Unpacking the Role JD Vance Played on That Debate Stage

Summary

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.

Transcript

[Sponsor Voice]

This podcast is supported by US Bank. At US bank, when they say they're in it with you, they mean it. Not just for the good stuff, the grand openings and celebrations, although those are pretty great. But for all the hard work it took to get there. Because together, they're proving day in and day out that there is nothing as powerful as the power of us. Visit us bank.com to get started today. Equal Housing Lender Member FDIC Guys, before.

[Ross Douthat]

We start this week's episode, we need to share an exciting announcement with our beloved Matter of Opinion Cultists followers.

[Carlos Lozada]

Sorry, the card says Moops.

[Michelle Cottle]

Carlos has gotten us into Moops.

[Ross Douthat]

That says Seinfeld.

[Carlos Lozada]

Of course it's Seinfeld. It's the bubble Boy episode.

[Ross Douthat]

No, I know. I know what it is. I'm questioning the wisdom of starting off a discussion that's fully about 21st century podcasting realities with a Seinfeld reference. That's all.

[Michelle Cottle]

Well, do you have a better suggestion?

[Ross Douthat]

I think Muscovites is what our no.

[Michelle Cottle]

We Want people are called no. No Muscovites, Ross.

[Carlos Lozada]

You want to call them the movies.

[Ross Douthat]

No, I don't.

[Michelle Cottle]

All right, well, Moops Muscovites, we are excited to tell you that Matter of Opinion is entering its subscription era.

[Carlos Lozada]

Starting next week, we will begin offering subscribers exclusive content on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. It's a brand new way for you to access some special conversations just for you, our beloved Moops moose.

[Ross Douthat]

But that's right, as a subscriber, you'll get access to our full back catalog of episodes, all the greatest hits, and also our secret bonus content for the conversations that they won't let us have on the main feed, which are mostly just me talking to myself about Catholic Empire in North America.

[Michelle Cottle]

I want you to go undercover inside Area 51. That's what I'm here for, Ross.

[Ross Douthat]

I mean, who's to say I'm not speaking to you from the Nevada desert right now.

[Michelle Cottle]

All right, well, dear listeners, do not worry. Our latest episodes will still be free.

[Ross Douthat]

Free, gratis, no charge free.

[Michelle Cottle]

But if you want to get this snazzy subscriber exclusive content and our archives next week, all you have to do is link your New York Times account to to Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

[Ross Douthat]

And if for some unfathomable reason you don't already have a New York Times subscription, do not fear. You can go to nytimes.com podcasts and get one.

[Carlos Lozada]

But what, you may ask, if I'm an audio purist, I don't care about all the other stuff that a full Times subscription offers.

[Michelle Cottle]

Carlos, my friend, I am so glad to have the answer to this. The Times has created an audio only subscription. For just six bucks a month you can get access to every New York Times podcast and their back archives.

[Ross Douthat]

And you're letting the New York Times know that podcasts like ours are worth supporting. Please do that and ours especially.

[Carlos Lozada]

So okay, if you're already a subscriber, all you have to do is plug in your Times, login to Apple Podcasts and Spotify starting next week.

[Michelle Cottle]

And if you aren't yet, you just head over to nytimes.com podcasts or hit the link in our show notes to get yourself a Times subscription or a Times audio subscription and get access to the Muscovites Clubhouse.

[Carlos Lozada]

Thank you.

[Michelle Cottle]

Please someone out there send us a better suggestion so I can get these two to stop.

[Ross Douthat]

Vladimir Putin has cut me a large check and we're going with Muscovite.

[Michelle Cottle]

For the love of God.

[Carlos Lozada]

You know what? I think you all may be convincing me to finally subscribe to the New York Times.

[Michelle Cottle]

Oh my God.

[Ross Douthat]

Carlos.

[Carlos Lozada]

From New York Times Opinion, I'm Carlos Lozada.

[Michelle Cottle]

I'm Michelle Cottle.

[Ross Douthat]

And I'm Ross Douthat.

