According to a recent poll by The New York Times, a majority of their 13 columnists and contributors agreed that JD Vance came out on top in the debate against Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. Now, if The New York Times is admitting this, it’s hard to deny that Vance might’ve actually wiped the floor with Walz. Binyamin Appelbaum and several others even admitted that Vance’s performance on stage was effective, which isn’t something you hear from that crowd every day. Seven of the columnists gave the win to Vance, while a couple said it was a draw, and three — surprise, surprise — stuck with Walz.
Appelbaum noted that Vance managed to make “Trumpism” sound polite and coherent. That’s quite the compliment, considering the usual hysteria surrounding anything Trump-related. Meanwhile, Josh Barro from the “Very Serious” newsletter pointed out that Vance seemed more agile than the visibly nervous Walz, at least during the first half of the debate. Still, Barro predictably said Vance stumbled on the topics of abortion and the 2020 election—because apparently, anything remotely tied to Trump is automatically “unappealing material” for these folks.
Charles M. Blow, another Times columnist, wasn’t about to hand Vance the victory. He gave the win to Walz, claiming the Minnesota governor clearly “did his homework.” Funny, because most people watching might’ve thought Walz looked like a teacher caught without his lesson plan. Matt Labash, ever the fence-sitter, called it a near-tie but gave Walz a slight edge for Vance’s soft approach on January 6 and, in a typically out-of-touch comment, threw in a Trump Truth Social post as if that sealed the deal.
Jane Coaston wasn’t too convinced, saying Vance looked smoother and more practiced, but “won” might be too strong a word. Meanwhile, Gail Collins echoed the draw sentiment, noting that while Vance was the stronger speaker, his forceful delivery was undermined by what she called “lies” about everything from abortion to Biden’s foreign policy. Apparently, “forceful” is bad when it’s not coming from a leftist.
But not everyone in the Times’ bubble was ready to downplay Vance’s success. Peter Wehner called him sharp and an excellent debater, though, in true Wehner fashion, he couldn’t resist throwing in some snide remark about Vance being “hollow” and switching between being radioactive one day and agreeable the next. It’s funny how they scramble to paint competence as a flaw.
Trump’s campaign, naturally, had a much clearer take on the debate. Spokesman Steven Cheung didn’t mince words, calling Vance’s performance a “complete domination.” Cheung said Vance showed exactly why Trump needs to be back in the White House and how the Trump-Vance ticket will tackle issues like the economy, the border, and restoring peace in the Middle East—none of which seem to be priorities for the current administration.
Cheung also pointed out how Vance didn’t hold back, calling out Harris and Walz for their radical leftist failures, all empty slogans with no substance. Vance exposed the reality of the border crisis, inflation, and the mess with Iran, all of which, according to Cheung, can be laid squarely at Harris’ feet. For once, the left had to hear some hard truths, whether they wanted to or not.
