next person keep the coalition together?”

And I think for the next person to keep the coalition together, and you know, in their goal, expand on it, they have to actually have some of these arguments about policy and some of these discussions and open discourse about, what do we actually want this party to look like in this movement to look like that really haven't happened under Trump, because it's all just been kind of whatever Trump says goes. Once you get Trump out of the way, you can't just say whatever Trump says goes anymore,

you actually do have to have some of those policy disagreements and hash out what is this party going to look like. And so I think to keep everyone on side, it's important, it's just basic human psychology, really, like you don't want people to develop resentment, you don't want a big chunk of your coalition, who may be disagrees with JD bands about foreign policy and about economics, you feel resentful, unlike they just got steamrolled by a bunch of jerks in the primary who didn't give them any voice.

So you want them to feel like they're part of the process, and that they have some stake in what's happening, or else, you know, all of those people might just not vote for you, and that leads to losing in 2028.

“So that's why I think politically you have to go through that process.”

Yes, it's also just a curious approach, because obviously, and you get to listen to the piece, it's been framed as sort of, as advances in Rubio, Rubio, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as the other sort of, you know, immediately apparent potential 2028 Republican candidate, the president himself has sort of stoked the notion that it might be Marco, it might be JD, but even setting the particulars aside, I don't certainly not in recent memory.

I'm sure it happened at some point, but there's no instance of a sitting vice president running on a post for a nomination, right? I mean, you know, even Al Gore, you know, I mean Joe Biden famously didn't run in 2016, but maybe Al Gore ran on the post, I have to imagine at least somebody came to, you know, give him sort of a perfumptory challenge.

So you would think that, you know, they have to be prepared for some kind of primary process, even if it's not, you know, even if it's silly, even if it's, you know, like, like every New York, to goof in a Tory old primary in the Andrew Cuomo years, where it's the guy who's obviously going to win and then four people who just wanted to be up there on stage. But so this, this gets to the other, I think, important point or the other point of your piece that I found the most interesting,

it's not just a criticism of Republicans, but I think we've noticed this emerging a lot recently,

where any time something is said, any time more than one person agrees, any time a bad thing happens to a person or a party that you support, it is a, it must be a conspiracy.

“So can you talk a little bit about that and what, why? Why is everyone saying this? Why is everything at all of a sudden?”

Yeah, I think, I don't know the answer to why necessarily, I think, a lot of people seem to just genuinely be conspiracy-minded, and just, I honestly come to that conclusion about their worldview. JD Vance is admitted that he is a conspiracy theorist. I mean, there's been reporting on, you know, Susan Wilde's calling him a conspiracy theorist, and he's admitted himself that he, you know, goes down rabbit holes on things,

and like, look, everybody nowadays, I think is at least a little bit of a conspiracy theorist probably, or most American people. So that's not like disqualifying or, or, you know, the end of the world in and of itself, but I think in this particular way, it's manifesting that all of the allies and JD Vance himself said this. This is one of the comments that really sparked people's eyeer was when he went on the Joe Rogan podcast and said, essentially, it's paraphrase his comments.

Yes, the people who were criticizing the MOU and my negotiation with Iran are agents of Israel who want there to be endless more on behalf of foreign country, and they're being paid by Israel. And he's referenced this, this social media operation by a guy named Brad Parscale, who used to be a top Trump campaign operative back in 2016. And it's true that Brad Parscale is getting paid to do kind of lobbying on behalf of Israel.

He's filed all the necessary paperwork, it's all out in the open, everybody knows it. And that some of that apparently has involved, like working with social media influencers, but there's no, you know, direct tie, there's no evidence that says, oh, everybody did this mad at JD Vance's negotiation is on the payroll Brad Parscale. He kind of stole the base there, making that point.

And that made a lot of people upset, and again, back to my previous point, I think it speaks to the fact that if you are a Republican voter who voted for Trump, and you have this certain set of beliefs about foreign policy or again about economics, I don't want to, people think this is that's the other point. People think this is all about Israel, it's not.

It's about economics and Israel and religion all to various levels I would say, because another key aspect of events is worldviews. It is not particularly capitalist in a lot of ways. In some ways, he is, but compared to your traditional kind of wrote-of-the-mill Republican, he's not exactly.