[Carlos Lozada]

And this is Matter of Opinion where in the spirit of J.D. vance and Tim Walls, we're really not that far apart on the issues here. We're just some well meaning folksy types trying to find common ground.

[Ross Douthat]

Just a few people from the heartland of America having a civil debate about tax policy.

[Carlos Lozada]

Uh huh. So this week Ohio Senator J.D. vance and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz faced off in the VP debate and folks seemed really struck by how civil and substantive the debate seemed. Those were the popular words in some of the coverage. Now that may be true, or it may just be that whenever Trump isn't on the stage, everything suddenly looks like the Lincoln Douglas debates. But regardless, I want us to get substantive on what Walls and Vance accomplished with all that alleged substance and civility they gave us Tuesday night. And we'll also get into what the two candidates are bringing to their tickets and what they might mean, if anything, for the future of their parties. Sound like a plan?

[Ross Douthat]

I was told there would be no fact checking, but if there is, you.

[Michelle Cottle]

Know I'm here Ross.

[Ross Douthat]

I'm ready.

[Carlos Lozada]

Well Ross, you are going to start. Tell us who you think won this debate.

[Ross Douthat]

I believe that James David 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. I think it eclipsed Mitt Romney's performance against Barack Obama in 2012. It's a low bar. I want to be clear. Republican candidates for president and vice president have not generally distinguished themselves as practiced successful debaters. But I think Vance was very strong and very strong in ways that I think were particularly effective. Before the debate, I had written that he needed a little more Ronald Reagan in his pitch, a little less sort of dark evening in America kind of rhetoric, a little more sort of the future is bright, America's going to be great again kind of stuff. I actually think he, the politician he tried to channel more was Bill Clinton with a certain degree of personal biography meeting. You know, I understand where folks are coming from, but yeah, I just think it was a very strong performance overall and one that, you know, was particularly strong given that when you are the running mate of Donald Trump, you are stuck trying to make Donald Trump sound like a reasonable person. And to the extent that that can be done and we can talk about whether it can be done at all, I think Vance succeeded.

[Carlos Lozada]

Michelle, how about you?

[Michelle Cottle]

I totally agree with Ross that he was the much more polished debater. What we saw in the debate was the JD Vance that had made much of the political class fall in love with him, including a lot of more progressive folks. Walls was a much more kind of anxious, flustered debater. I think somebody online said it was like watching your most nervous uncle debate your smuggest cousin over Thanksgiving dinner.

[Ross Douthat]

And finally, the liberals are the uncles.

[Michelle Cottle]

There you go.

[Ross Douthat]

How the wheel turns.

[Michelle Cottle]

Mr. Now, they did not say crazy, unhinged, drunken uncle. He had the heavier lift because he is what people are looking to for kind of what will be the future of his party. Now, they didn't yell at each other and it was much more civil. But Vance in particular, as Ross was alluding to, had the job of sane washing Trump. And he does that extremely well. I mean, to paraphrase the old saying, that boy knows how to polish a poop and that's what he was left doing for much of this debate. And by God, he is extremely talented at that.

[Carlos Lozada]

Is polish a poop a saying?

[Michelle Cottle]

No, but polish a turd is as.

[Ross Douthat]

Actually, do not believe Michelle was sane washing the folksy rhetoric of her down home upbringing.

[Michelle Cottle]

I am making it more family friendly. Carlos.

[Carlos Lozada]

Okay, okay. No, I just, I just need to know these things.

[Ross Douthat]

But Carlos, Carlos. All right, so what did you think?

