Matter of Opinion: Unpacking the Role JD Vance Played on That Debate Stage

Podcast Information:

• Title: Matter of Opinion
• Hosts: Michelle Cottle, Ross Douthat, Carlos Lozada
• Producer: New York Times Opinion
• Episode Title: Unpacking the Role JD Vance Played on That Debate Stage
• Release Date: October 4, 2024

Introduction

In this compelling episode of Matter of Opinion, hosts Michelle Cottle, Ross Douthat, and Carlos Lozada delve into the recent vice-presidential debate featuring Ohio Senator J.D. Vance and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. The discussion centers on Vance's performance, his policy stances, and the broader implications for the Republican and Democratic parties as the 2024 election approaches.

Debate Performance: Vance vs. Walz

The hosts begin by assessing who emerged victorious in the debate. Ross Douthat confidently asserts, "I believe that J.D. Vance won the debate handily. I think it was the best performance in a national debate by a Republican politician in the last 20 years" (05:09). He likens Vance's performance favorably against historical figures like Mitt Romney, emphasizing his strong showing in a political climate dominated by Donald Trump.

Michelle Cottle echoes Ross's sentiments, noting Vance's polished demeanor compared to Walz’s anxious presentation. "What we saw in the debate was the J.D. Vance that had made much of the political class fall in love with him... Walls was a much more kind of anxious, flustered debater" (06:40). This contrast sets the stage for a deeper analysis of their respective debating styles and effectiveness.

Policy Positions and Analysis

The conversation shifts to the substance of Vance and Walz's policy positions. Ross highlights Vance's ability to present common-sense arguments favoring Trump’s record, stating, "Vance made a straightforward argument that you should elect Donald Trump because the world was more stable when Trump was president, the border was more secure, and the economy was better" (14:22). He praises Vance for effectively "sane washing" Trump, making him appear more reasonable and palatable to a broader electorate.

Carlos Lozada challenges Ross on a specific policy point, particularly Vance’s stance on immigration. He scrutinizes Vance’s citation of a supposed Federal Reserve study, revealing inaccuracies: "Vance sounds really good in the context of a 90-minute debate. When you dig into what he's saying, he's a lot less persuasive" (16:04). This critique underscores the importance of fact-checking and substantiates concerns about Vance's policy depth.

Michelle adds that while Vance presented a gentle approach to contentious issues like abortion and immigration, these stances conflict with the Republican Party's traditional positions. "If you looked at what has happened, they were utter horseshit" (13:33), she asserts, highlighting a disconnect between Vance’s rhetoric and party policies.

Fact Checking and Accuracy

The hosts engage in a robust fact-checking segment, particularly focusing on Vance's claims during the debate. Carlos meticulously dissects Vance's reference to immigration and housing costs, revealing that the cited "Federal Reserve study" was, in reality, a brief speech by a Board of Governors member that did not support Vance's assertions. "She's not saying that this is happening. She's saying it could happen... Vance sounds really good in the context of a 90-minute debate. When you dig into what he's saying, he's a lot less persuasive" (16:04).

Ross counters by emphasizing the broader impact of immigration on housing prices and overall inflation, suggesting that Vance's interpretation, while simplified, aligns with significant economic trends. "Also, obviously immigration has an effect on the price of housing. This is like the central issue in Canadian politics right now" (17:16). The dialogue highlights the complexity of policy discussions and the ease with which nuanced topics can be oversimplified in debates.

Implications for Parties' Future

As the discussion unfolds, the hosts explore what Vance and Walz's debate performances signal for the future trajectories of the Republican and Democratic parties.

Ross posits that Vance's strong showing could consolidate Trump's influence within the Republican Party. "J.D. Vance, he may not be the Republican nominee in 2028, but there are a lot of Republicans who are very happy, very, very happy with him right now" (27:36). He suggests that Vance's alignment with Trumpism reinforces the party's current ideological direction.

Michelle offers a contrasting view on the Democratic side, noting the Democratic Party's ongoing struggle to define its future amidst internal debates about its ideological positioning. "The Democratic Party is still going through the crisis of how far it's going to move toward the left... Whereas, as you note, the Republican Party has basically been subsumed with, you know, into Trumpism" (30:17). She implies that the Democratic Party lacks a clear, unified direction comparable to the Republican Party's Trump-dominated landscape.

Carlos reflects on the long-term implications, stating, "I saw the debate this week between Vance and Walls as less the last debate of the 2024 cycle and more the first debate of J.D. Vance's 2028 presidential campaign" (31:24). This perspective underscores the enduring influence of current debate performances on future political landscapes.

Conclusion

The episode wraps up with the hosts contemplating the roles Vance and Walz might play beyond the 2024 election. Ross expresses confidence in Vance's standing within the Republican Party, while Michelle remains skeptical about Walz's impact on the Democratic Party's future direction. Carlos emphasizes the uncertainty surrounding Kamala Harris's role, hinting at a lack of clear leadership within the party.

In their final remarks, the hosts collectively acknowledge the significance of the debate in shaping electoral narratives and party strategies. They highlight the nuanced performances of both Vance and Walz, recognizing that while Vance may have bolstered his position within the GOP, Walz's impact on the Democrats remains ambiguous.

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• "I believe that J.D. Vance won the debate handily. I think it was the best performance in a national debate by a Republican politician in the last 20 years." — Ross Douthat (05:09)
• "What we saw in the debate was the J.D. Vance that had made much of the political class fall in love with him... Walls was a much more kind of anxious, flustered debater." — Michelle Cottle (06:40)
• "Vance sounds really good in the context of a 90-minute debate. When you dig into what he's saying, he's a lot less persuasive." — Carlos Lozada (16:04)
• "J.D. Vance, he may not be the Republican nominee in 2028, but there are a lot of Republicans who are very happy, very, very happy with him right now." — Ross Douthat (27:36)
• "The Democratic Party is still going through the crisis of how far it's going to move toward the left... Whereas... the Republican Party has basically been subsumed with... Trumpism." — Michelle Cottle (30:17)

This episode of Matter of Opinion offers an incisive analysis of the vice-presidential debate, providing listeners with a nuanced understanding of J.D. Vance's performance and its broader political ramifications. Whether you're seeking to grasp the dynamics of the debate or understand the evolving landscape of American politics, this summary encapsulates the essential discussions and insights shared by the hosts.