Advantage, Vance

“I’m a knucklehead at times.”

That’s gonna stick.

Going into last night’s vice presidential debate, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance had been portrayed as “weird,” a policy shifting xenomorph who would be just as comfortable evicting your grandmother to make three dollars more a month as he would be drinking champagne on a private jet.

Contrarily, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz was held up as everyone’s favorite down-to-earth midwestern uncle, a more affable version of Ward Cleaver.

But the debate changed those descriptions.  Vance came across as a very smart but not pretentious about it, polished but not slick guy who stands up for what he believes in while being able to see the other side of the argument.

Walz, on the other hand, went from Ward Cleaver to a hopeless, humorless, charmless version of Homer Simpson, a version of Homer as would be written by David Mamet.

That’s gonna stick.

Across the political spectrum,  there were a few consistent opinions on the debate.  Vance won, it was for the most part respectful, that Walz was nervous and out of his depth, and that Vance won.

How do we know even the left admits Vance won? Because they’re saying it but then immediately saying it doesn’t matter because, um, democracy.

“Vance may have prevailed on tone and presentation,” Margaret Sullivan wrote in The Guardian.  “But Walz is on the side of democracy and the peaceful transfer of power.”

Vox opined similarly.

“Ultimately, every issue discussed earlier that night comes in second to the fundamental question of whether America’s democratic institutions deserve to endure,” wrote Zack Beauchamp. “On that question, Vance truly is radical, and his exposure as such was the only truly important moment of the night.”

Just as a reminder:

“Our democracy,” on its face, sounds reasonable, like “our constitution” or “our rights” as citizens.  It seems inclusive, unifying, and based on a shared set of facts and beliefs.  In other words, the “our” is meant to signify “everyone” and that’s good, right?

But in this case, the “our” specifically does not mean everyone but only some, as in “this is ours and not yours 

In fact, it was Vance who was speaking up for actual democracy in his full-throated condemnation of the censorship-industrial complex that has been presided over by the Biden-Harris administration in collusion with its masters in the deep state and minions in Big Tech.   

What is most astonishing – and pretty terrifying – is that this fundamental issue has not come up at all so far in this campaign.  That’s because “democracy” has become a shut-up word, like “consensus,”  the left uses to close off debate and discussion..  Well, Vance didn’t shut up about it:

As the response was in the context of a question about the event of January 6 and if he thought the 2020 election was stolen, Vance’s critics pounced on his alleged “non-answer.” And Walz actually had a good line for once, asking if Vance had been vice president on that day would he have honored democracy or honored Trump (again, not really democracy).

But that was it for Walz.  He was flummoxed by the opening question on Israel, said the expert classes should be trusted (despite what it did during covid and is doing now regarding censorship,) and admitted he gets “caught up in the rhetoric” – also known as lying –  sometimes about some things like being in Hong Kong when the Tiananmen Square protest was brutally crushed.

And then there was this:  “I’ve become friends with school shooters.”

One can only hope and assume he meant “victims of school shooters,” but even this morning he passed on a chance to clarify that statement.

So, in the grand scheme of the election, did the debate change anything. A CNN poll before the debate showed people expected Walz to win, 54% to 45% After the debate, the same group was asked who actually did win and it was 51% to 49% in favor of Vance.

A shift, definitely, but enough to change top of the ticket votes?

Well, put it this way – not a single Trump voter is thinking about switching to Harris because of the debate, but there is no doubt that at least a few of the more wobbly Harris voters might now be open to making a leap.

And in such a close election, that could make all the difference.