[Carlos Lozada]

No, I mean, actually I'm interested in your Romney comparison. Ross. I agree with you on that. One of the reasons Romney won that debate is because he was able to upend the image that Democrats have been painting of him for months as this, like, silver spoon, aloof, heartless management consultant who's going to let venture capitalists, like, steal your job. Right. And he instead appeared as sort of this empathetic, well meaning, earnest, you know, super prepared guy who's going to, like, do battle for the American people. And I think Vance accomplished a similar turn in the sense that he ran counter to the, you know, the weird image, the freaky, you know, podcast guy talking about cat ladies that Democrats have emphasized. Now, I have no idea which is the real J.D. vance. I do agree that he won this debate. If you've been hiding under a rock all this time and this debate was all you knew of J.D. vance, you'd think he's a thoughtful guy, willing to stake out common ground, even shows spontaneous empathy from time to time. Yes. Obsessed with immigrants. Yes. Embarrassingly unwilling to speak the truth about 2020. Those are not unusual positions in his party. Right. He needed to make Trump sound reasonable, as you say, you know, and he called it just common sense wisdom. That's what Trump is, common sense wisdom. And he had to make himself seem more presidential, especially because Trump is 78. Right. I think he accomplished both those things. And as for Walls, I mean, there's a reason we talk about debates as a performance so much as about how they sound and they look. Tim Walls looked nervous, especially early on. He got better as he went along. His best moments were on abortion and healthcare January 6th when he point blank asked Vance who won the election. And Vance couldn't answer or declined to answer. But it basically felt like Vance proactively helped himself in the debate, whereas Walls, I think, succeeded to the extent that he did no harm. Now, I know the snap polls say something different, right? They say this thing was a tie or close to a tie. Walls favorables went up even more than Vance's, but that's how I felt just watching the debate.

[Ross Douthat]

Well, I would say about those snap polls, I am not a fan of Tim Walls. Based on the Tim Walls that we have seen doing, you know, sort of big set piece speeches and cable news hits, you know, he's got the Persona of a mid, but the politics of, you know, Bernie Sanders or something, that leaves me completely cold. It feels like this bizarre performance of this sort of liberal fantasy of Midwestern masculinity. I don't know, I'm not into it. I liked Waltz better on the debate stage than I've liked him in those sort of more performative environments. The fact that he lost the debate did not make me suddenly dislike him. I thought he came across as a well meaning machine politician from a Midwestern state. There's nothing wrong with that.

[Michelle Cottle]

I'm not surprised that there is a gap between what we in the punditocracy consider a debate win and what America considers a debate performance. Look, we like people who can get up there, make their case sound good, look slick, very articulate, hyper articulate even. And that's not what America is necessarily looking for. It's like when George W. Bush and Al Gore were in the spotlight in 2000. Everybody talked about how Gore was smarter and more policy savvy and smoother and George W. Bush was by far more likable. So you just never know how these things are going to get read.

[Ross Douthat]

Right. And I also think Vance coming in was an extremely unpopular figure, not just with liberals, but with a set of people who have sort of loosely held political opinions for a certain kind of voter. Everything they knew about him was a bunch of podcast clips. And God knows, you know, if everything anyone knew about us was a bunch of podcast clips and then we were put on the national stage, we would.

[Michelle Cottle]

Be elected president immediately.

[Ross Douthat]

Yes, of course, a triumvirate.

[Carlos Lozada]

I'd have to sane wash you, Ross.

[Ross Douthat]

I get to be Octavian, but you know.

[Carlos Lozada]

All right, all right, let's move from the performance to the substance of this substantive debate. I'm wondering if we can compare Vance and Walls to their running mates. Where do you think they make better or worse cases for the policies and positions that the top of the tickets are pushing for?

[Michelle Cottle]

Well, look, Vance got into some of the touchy issues like abortion and immig and put a very kind of gentle, friendly gloss on it, even as he tap danced around a lot of the things that worry people not in his party. Like he did not want to discuss those mass deportations that have been promised. He did not want to talk about the abortion restrictions that he has long favored. He wanted to talk instead about how women need to be given options, how you need to take care of new mothers and babies, which is great, but is in no way. We've seen no sign from this Republican Party that that sort of thing is of any interest. So even where he laid out some ideas that were gentle, if you looked at what has happened, they were utter horseshit.

