JD Vance has become a Trumpian foghorn

Vance easily defeated Tim Walz in this extremely civil vice presidential debate

October 2, 2024 12:59 p.m(Updated 2:56 p.m)

It was the battle for second place – the chance for the vice presidential candidates to strengthen their respective campaigns. Tim Walz, the persistent “dad” candidate from Minnesota; and JD Vance, who emerged as the book’s author Hillbilly Elegy to Trump’s foghorn.

Vance won this Midwestern Rumble handily: the result of much more playing practice as an orator and Walz’s obvious nervousness about the format, his snowy head often hunched over notes and brow furrowed in concentration.

It felt like a reversal of the recent contest between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, in which Trump was overtaken by the soft subterfuges of his Democratic challenger.

Vance, who was “at a nice school” (as a well-known debate coach wrote to me), lost his sullen monkish look and instead smiled warmly at Walz as the two men exchanged greetings.

Walz is essentially a support act for Harris. Her decision to choose him as vice president has led other, more experienced contenders for the deputy position to complain that he lacks the charisma and drive to get wavering voters over the line. For Vance, however, the spotlight was a chance to establish himself on a national stage in the role that one of his close followers described to me as “the dauphin who can move the MAGA project forward, win or lose.”

The difference in trust between the two men in the first half of a 90-minute marathon was huge and the main topic was how to respond to the unfolding crisis in Lebanon and whether Israel should be supported by the US if it mounts a counterattack on Iran Missile attacks – was a tough start.

Vance gave a clear answer on the pro-Israel side: “It is up to Israel what it believes must be done to protect its country, and we should support our allies wherever they are as they fight evil. “Boys.” (Pedants might note that this does not apply to Ukraine, where Vance is less bothered by Russian villains being appeased.)

Walz dodged the question, a tactical move to avoid angering a section of the younger and more left-wing Democrats in a pro-Gaza mood, telling us that “stable leadership will be important,” with a strange pivot to “an almost 80-year-old…” Old Donald Trump talks about the size of the crowd.”

This line of attack on Trump, who is significantly older and less focused than during his previous successful run for the White House in 2016, is intended to highlight how Harris represents a strengthening force after the decline of Joe Biden. But the unfortunate effect last night was to remind viewers that it’s Vance, who just turned 40, who is a “MAGA for millennials.”

Read on

Much of the debate was extremely civil, with many “I hear you, man” and “I agree with Tim” style interactions. However, you can’t completely rid the Trump issue of falsehoods, and Vance used all of his tactics at Yale Law School to rewrite inconvenient facts, claiming that he never supported a nationwide ban on abortion (he has done so several times ). , but the Republican campaign is eager to calm target female voters’ nervousness on the issue.

Walz scored best on issues like the Jan. 6 insurrection on Capitol Hill, which forced his opponent to say his boss had called for “peaceful protest” — even though there’s no evidence he did so. and says a lot to the contrary.

Both men carried their own past statements with them as a burden. For Republican strategists, Walz has been something of a gift, given his tendency to highlight his experience in the National Guard and seemingly claiming he witnessed the 1989 Tiananmen Square uprising. “Sometimes I’m an idiot,” he admitted, adding he “talked a lot,” which may not have been the graceful exit his speech preparers had hoped for.

We held our breath when the topic of immigration came up to see what would happen with the Trump breakout hit: “They eat the dogs, the people that came in, they eat the cats.” This was given by Walz, who fully posing as a former teacher, the opportunity to scold his opponent for the “dehumanization and viciousness” of newcomers.

The answer was a Vance bombast-free zone with a heavy helping of dubious economic assumptions about immigration that depressed American wages. Call this a draw — and a sign that the pet-eating meme has now been benched. But Walz’s attack on the Republican team was also perceived as “strange” – because Vance seemed more serious than strange.

Veep debates probably don’t mean much in the grand scheme of election campaigns where the main candidates are the directors. But in a close race, every little bit helps. In just over a month we will know the result and its impact across the world. But only one of these candidates for high office felt he had a bright future ahead of him.

Walz’s calling card is “what you see is what you get,” but this didn’t feel like much of an offer. However, the Vance train has left the station, full of ambition – and with a goal well beyond November 2024.

Anne McElvoy hosts POLITICALLY‘S Power play Podcast comes out on Thursday