So I think it's not all about Israel, but Vance kind of made it seem like it was primarily about Israel, it's part of this off this conspiracy of people criticizing him, who were on the Israeli payroll, and I think if you're one of these people, who is just a Republican voter or a Republican operative for some of who participates in politics,

“and you have this good faith objection, and it gets dismissed as only you must be getting paid.”

I think that creates resentment and it's counterproductive. And I don't know why that's the immediate fallback, other than it's just kind of the nearest weapon available. I think it's kind of just the easiest thing to do, so everybody that hates me, but it's mad at me, it's just a hoard-body getting paid. You know, like that's, that can be comforting, can be self-s soothing, I guess, to one psyche,

but like it seems counterproductive, and we'll find out in the election, the primary election that, as you said, will eventually happen in some way. We'll find out how much of that is true. It's interesting, to me, it's something that is, you know,

it's always sort of been the, the purview of the left,

and I think it's a bad habit on the left, where you see, whenever two people who share a world of you interact, I always think about, you know, whatever Clarence Thomas has dinner with a prominent, another prominent conservatives, you know, the left pro-publican, whatnot, rush, pod save America, rushes to say,

you know, this is proof of some vast right-wing conspiracy. Well, you know, Clarence Thomas is unquestionably one of the most elite, he's one of nine of the most elite members of American society by virtue of his job. And everybody in polite, you know, mainstream Washington elite circles have spent the past 40 years demonizing him.

“So, you know, is it really that shocking when the only person he hangs out with is Samuel Lillito?”

Like, that's not, you know, that's, that's not, that's just, that's just how bad dinner with another prominent conservative, there must be something happening here. Yeah, like, I don't know if you're really friends. Right, if you don't like that, like, when was the last time Brock and Michelle invited

to Clarence and Virginia Thomas, or for dinner, right? So, I do think it's a little bit, it's a little bit of that, right? Where it's any time someone does something that I don't like or is that something neat about my guy, it must be an off.

But I wonder, kind of bridging this with the, the first part of what we were discussing.

This isn't good, right? But I feel like Republicans have to, and conservatives have to shake this attitude because I think you're absolutely right that for the first time in 10 years,

a very serious conversation about what it is, what its priorities are.

“Who's in its coalition, or if everyone gets to be in its coalition, right?”

Which members of the coalition have relative weight, which goes back to the policy priorities? And I think if everyone's knee-jerk reaction is to just say, well, they're a foreign agent, or they're writers, or that's an off, that's an off. That's whatever, it's, I mean, it's production, it's in the point room to shut everything down. So even when eventually the party does settle on an nominee, it's done none of the foundational work

to undergarment, right? And it's almost like setting up whoever advanced or whoever up for failure. Yeah, I mean, that's kind of why I wanted to write something about it, is because, you know, at the, at the 100,000-foot view, there is no way to run a political coalition movement.

This way, like you can't, you simply can't have a movement that is entirely made up of people who were conspiracy-minded and not grappling with ideas in an area way, because they're just looking for, you know, accusing everybody of getting paid all the time

and looking for the next cabal to go after.

You know, at the end of the day, somebody has to be grounded at making policy and figuring out the right ways to run the country and then how, and then more importantly, how to actually put that into action. And so, you know, this is a road that leads to failure for the movement, no matter who ends up running it, or what the actual ideology is.

And then if you go down a little closer, like 30,000 feet in the, you know, 20, 28 election and all that, it is no way to build an, an electoral coalition that can actually win. I mean, you're not going to outcompete the left in terms of, you know, speaking truth to corporate power or the cabal or everybody getting paid and all that stuff.

They've been completely consumed by that already. Every single democratic crowd, every single competitive important at this point, democratic primary election is about who's getting more APAC money, who's getting more corporate money, you're being bought by this person, you're being bought by that person.

That entire discourse is consumed, the entire other half of the aisle. If it consumes, for the public enough of the aisle, it's, you know, you're going to get beat at their end game. You know, that it's not going to be a way to actually build a winning coalition. And again, I think all of these groups that came together to support Trump,

they all need to be catered to in a, in a good faith way, if you want to expect them to stick around. I mean, a lot of these people weren't even Republicans or, as we know, are in low-prepensity voters that aren't inclined to just get up off the couch and vote for anyone that aren't extra there and add.