[Ross Douthat]

Well, no, that's not true. In fact, that's absurd. It's not absurd because Vance is in fact the vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party and gets a pretty strong say in what the Republican Party actually stands for. And his running mate, Trump, has gone even further than Vance in terms of staking out, you know, there's got to be exceptions on abortion. We're, you know, we're leaving it to the states. We're not doing a national ban. So I think most Republican politicians, unfortunately, are very happy to run away from the abortion issue.

[Michelle Cottle]

Well, right now they are, because they're worried that they're going to get their clock cleaned in November. I'm willing to stipulate that J.D. vance would love to have a kinder, gentler approach to the women who are not allowed to have abortions.

[Ross Douthat]

Okay.

[Michelle Cottle]

But as you know, the vice President cannot unilaterally do that.

[Ross Douthat]

I'll accept the stipulations and make a different argument, which is that I think in Vance's very strong performance, the weakest point by far, obviously, is any question related to January 6th and the 2020 election. And the strongest part by far is that he was able to do what Trump sort of was unable to do in the debate with Harris, which is just make 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. That argument is why Trump is competitive in this election, in spite of all his faults. And Vance made it better than Trump makes it. And I think Walsh doesn't really have a strong comeback to that argument, and that was part of the dynamic of the debate.

[Carlos Lozada]

So, Ross, you mentioned the border in the debate. Vance comes off as far less unhinged than Trump on those issues. He says we should deport anyone who's committed a crime first. Then he says the problem with immigration is they drive up housing costs. It's like a super policy wonky approach to immigration. But on that particular front, he cites a Federal Reserve study. So I, I looked up that Federal Reserve study yesterday. First, it's not a study. I, I must confess, I, I worked in the Federal Reserve in a prior life. This was not a Fed study. It was a brief speech by a member of the Board of Governors. It was basically a New York Times column. Right?

[Ross Douthat]

And is there something wrong with citing something that's the length of a New York Times column? Carlos, what are you, what are you trying to say?

[Carlos Lozada]

And, and so Vance cites this speech as alleged support for the notion that immigrants are driving up housing costs. Here's what the member of the board, what she actually said. There is a risk that strong consumer demand for services, increased immigration, and continued labor market tightness could lead to persistently high core services inflation. Given the current low inventory of affordable housing, the inflow of new immigrants to some geographic areas could result in upward pressure on rents as additional housing supply may take time to materialize. So she's not saying that this is happening. She's saying it could happen. She's talking about risks to the inflation outlook. She says the presence of immigrants is one potential factor. She doesn't say the answers to kick them out. She says the problem is the low inventory of affordable housing. And what Vance doesn't tell you is that earlier in that same speech, she says one of the reasons for reduced inflation is, wait for it, increases in the number of available workers due in part to immigration. So 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. The study he cites says immigration has helped bring down inflation, not raise it.

[Ross Douthat]

Yes. Was that a simplification of a more detailed and nuanced policy argument? Yes. Was it a more sort of detail based commentary than anything that Tim Walsh said in the course of the debate? Tim Walsh in the course of the debate said things like, you know, what are you talking about? You know, opening federal lands to housing when that is in fact part of his own running mates policy. But here you are picking and picking at J.D. vance for, you know, only citing part of the argument in federal research paper. That's nonsense. Also, obviously immigration has an effect on the price of housing. This is like the central issue in Canadian politics right now. Can you solve that by building tons and tons of new housing? Theoretically, of course you can.

[Carlos Lozada]

Russ, you keep saying things are absurd or nonsense. All I'm saying is that the brief remarks that. That's what it's called, brief remarks that JD Vance is citing Ross that the very thing he's citing says immigration has.

[Ross Douthat]

Helped reduce inflation in inflation in housing prices. Inflation overall inflation in other areas, but not inflation in housing prices, which is what he's talking about.

[Michelle Cottle]

Okay, so Ross is feeling. Ross is feeling persecuted.

[Ross Douthat]

I'm not feeling. I'm not feeling persecuted. I'm feeling goaded.

[Michelle Cottle]

Two things goaded one into.

