By John Q. Hosedrinker 
At the Turning Point USA’s annual convention, CEO Erika Kirk announced the organization’s plan to support Vice President JD Vance for president in 2028. This early endorsement follows the death of her husband, Charlie Kirk, who was a longtime supporter of Vance. The announcement was made to thousands of young conservatives in attendance, with many expressing their desire to see Vance as the next president. Vance is scheduled to give the keynote speech at the convention, where he will be introduced by Kirk, potentially signaling an official campaign launch.
Read the original article here
Erika Kirk appears to endorse JD Vance for president in 2028, and it seems this has sparked a mix of reactions, ranging from indifference to outright cynicism. The core question seems to be, why should anyone care about her endorsement? The sentiment echoes a common thread of skepticism – that her opinion carries little weight in the grand scheme of political influence. Some commentators point out that endorsements typically hold more significance when they come from elected officials or figures with established political power, rather than someone who, as one person put it, “inherited her husband’s money.”
The perception of JD Vance himself seems to be a significant factor driving the negative reactions. A few comments describe him as possessing “extreme negative charisma” and an “anti-charm,” hinting at a widespread belief that he lacks the qualities needed to connect with voters. The criticism extends beyond his perceived charisma; one person mentions a specific instance where he allegedly made insensitive remarks about the military, further fueling the negative sentiment. Some opinions suggest that even if Vance were a strong candidate, her endorsement would be viewed negatively.
The timing of this potential endorsement also raises eyebrows. Some find it premature and question her motivations. One person sarcastically notes how quickly she has transitioned from personal tragedy to political positioning and media appearances. This highlights the common view that she might be using her current platform to build her own political influence. Some see her actions as a calculated move to become First Lady, with several comments focusing on the alleged romantic involvement between Kirk and Vance. This perception paints her endorsement as self-serving rather than a genuine expression of political conviction.
The reactions highlight the dynamics of the 2028 election and the potential roles of figures like JD Vance and the widow of a high-profile conservative commentator. Many people question the long-term viability of Trump’s influence on the party. The general consensus appears to be that Vance faces an uphill battle, especially if he were to run against Trump. This is not seen as the path to electoral success. There is a sense that the endorsement might be an attempt to capitalize on whatever relevance she possesses in the current political landscape.
Another element that surfaces is the role of the Republican Party, and the broader conservative movement. One person mentions a “classic writing error,” suggesting that the endorsement is not about supporting Vance but is a strategic move to position herself within the political landscape. This suggests a more cynical take on the endorsement, questioning its sincerity and its strategic implications. The reactions hint at a perception of the right wing as emotionally strange. Another comment touches upon the values of the party, pointing out the hypocrisy of endorsing a candidate while simultaneously espousing family values.
The lack of respect for Kirk is evident, with some questioning her qualifications. This perspective highlights the elitism and the lack of qualifications people feel some politicians have. Many simply don’t see her as possessing the relevant experience or insight to be taken seriously on political matters. The idea that she and her late husband are “no more sophisticated about these topics than just average Joes” adds fuel to this point.
This endorsement underscores a sense of disillusionment and mistrust toward the political system and some of its players. Several comments reveal a level of distrust in the motives behind such endorsements, indicating a broader skepticism about the actions of those involved. Some question whether the 2028 election will even be fair, suggesting concerns about the integrity of the electoral process itself. The discussion revolves around the potential dynamics of the 2028 election, the perceived strengths and weaknesses of JD Vance, and the motives behind the endorsement itself.