The dust is starting to settle a bit. And it wasn’t that much of a whirling dervish to begin with. First of all, the fact that there was no real time fact checking worked to J.D. Vance’s benefit, as was predicted. When he denied ever asking for a national abortion ban, no, there was no immediate reply that he wasn’t telling the truth because his 2022 comments were on file. Same when he misled the room about Trump purportedly building on Obamacare. Had Vance been with the same ABC team as moderated the Harris/Trump debate, it would have been a different picture. And briefly it was a different picture. About twenty minutes into the debate there was a dust up when J.D. Vance accused one of the moderators of fact checking him. Imagine that, a random act of senseless journalism.
So basically the debate is considered a draw with both Vance and Tim Walz having some nice moments and both of them finding common ground. That was certainly pleasant. If Kamala Harris found any other common ground with Donald Trump beyond agreeing that the sky is blue, we certainly didn’t see it last month.
Speaking of Donald, what did he think of the debate? This is key. All that we do know is that midway through he began tweeting about Pete Rose.
He died yesterday Grandpa. Go back to sleep.
— Hoodlum 🇺🇸 (@NotHoodlum) October 2, 2024
And if J.D. is lucky, Trump was too busy with his tweet box and other amusements. Because if J.D. isn’t lucky, he could be really screwed with Trump and this is why.
Vance had a near-perfect debate. Unlike his performance at the Republican National Convention, when he had to give a speech in an arena packed with living, breathing human beings, he was entirely at ease in a room with just cameras and a couple of journalists. The man was in his element.
He succeeded in not only appearing comfortable but in projecting an entirely normal political persona. This was not the Vance who appears on MAGA podcasts: He did not talk about childless cat ladies or use the phrase “postmenopausal women.” He did not mention America’s “late Republican period” or the “wild” things he believes are necessary to combat it.2
Instead, the JD Vance on display was almost like a smoother, 2016-vintage Marco Rubio.
Check out some of the positions Vance took during the course of the debate:
- That because Trump is crazy and unpredictable, other countries fear him—which is why Trump is good for foreign policy.
- That climate change is real and protectionism is the best way to combat it.
- That when he said mean things about Trump in the past, it was because the media had lied to him about Trump.
- That Trump governed in a bipartisan manner and “got things done.”
- That Trump saved Obamacare.
- That America has an “epidemic of gun violence.”
- That Republicans need to “earn people’s trust back” on abortion.
- That Trump isn’t a threat to democracy because he did voluntarily leave the White House on January 20, 2021.
- That America needs (1) change and (2) a president who’s done this all before.
I know how that reads on the page, but you’ll have to trust me: He made it all sound reasonable.3
In fact, Vance was so good that I wonder if this debate might become a case of catastrophic success. Because tomorrow a whole bunch of people in Conservatism Inc. are going to be talking about how Vance is the post-Trump savior they’ve been waiting for.
I wonder what Donald Trump will think about that? […]
I doubt Vance did anything meaningful to help Trump’s electoral prospects. But he absolutely helped his own prospects for 2028, or 2032, or whenever Trump leaves the scene.
Or gets pushed.
How do they mean, “gets pushed” I wonder? Like the way Vladimir means it, people just start falling out of windows, that is, when they’re not drinking polonium-spiked tea? Because that’s the literal interpretatioin, or maybe they simply mean, pushed aside by history and by events. After all, Trump himself has said he won’t run again if he loses in November. Not that I believe a word that comes out of his mouth, but just saying. That is something he recently stated on camera.
The GOP needs to go on. That’s a fact. They need to regroup. Might J.D. Vance be the new standard bearer? If that IS the scuttlebutt tomorrow in Republican world, then Vance is truly screwed. He’s screwed for the same reason that Vivek Ramaswamy became screwed early on. Trump doesn’t want any competition in a running mate. He wants to be the unequivocal star.
Doug Burgum, one of the other VP contenders, was considered to be no threat to Trump but Burgum wouldn’t be the MAGA attack bull like Vance is. Burgum was too bland. Marco Rubio was in fact considered a threat. J.D. was considered to be somebody who could spread the MAGA vitriol on Fox News and not be a charismatic threat of any sort. J.D. was definitely docile, second banana fare. Half Trump’s age, only two years in the Senate, a MAGA convert. Totally controllable.
That dynamic may have changed tonight. J.D. may have become too Vivek-ian for Trump’s tastes. And if that’s the case, that could make for a very interesting next 34 days. Vance may have written his very own Hillbilly Eulogy tonight.
I don’t think this was a eulogy for Vance, as much as I wish it were.
Vance was smooth, polished and articulate, but lied a lot. Unfortunately, his delivery may have convinced a lot of undecideds that his lies are true.
Walz was a truthteller, but rough around the edges. I favor Walz because I know he is a truthteller, but I am afraid that many less informed undecideds will have been fooled by Vance last night.
I am sad about that.
The link “3” in the Ursula’s article leads to the Bulwark essay she quotes, and in that article the “3” links to a footnote:
The text: “I know how that reads on the page, but you’ll have to trust me: He made it all sound reasonable.” 3
The footnote: 3
“Provided you have zero understanding about the last eight years of American history.”
For some reason Jonathan V. Last chose to footnote the comment rather than include it in his Bulwark article text. The added context is notable.