[Carlos Lozada]

Into Ross. If facts trigger you, then, you know.

[Ross Douthat]

I'm sorry, why don't you just turn off my microphone, Carlos? Maybe that would be.

[Carlos Lozada]

That's not the issue.

[Michelle Cottle]

So I think what we're looking at here is just a broader point that Vance had a very heavy lift on sane washing, but the fact that he is a very good debater does not make what he's saying overall the truth. For instance, when they were talking about Republican attempts to repeal Obamacare, Vance talked about how Trump is actually the man we should thank for saving the aca. Now, if you want to talk about some serious through the looking glass nonsense, the only reason there is an ACA is because of John McCain stepping up when the Republicans were on the verge of not repealing and replacing, but just repealing. McCain blocked it into the Senate. But Vance was insisting that concepts of a plan, as Trump put it, was actually a very smart, very clever way to explain what was going on. Trump had four years to give us his concepts of a plan while he was president and he couldn't do it. He had a Republican Congress teed up to do this, both houses in his control.

[Ross Douthat]

Okay, this is, but I'm going to not be goaded. I'm just going to be very calm and say, I think this is a good example of if you want to make sort of an optimist's case for what having someone like Vance as vice president represents. Because two different things happened in the Trump administration with Obamacare. First, there was the push to repeal it without having a clear plan. Yes, I agree. However, the Trump administration continued and made a bunch of regulatory shifts around Obamacare that were, you know, debatable, but I think arguably quite constructive and actually made Obamacare more stable and work better. That is also part of the Trump administration record on health care policy. So essentially what Vance was doing was saying, I'm going to take the second half of my running mates record and say that's what we represent for the next four years. Now, is there a certain degree of politicians bullshit involved in wiping away the first half? Of course there is. Absolutely. I agree with you, Gu. But politics is also about saying, you know, I'm taking this piece of our agenda and emphasizing it and making it our agenda for the second term.

[Carlos Lozada]

He wasn't, he wasn't explaining the plan for the second term. He was rewriting the history of the first one.

[Michelle Cottle]

Very much like, oh, why would you worry about a government overthrow? When Trump handed off, I mean, he was outraged that anybody had suggested that Trump wouldn't hand off power peacefully, because he did on January 20th. He's wiping out the January 6th events.

[Ross Douthat]

And everything, saying from then, these are totally different things. One is the worst thing that Trump did that Vance is stuck defending, and that's you. You will get no defense of that defense from me.

[Carlos Lozada]

So let's move to Tim Walls. Tim Walls is the guy who got himself on the ticket, in part over his willingness to call Trump and Vance weird. Right. That was the sort of Tim Walls meme. And what was interesting to me is that in this debate, he didn't go in that direction. Normally in the VP debates, you have the sort of red meat attack dog vibe versus the presidential debates, which are supposed to be more elevated. The Trump era has scrambled that distinction. Right. And in fact, flipped it on its head. Now, it was the vice presidential debate that was seen as a more civil exchange of ideas, unlike perhaps this podcast so far. But whatever. Walls got himself on the ticket by branding Trump and Vance as weird, and he seemed to pull back on those kind of critiques in this debate. Now, was the weird thing a performance or a strategy? If so, did this kind of civil approach to the debate help or hurt the Harris Walls campaign?

[Ross Douthat]

I think the calculation, presumably by Walsh, was that one there's sort of diminishing returns to some of those lines of attack, that in the end, the election is more likely to be about the economy and foreign policy and immigration and Donald Trump's record in January 6th than it is to be about sort of the weirdness of the Republican ticket. But also, I think for both candidates, you could see a presumption that their job was to go after the top of the ticket, not each other. And so for Waltz, that meant he didn't bring up podcasts and cat ladies and anything like that. And Vance, for his part, made no attempt to, for instance, litigate Waltz's record in Minnesota or his military record or his prevarication about when he was in China for Tiananmen Square, which the moderators brought up. Vance didn't go after that. So I think both candidates had a, you know, let's be nice to each other and try and ding Trump and Harris strategy.

