If You Don’t Consider Any of the Merits of His Arguments, JD Vance Clearly Won the Debate
Style points are the only kind that matter
“JD Vance not only was polished, but offered a more cutting critique of Kamala Harris than his running mate, Donald Trump, managed in his own debate with her last month. Tim Walz, on the other hand, took a while to warm up — and wasn’t that great even when he did. The debate, light on body blows and heavy on policy, was won by Vance on style points.” — Politico, 10/2/24
As a pundit watching the Vice Presidential debate last night, my priorities were simple: pick a winner. Presidential elections are all about the outcome, sort of like a lower-stakes version of American Idol. That’s why, as a member of the media, my job isn’t to inform the American people so they can determine which candidate should win the election. My job is to inform the American people of who will win the election based on public opinion and whatever Nate Silver’s latest forecast shows.
With that in mind, last night’s debate had a clear winner. Because, as long as you don’t consider any of the merits of his arguments, JD Vance did a better job.
Foreign Policy
The debate opened with a question to both candidates about whether they would support Israel making a preemptive strike against Iran. Of the two candidates, only JD Vance understood that this was obviously a trick question. The CBS moderators were trying to see if either candidate would fall into the trap of substantively discussing the Middle East — an obvious lose-lose.
That’s why Vance spent the majority of his response talking about being from Ohio before ultimately dodging the question.
A clearly very nervous Tim Walz, on the other hand, took the bait and gave a frustrating non-answer that appeased nobody while alienating a few hardliners. Clear mistake.
+1 JD Vance
Immigration
As the debate turned to immigration, Vance came out on top, as he managed to lay out an unspeakably cruel plan for mass deportations without calling anyone a rapist or an insane asylum escapee — something his running mate had been unable to do. With such artful spin, you could tell this guy had gone to law school. Sort of like a white nationalist Saul Goodman in guyliner.
+1 JD Vance
Affordable Housing Immigration
JD Vance shined again as he stuck to a staple of the Republican playbook: make everything about immigration. He even talked about Springfield without mentioning eating pets once.
Poor Governor Walz, armed only with the truth, was no match.
+1 JD Vance
The Economy Immigration
You can probably already see where this is going, but, when the topic of the economy came up, JD Vance yet again made it about immigration. Enough said.
+1 JD Vance
Abortion
Surprisingly, JD Vance admitted that Republicans have to earn back women’s trust. This uncharacteristic honesty was one of Vance’s few missteps all night.
+1 Tim Walz
Climate Change
Vance: “This idea that carbon emissions drive all the climate change — let’s just say that’s true, just for the sake of argument so we’re not arguing about weird science…”
Talk about threading the needle.
+1 JD Vance
That Whole Tiananmen Square Thing
It was shocking that, in 2024, Tim Walz still doesn’t understand that the key to politics is to never admit mistakes and to always double down. Walz could have easily gotten away with way bigger lies than getting his travel dates mixed up by a few months. The fact that he doesn’t know that yet is telling.
+1 for JD Vance
Gun Violence
When Tim Walz talked about his son witnessing a shooting, JD Vance expressed sympathy. Policy positions aside, we did not know empathy for a fellow human being was something Vance was capable of.
+1 JD Vance
Democracy
Setting aside that Walz presented fairly accurate information, effectively laid out Kamala Harris’ economic vision, and came across as authentic, it’s clear the only good moment he had during the debate was getting JD Vance to answer whether he thought the 2020 election was stolen.
+1 Tim Walz
Likeability
Finally, it’s worth discussing how each candidate came across compared to their public perception. Walz managed to be the likable, midwestern dad everyone knows him to be. Vance, meanwhile, didn’t say anything overtly misogynistic, was mean but not too mean, and was clearly more comfortable at a podium than he is at the counter of a donut shop. Vance wins in this category because he had nowhere to go but up.
+1 JD Vance
Conclusion
I could sit here and talk about which party’s policies make sense and which party’s policies are objectively coo-coo bananas. I could talk about how we in the media have normalized Trump’s agenda to the point where we present things like mass deportations, climate skepticism, and election denial like they are perfectly reasonable viewpoints. And I could talk about how the Overton window has shifted so far into crazy town that we’ve all been defenestrated.
But if there’s one thing that the media’s election coverage has made clear it’s this — it’s not the truth that matters, it’s how you present the truth. And by that metric, it’s pretty clear JD Vance won the debate.
Even if it means America lost.
Comments
Does the VP debate even matter?
If every poll is so close that it’s inside the margin of error, and if Nate Silver’s forecast remains a toss-up, does that mean I should keep spending hours a day combing through the latest data searching for some tiny sliver of clarity?
What other criteria besides style points should we be using to judge debates? Best hair? Least weird? Most folksy?
I just lost my voice screaming into the void about the debate coverage. I should have just waited to read this and laugh off my rage.
1. No.
2. I realized earlier you created this alter ego so you could vote twice for Kamala, which proves VOTER FRAUD IS REAL.
3. Nothing matters and we're all going to die.