Margaret Brennan: Just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status.
J.D. Vance: Margaret, the rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact check.
The rules should have been that the moderators were going to fact check.
That Vance reacted sharply to this one moment when his lies were called out is revealing of how far we have fallen into the abyss of unreality, and how critical it is to Vance for him to operate in a world of his own creation.
For much of the night he did. Vance is a smooth and skillful liar, and when viewers are not armed with facts he can sound compelling, even when he makes incredible claims like he never supported a national ban on abortion, or that Donald Trump “salvaged” Obamacare.
Who knew that the person who tried to eliminate the Affordable Care Act was actually the person who made it effective?
If there was a moment when reality upended his act, it was at the end of the debate when Tim Walz asked him directly if Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. Because he was performing for an audience of one, and because the big lie is so central to the Trump myth, there was no way he could answer the question. And he didn’t. The best he could come up with was, “Tim, I’m focused on the future.” Walz shot back that it was a “damning non-answer.”
For much of the evening, the inability to fact check his claims permitted Vance to lie effortlessly and effectively. But in that moment at the end of the debate he showed anyone who was still watching who he is.
For his part, Walz was affable and relatable but too nice. Nervous at first, he settled in as the debate went on, but his generous approach to his opponent undermined his ability to draw the contrasts that voters need to see. Some of this no doubt was strategic. Undecided voters tend to want to believe we can bridge our differences and are turned off by attacks (partisans, in contrast, want the attacks).
But when Walz demonstrated genuine graciousness he permitted Vance to exhibit false graciousness in return, and the resulting tone was discordant with the moment we’re in. Just one day before, Vance’s running mate was talking about the need for “one really violent day” to combat crime. You never would have known that if your only knowledge of the 2024 campaign was what you saw last night.
Of course, what people saw will depend on what they were inclined to see. People who are predisposed to vote for Trump but are disturbed by his behavior could find in Vance’s gaslighting the reassurance they need. On the other hand, people who were predisposed to see Vance as slick and fake were given plenty of reasons to believe he is slick and fake, and polling tells us that covers a lot of people.
Because debates reinforce preexisting opinions, this debate is not likely to change many minds. And to the extent that vice presidential debates do little to affect how people vote for the top of the ticket, it’s also likely that few minds were changed. Because contrary to the claims made by J.D. Vance that somehow Kamala Harris has already had four years to implement her policies, most people know the distinction between the vice president and the president.
It’s also hard to know how many voters were paying attention. Although people say they want details on policy, it’s not clear how many actually sat through the back and forth on the Middle East, climate change, immigration, housing, abortion policy, gun violence, and healthcare. Out in the world of people for whom politics isn’t a primary concern—which is to say most people—there was a playoff game going on between the Padres and Braves.
So if last night’s debate has any staying power, it is likely to be through whatever viral moments the campaigns can generate. The Harris campaign has a lot to work with.
They should pounce on the exchange about the 2020 election. When Walz told Vance that the only reason he was on that stage was because Mike Pence did the right thing on January 6 and certified the election, he revealed a truth that Vance couldn’t invert. The campaign should amplify that moment.
The Wolves and Sheep podcast will return in two weeks.
Gotta say: it was a pleasure to watch a smooth and polished liar at work. He really does have some skilz. Trump's rage-and-dementia-fueled debate in September was far more painful to watch.
I get strong ASPD (e.g. psychopathy) vibes from Vance. And, I'm a weird computer geek. If I think someone is weirder than I am, there is prob something to it. :-)