[Michelle Cottle]

And I think on behalf of exhausted Americans, people appreciated that. We've got enough crazy at the top of the ticket that I think both of them had a very specific job. Vance needed to not look mean and cold and unhinged in order to kind of rebrand himself from the clips and what the Democrats have been pushing his image as. And Walz has a reputation as being a good guy, politicking on the. And I hate this term so much, the politics of joy. I'm sorry, that is a Christmas Carol. That is not a presidential position, but that's what he's there with. So he needed to look civilized and genial as well. So they both had their reasons. And I think, you know, I think it was a welcome break from what we are accustomed to.

[Carlos Lozada]

I do think that the civility thing was far more useful for Vance than for Walls, in part because I think it's something that merely reaffirmed Walls, whereas it was something that helped rehabilitate Vance.

[Ross Douthat]

Yeah, I think Walls strongest Moment was the January 6th question, obviously, where he was, what he did effectively in that moment was be confrontational with Vance. In a way, that was about Trump. Right. And I think he definitely needed to do more of that. I think he was stuck in a position where he had a long list of, like, things that are bad about Trump that he would sort of bring up. Like Trump did this, Trump did that, and so on. But what he actually needed was a version of, you know, what is being offered by you, my interlocutors in this podcast. Basically, a sort of general like, that sounds great, J.D. but isn't Trump indefensible? Like, he should have just sort of said that over and over in different ways?

[Carlos Lozada]

All right, we'll take a quick break here, and when we come back, let's talk about whether or not these veeps represent the future of their parties.

[Sponsor Voice]

With Instacart, you can get all your holiday essentials delivered in as fast as 30 minutes. Whether it's the white elephant gift everyone will want to steal or the secret ingredient that makes great Grandma Jo's cookie recipe so great, just download the Instacart app to find recipes, shop ingredients, and whip out dishes so delicious your aunts and uncles will forget to ask about your love life. Enjoy free delivery on your first three orders. Service fees and terms apply.

This podcast is supported by Carvana. With Carvana Value Tracker, you can track your car's value anytime, anywhere. If you want to know what your car's worth, Carvana Value Tracker analyzes your car's make, model, condition, market, and more to give you the value for your vehicle. Carvana will even let you know when your car's value changes with update emails so you're always up to date. However you value your car, know its worth with Carvana Value Tracker.

[Carlos Lozada]

Was there anything in this debate, guys, that you think either reaffirmed why Trump picked Vance or why Harris picked Walls, or that would make either of them feel any kind of buyer's remorse?

[Ross Douthat]

I think one of the key questions going into this debate was, in a world where Trump loses this election, what happens to J.D. vance? Is he seen as, you know, the weirdo populist who was a big mistake for Trump to pick? That was a big narrative going into the debate. That's Not a narrative anymore. 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.

[Michelle Cottle]

I think Vance completely vindicated himself in the eyes certainly of the political chattering class and I assume Trump. I mean, there was even some talk about whether Trump would be irritated that Vance got such great reviews after Trump tanked his debate. So when you're looking at that, that suggests that you have broken through with a chattering class that was wondering if you were the wrong pick.

[Ross Douthat]

Yeah, that was sort of the anti Trump cope from the evening was like, oh, maybe Vance did so well that Trump will get mad and debate again or something. Which of course not, I don't think is what's going to happen. But it's hard to say watching the debate that Harris made the strongest possible choice here. And Walsh, he neither embodied a plausible future for his party, seemingly, nor did he give the impression of being like a gravitas lending figure, a seasoned elder statesman. And those are sort of the two models for a good vice presidential pick. Either they're bringing something big and new to the table or they're really going to be trustworthy in the Situation Room. I don't think Walsh offered either. And I don't think it's a great signal that Harris picked him. I think the people who wanted her to pick Josh Shapiro had a good night.