You have to welcome them in and give them, give them the time of day. And so just saying that, you know, this guy's the guy, nobody else's objections are concerns mean anything, and you better lie to him about for him. I mean, you can do that, but you're almost certainly going to lose.

“I think if you do that, you have to, you have to make people feel part of the coalition”

and part of the movement and not just write them all off as, as a house. It's also really interesting. And I feel like if, if the, if the, if Republicans don't do what you just said, right, if they continue down this path of, you know, anointing events, dismissing everybody else as an offer, what not.

It seems like a massive, unforced error, not just because of the reasons that you have, I think, correctly delineated, but because, as we've been discussing a lot recently, Democrats are literally getting crazier, right?

Obviously, Democrats are always going to run against Republicans

by trying to position Republicans as right wing fascists. Republicans are always going to brand Democrats as, you know, America hating socialists. The difference between now and 15 years ago, is that a lot of the people who we are seeing

win the Democratic Dominations in the primaries for this midterm election, people who are rising to the top of the party, are quite literally American hating socialists, right?

“I mean, I'm no Barack Obama fan, but I think,”

and I think that he has some American hating and socialistic tendencies. But I obviously, I do not think it would have been fair to call president Barack Obama and anti-Avarian American hating socialists, same with Hillary Clinton. I'm dual outside. So, run by them.

I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing.

I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing.

I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing.

I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing.

I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing.

I think that's a very important thing.

I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing.

I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing.

I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing.

I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing.

I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing.

I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing.

I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing.

I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing.

I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing.

I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing.

I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing.

I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing.

I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing.

I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing. I think that's a very important thing.

I think that's a very important thing. That is the alternative for applicants. Can I get it together? Yeah.

“In the Trump of it, that's a great point too.”

Again, it's another strange kind of forced false dichotomy. Much like how everyone's having the vans or rubio fight. It completely ignores the possibility that any number of people could seek the Republican nomination after, for 2828. We spend so much time Democrats and Trump is obviously

stoking these fires themselves.

Trump says maybe I'll run for a third term.

Democrats say he's going to throw away the Constitution. Republican say he's obviously knocked into these kidding. And we spend so much time having that debate that it sort of aligns what you're pointing out, which is not that Trump is going to do anything illegal or unconstitutional, but he's just going to be there being Trump.

And unlike every other president in the modern era who has either coordinated with his vice president and or successor, right, to campaign for them or in the case of Bill Clinton and now gore. And a little bit from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton just sort of retreated into the back and let the campaign play out.

Trump's obviously not going to do that. I'm not saying I'm not weighing in on that either way. You know, that's just that's to your point that it's simply who Trump is. He is not going to retreat into a lame duck position and coordinate with the Republican presidential campaigns, such as it is.

I just saw this. We just saw a reference or as you mentioned earlier, Harris, like we just saw this happen will come later, swear, you know, Joe Biden said no daylight kid. And like if you think Joe Biden didn't want any daylight, wait to see how Donald Trump approaches his successor running, like he's not going to want any daylight. And you know, you see his name is like the Iran war.

“I think it's pretty clear, J.D. events, not really big fan of going to war with the”

run. His public allies and the media certainly not big fans of going to war with the run. The American people, based on a polling, not big fans of going to war with the run. No, because then Trump's going to bite his head off. So this is going to be a problem. And I think people are just kind of overlooking that again, the Trump of it all and saying it's just going to be this smooth

succession. If you need the only person that might get a smooth succession, it's Donald Trump Jr. And I think people got to keep a little more of it on that. That's the, that's the wild carnal throw in as as we wrap up here, I think.

Yeah, well, honestly, I have a million follow-up questions about that,

but we're going to have to do that offline. And we'll probably have to have you back for part two, maybe we discuss Democrats, 248, and the unlikely perhaps rise in Dodd Jr. So that's. I just don't think you're going to be off with them. Yeah, you did. You really did. That was a good trip.

Dylan Houseman is the manager editor of the Daily Wire. Dylan,

thank you so much for joining us. Thank you, too.

“What if a few minutes with God could change the direction of your entire day?”

With Pray.com, you can begin each morning with powerful daily

prayers, inspiring Bible stories, and messages created to strengthen your faith.

“Whether you need peace, encouragement, or fresh start,”

Pray.com helps you make prayer part of your everyday life.

download the prey.com app today.