JD Vance’s brilliant performance cannot change the danger of another Trump presidency | Margaret Sullivan

Tim Walz has said he is an untrained debater, and he didn’t refute that Tuesday night in the first and only vice presidential debate of 2024.

Kamala Harris’ running mate came out nervous, looking light in the spotlight and looking far less polished than his rival, Ohio Sen. JD Vance.

“(Democrats) are lucky, presidential debates tend to be much more important than vice presidential debates,” Dave Wasserman, editor-in-chief of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, aptly noted.

Walz, the governor of Minnesota, had a particularly bad moment when he was asked to explain his repeated falsehoods about being in China during the Tiananmen Square student protests in 1989. (Although Walz spent a lot of time in China, he started some time months later.)

The Minnesota governor’s attempt to find an answer has been bumpy and unsatisfactory. Finally he blurted out: “I wasn’t perfect. And sometimes I’m an idiot.” He should have been prepared to respond, probably by saying that he misspoke about something that happened 35 years ago and that he regrets the mistake.

In contrast, the confident and lithe Vance may have won the debate on points, although his constant addressing of female moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan by their first names annoyed more than a few women. (“I want JD Vance to stop saying ‘Margaret’ in that creepy way,” wrote author Sophie Vershbow on X.)

He seemed eager to seem like a nice guy, quickly talking about his humble Appalachian roots while showing off his Ivy League looks. By leaning heavily into the role of Hillbilly Elegy – and away from his crazy talk about the plight of childless cat ladies and the need to monitor menstrual cycles – he probably helped his own chances of one day becoming president.

But none of that is likely to matter at all in the presidential election, which is just five weeks away. It is far from the core of what matters: that Trump has proven himself to be a danger to America and the world and is completely unfit to be elected president again.

Asked to explain how he could have criticized Trump in the past and was now willing to loyally stand by his side, Vance claimed he was deceived by media lies. Complete nonsense.

Towards the end of the debate, Walz had found his footing, particularly when the CBS News moderators belatedly brought up the topic that should have started the debate, rather than her original question about the growing conflicts in the Middle East.

But many Americans had undoubtedly already gone to bed when Vance began spouting revisionist history — actually, follow-up lies — about Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 riots and his desire to overturn the 2020 election. Let’s remember a role for which he was rightly accused.

Vance tried to portray Trump as only calling for peaceful demonstrations, when in reality the then-president had incited the insurrection at the Capitol.

Now Walz was ready to attack.

“Mike Pence made the right decision,” Walz said, making it clear that the former vice president had refused to follow Trump’s order that day. “This was a threat to our democracy in a way we had never seen before.”

Walz added a glaring truth: “And that’s why Pence isn’t on this stage.”

That, of course, is the real problem – that Trump’s vice president did the right thing after the 2020 election and his boss sided with the people who wanted to hang him for it. The two are done with each other. Vance is a late-comer opportunist.

In the final minutes of the debate, Walz had his best moment when he challenged his rival with this important question:

“Trump still says he didn’t lose the election. Did he lose the 2020 election?”

Vance attempted a non-sequel comeback: “Did Kamala Harris Censor Americans?”

To which Walz responded, “That’s a damn non-answer.”

He was right about that. Trump’s lies and destructive refusal to transfer power peacefully are exactly why JD Vance was on this stage.

Vance may have come out on top in tone and delivery. But Walz is on the side of democracy and the peaceful transfer of power. I call that a victory.