[Michelle Cottle]

Well, you know, kind of the chatter was that one of the ways that Walls endeared himself and got himself on the ticket was that in the interviews he made clear that he was going to just take one for the team and do whatever she needed. Whereas other potentials, including Shapiro, were more like, well, what would this be like? What would my role be? They were more interested in kind of like how they would have an influence. Whereas Walls was just like, I'm here for you.

[Ross Douthat]

Yes, but I think you can see the limits of that as a selling point.

[Michelle Cottle]

Oh, of course.

[Carlos Lozada]

I think if Kamala Harris and Tim Walls lose Pennsylvania, that'll be the sort of proof is in the pudding moment about what she could have gotten if she'd picked a popular Pennsylvania governor as her running mate. But you guys have brought up the role that Vance and Walls could or could not potentially play in the future of their parties. So what do Vance and Walls signal to each of you, if anything, about the future of their parties?

[Michelle Cottle]

Vance is being talked about as the future of Trumpism. He was picked by Trump as his standard bearer going forward. You know, assuming we have more Elections after this. Walls, I think, means a lot less. I think the Democratic Party is very concerned about its losing touch with rural voters and middle America. And I think Walls Persona they thought would be good to try and correct some of that. But I don't see him myself as like, the logical next step for the party.

[Ross Douthat]

Yeah, I think whether Kamala Harris is elected president or not, I think there's a lot of uncertainty about what does the Democratic Party want over the next 10 or 15 years. And I think the waltz pick after this debate also feels like sort of an evasion. So there's some kind of future big argument about what the Democratic Party stands for that the Harris Walz ticket is maybe sleepwalking towards, but it's not made manifest yet at all.

[Carlos Lozada]

I agree with that. I think it's one thing to say that Tim Walls doesn't represent the future of the Democratic Party. It's not even clear that Kamala Harris represents the future of the Democratic Party in a significant way. I mean, I don't want to be like J.D. vance here and try to make a positive out of a negative, but, I mean, I think in some respects, it speaks to the health of a party that there are still a lot of competing polls, a lot of competing voices, lots of different views that are still sort of duking it out in the Democratic Party. And that you would see come to the fore immediately in the event of Harris and Walls losing and maybe even if they win on the Republican side, the party has been so fully overpowered by Donald Trump at all levels that it's hard to know where else it could go. 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.

[Michelle Cottle]

Yeah, I think one of the things you're pointing to, Carlos, is that the Democratic Party is still going through the crisis of how far it's going to move toward the left. And there was a period of time where the progressive left was seen as ascendant and the center of energy of the party had moved in that direction. And then I think with some races in 2022, there was a sense that it had overstepped. And you see with House races, with Senate races, kind of more of a pivot back to the center. And so this is still going on. Whereas, as you note, the Republican Party has basically been subsumed with, you know, into Trumpism. And even those who tried, like Ron DeSantis, to take Trumpism and morph it into something slightly less unhinged, made no progress. So that's going to be the situation until Trump is no longer on the scene, and then we'll kind of see where it goes.

[Carlos Lozada]

Well, let's leave it there. On that moderate reinterpretation.

[Ross Douthat]

We've become just gradually more civil and moderate as the discussion has gone on.

[Carlos Lozada]

Let's take a break. When we come back, we will get hot or cold.

[Sponsor Voice]

A place to call home, the freedom to live in safety, the opportunity to work for a better life. These are American dreams everyone deserves. But right now, across America, LGBTQ people could be denied the right to pursue their dreams. 65% of states have no laws that clearly protect LGBTQ people from being denied housing or other services. Get the facts and hear real [e-mail] brought to you by Love has no Labels and the Ad Council the kind.

[Carlos Lozada]

Of burgers you get today tells you a lot about yourself. You're either someone who settles for sad, same old, same old burgers or you're at a Carl's Jr obsessed with a tangy OG Western bacon cheeseburger demanding a house made guacamole. Lodi Guac bacon fired up for the insanely hot El Diablo. We're craving a classic Char world famous star. Give into your flavor cravings. Get your mouth to Carl's Jr.

[Michelle Cottle]

Good Burger.

