But his answer was great. All the while the moderator was talking over him trying not to let him finish. More nerfing from the media.
I didn't see the debate but it here is one article about it from BBC. Did BBC "nerf" as well?
>>>JD Vance has refused to say whether he thinks Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, and whether he would contest the 2024 vote if Democrats win next month.
The Republican vice-presidential candidate - who has previously said he would have challenged the 2020 result if given the chance - avoided giving answers on both issues during Tuesday night's debate.
In a head-to-head that was largely civilised in tone, he was accused by his Democratic opponent Tim Walz of "a damning non-answer" after sidestepping a question about that result and the Capitol riot on 6 January 2021. ...<<<
Vance refuses to answer whether Trump lost 2020 election
Another less charitable article about Vance's debate with Walz from center-right The Bulkwark:
>>>...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? ...<<<
The junior senator from Ohio won the debate. But who did he win it for? (Hint: Not his boss.)
www.thebulwark.com
Here is another comment from the center-right The Bulwark:
>>>Last night JD Vance, late of cat-lady and pet-eating fame, slid into a normie skinsuit.
It worked great. Vance was charming and deft. He won nearly every interaction, owned nearly every question. He parried and pivoted with the skill of a Clinton.
This was the fourth version of JD Vance to appear in public life.
Vance 1.0 was a memoirist and Hillbilly whisperer.
Vance 2.0 was a Never Trump pundit.
Vance 3.0 was a MAGA edgelord.
Vance 4.0 is something like a cross between 2010 Elizabeth Warren and 2016 Marco Rubio, with some light nativism sprinkled in.
A reminder: Vance just turned 40. Even Sohrab Ahmari must be impressed with the pace of the JDos update cycle. ...<<<
The latest upgrade to JDos aims for a chaotic-good character alignment. Not sure how well MAGA is going to take to that.
www.thebulwark.com
