the main reason i endorsed hillary clinton in 2016 was to block pence, which didn't seem helpful, in hindsight. i'm apprehensive about falling into the same trap, but i think vance will be a more substantive pick in terms of function.
i can't understand why anybody would take a man that looks like a chimp and has the grooming etiquette of a dog seriously, but the thing about demagogues is that they're successful con artists because they find out what you want to hear and say it. i don't want to hear anything from a man like vance at all. somebody that's dealing with a mortgage they can't afford and food they can't buy might be more open to suggestion. it's the immense increase in inequality in the united states over the last five years that allows a vance to be possible.
i'm not there yet, but his ability to effortlessly produce not just bald-faced lies but incoherent bald-faced lies is very worrying. large amounts of what he says cannot be deconstructed at all because it is literally incoherent; he has a tendency of putting words together in a manner that produces no discernible meaning. this isn't hyperbole. he projects meaning between the words, but the words themselves frequently have no meaning, and if you stop to try to deconstruct it, you'll instantly run across this outcome. what?
there's enough in front of us to produce serious concern.