[Carlos Lozada]

All right, we're back. We're back. It is time for Hot Cold who's.

[Michelle Cottle]

Got it for okay, so I'm gonna chill us all out and say I am just about over the extreme proliferation of the obsession with self care. Now. Yes, we're a stressed out nation. We need a little gentleness with ourselves every now and again. But look, I am traveling this week. I don't have cable at home, but when I travel I do this thing where after I'm done with all my events for the day, I turn on the TV and binge watch Friends until I am sleeping. So I'm in Montana, I'm binge watching Friends, and a laundry detergent commercial comes on where they are trying to convince me that laundry soap can be an important part of my self care regimen. No, no no, no. You just need to chill out people. This has gone too far. I will scrub my face with the latest goop that's going to make me look 20 years younger. But don't try to sell me that doing the laundry is part of self care. I'm over it. Not everything is like some kind of self actualization project.

[Carlos Lozada]

Wow Michelle, it sounds like self Care is stressing you out. Also, self care can be an abdication of responsibility. Self care can be. God, I can't believe I'm saying this right. There's things that you need to engage with in life, and self care, I think, sometimes can morph into denialism. You know, I'm not going to pay attention to X, Y, or Z. Why? Because it's self care. Be an engaged citizen.

[Michelle Cottle]

Maybe that's what this is. Maybe they're concerned that I'm spending so much time on self care that I'm letting my poor family's laundry just sit in a stinky pile. And this is the answer to that.

[Carlos Lozada]

Ross, what's your self care regimen?

[Ross Douthat]

My self care is podcasting, Ross. No, I think to Carlos's point, there's. Yeah, there's a sort of toxic dynamic where people stress themselves out by being on the Internet and sort of experiencing, you know, the terrors of the world virtually. And then that makes them decide they need to go do self care. And what gets neglected is the zone in between of your sort of normal relationships and obligations that have nothing to do with politics but also aren't about, you know, scented candles. I don't think I have that problem. My everyday life presents, you know, plenty of opportunities to fulfill domestic obligations. And so, you know, but for me, not having those obligations and getting to come on this podcast and argue pungently with Michelle, that's all the self care I need.

[Carlos Lozada]

All right, well, on that note, dear listeners, please go take care of yourselves by listening. No, take listening to more episodes of Matter of Opinion.

[Ross Douthat]

Take care of your obligations.

[Carlos Lozada]

Thank you.

[Ross Douthat]

There you go.

[Michelle Cottle]

But not doing the laundry. No, this just net.

[Carlos Lozada]

All right, I'll see you next week, guys.

[Ross Douthat]

See you next week.

[Michelle Cottle]

Bye, guys.

[Carlos Lozada]

Thanks, as always, for joining our conversation. Give Matter of Opinion a follow on your favorite podcast app and leave us a nice review while you're there to let other folks know why they should listen. As we get closer and closer to election Day, and now that we're about a month away, we want to answer any lingering political questions you may have in an upcoming episode. So let us know. What do you want us to Talk about before November 5th? Share it with us in a voicemail by calling 212-556-7440. You can also email us at matterofopinionytimes.com Matter of opinion is produced by Sophia Alvarez Boyd, Phoebe Lett and Andrea Betanzos. This episode was edited by Jordana Hochman and Phoebe Lett. Our fact check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary, Marge Locker and Michelle Harris. Original music by Carol Saburo, Sonia Herrero, Amin Sahota and Pat McCusker. Mixing by Pat McCusker and Sonia Herrero. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Christina Samulewski. Our executive producer is Annie Rose Strasser.

[Sponsor Voice]

Gifting is hard, but here's a hint. Give the gift of connection from US Cellular. Not sure what that means? Here's a slightly more specific hint. You can choose four free phones and get four lines for $90 a month from US Cellular. Your family wants new phones? How do we know? They told us. The good news is that compared to wrapping presents, you're great at getting hints. So take the hint and get them four free phones and four lines for $90 a month. US Cellular built for us.