THE "LIBERAL" MEDIA IS MEASURING THE WHITE HOUSE DRAPES FOR J.D. VANCE -- AGAIN

Pay no attention to J.D. Vance's vicious, mean-spirited, slanderous, and conspiratorial pronouncements -- he had one good debate performance (emphasis on "performance"), so now he's a future president again, according to the "liberal" media.

Here's Tara Palmeri, writing for Puck:

Not long ago, of course, J.D. Vance was widely considered a drag on the ticket (cat-ladygate, that interminable convention stemwinder, the whole “America’s Hitler” thing) with a bionic billionaire sugar daddy. (It’s hard to imagine Vance’s political rise without Peter Thiel’s checkbook and Tucker Carlson’s lobbying.) But whether or not his nimble debate performance has any impact in the polls, it certainly restored his standing in the premature but inevitable 2028 conversation. “It was a moment for him to come out of Trump’s shadow,” said one Vance ally.

Tuesday night was clearly a reset for Vance. He proved that he’s capable of turning on the folksy charm that eluded him on the campaign trail, and that he could appeal to middle America as a potential leading man against future primary adversaries like Ron DeSantis or Glenn Youngkin. CNN’s snap poll showed his likability shooting up 19 points, from negative 22 points to negative 3—still underwater, but a sign of palatability. “He did himself a lot of good beyond that one night,” said a Republican consultant. “If he can pull off the MAGA banner in a non-offensive style that sells, then he could be the natural heir apparent, and that’s what you’re seeing start to gel here.” Another Republican operative noted the electoral value of Vance’s hybrid, country-club friendly MAGA approach that was once considered DeSantis’ lane. “This is the party. Get on board, or get the fuck out of the way,” this person said. “They think we’re all knuckle draggers and Neanderthals. J.D. Vance can debate any part of the establishment and can whip their ass.”

Debate watchers gave Vance's far worse ratings than Tim Walz, but the East Coast press doesn't care -- one good night and he's a "potential leading man" and a 2028 favorite again. And that's no surprise, because the "liberal" media made Vance, and any pause in its cheerleading for him is only temporary.

Here's an excerpt from a Jamison Foser piece on how The New York Times, in particular, helped make Vance famous. I present it with a comment from Tom Tomorrow:

I don't know if Yale is really the key to all this, but the larger point is correct: the elite media likes Vance because he joined the club. Many strings were pulled for him by Amy Chua, a Yale professor who's also a bestselling author (The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother), Foser writes:

... Chua took [Vance] on as her protégé, and almost single-handedly turned him into a bestselling author: Chua talked Vance into writing a memoir, introduced him to her agent, wrote a blurb for the back cover of his book, and “probably emailed every single television producer and personality in the United States of America” to promote the book, according to Vance. (Chua: “It’s true, I emailed everybody. They were these creepy emails to people like Tom Brokaw.”)

The New York Times raved about the book and eventually put Vance on the payroll:

By September 2016, the New York Times made it official, adding Vance as a “contributing opinion writer”; his first piece in that role an attack on Hillary Clinton over her reference to some Trump supporters as “deplorable.” By March of 2017, Vance was using the platform — and fame — the Times had given him to tout his move back to Ohio as a selfless act of public service, virtue-signaling his intention to found an organization “to combat Ohio’s opioid epidemic.”

That was in 2017, and I wrote a response that I'm proud of. I called Vance's move "relocation as virtue signaling," noted that he wasn't moving to his former hometown of Middletown, or even to Cincinnati, the big city closest to Middletown. Vance moved to a tony neighborhood in Columbus and, as I predicted, became a fake do-gooder.

It should have been obvious that he was doing this to set up a future political career, but the media fell for it. Then, in 2021, when Vance announced that he was runnung for a U.S. Senate seat in Ohio, he was immediately declared a potential future president by Axios's Mike Allen:

Why he matters: Vance, 36, last week joined a crowded GOP primary field to succeed retiring Sen. Rob Portman. If Vance won the primary (no sure thing), he'd be the favorite to win the seat — and instantly would be talked about as a presidential possibility.

Vance needed Donald Trump's endorsement to make it to the general election ballot, then needed Peter Thiel's money to win as a Republican in a Republican state -- and yet the media saw him as presidential timber from the early days of his campaign.

I know that many of you think that "liberal" news organizations want Donald Trump to win the 2024 election. I think he has some appeal to the journalists covering him, and they're also somewhat appalled by him. I think what they really want is a mythical moderate Republican (or Republican-lite Democrat) who looks like them and talks like them, someone with Ivy League airs. (That's why they love Josh Shapiro, by the way.) They want a candidate who's economically corporatist but (We have gay friends!) socially moderate. They see polished politicians like Vance and Youngkin taking on MAGA positions and think, They can't really believe all that nonsense, can they?

In 2028, the elite media will be rooting for Vance, Youngkin, Nikki Haley, and maybe Ron DeSantis, as well as, on the Democratic side, Shapiro, Pete Buttigieg, and Gina Raimondo. They want dull, well-spoken corporatists, and they think Vance will qualify.

In reality, Vance will need to be the slanderer of immigrants and embracer of Marjorie Taylor Greene he pretended not to be on Tuesday night in order to win the nomination. But even if Vance lets his fascist freak flag fly, the media will probably see what it wants to see.

PRO-CHOICE MELANIA? REPUBLICANS HAVE PULLED THIS STUNT BEFORE

Some people might think Melania Trump is going rogue, but this looks like strategy to me:

Former first lady Melania Trump said in a new video posted Thursday that she believes there is “no room for compromise” when it comes to a woman’s “individual freedom,” after The Guardian reported excerpts from her forthcoming book in which she says she supports abortion rights “free from any intervention or pressure from the government.”

“Individual freedom is a fundamental principle that I safeguard. Without a doubt, there is no room for compromise when it comes to this essential right that all women possess from birth, individual freedom. What does my body, my choice really mean?” the former first lady said in a video posted on X.

https://t.co/ZCTwZSqZND pic.twitter.com/Y9MT3uj97b

— MELANIA TRUMP (@MELANIATRUMP) October 3, 2024

Republicans muddied the waters in this way twenty years ago. Just before Labor Day 2004, delegates to the Republican convention approved a platform that called for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. President George W. Bush had announced his support for such an amendment in February. But a few days before the convention, Vice President Dick Cheney expressed support for same-sex couples.

At a campaign rally ... Cheney spoke supportively about gay relationships, saying “freedom means freedom for everyone,” when asked about his stand on gay marriage.

“Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue our family is very familiar with,” Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. “With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to...."

... Addressing Bush’s position on the amendment, Cheney said: “At this point, say, my own preference is as I’ve stated, but the president makes policy for the administration. He’s made it clear that he does, in fact, support a constitutional amendment on this issue.”

That year, Republicans placed a referendum on the ballot in the then-swing state of Ohio calling for a state ban on same-sex marriage. Whether or not it actually helped Bush win the state -- there are differences of opinion on this -- it's clear that the referendum was intended to help Bush win the state.

But Cheney's well-timed statement probably assured some moderate voters that the party wasn't completely controlled by cruel fundamentalists. I assume that's what Melania's video is intended to do now. I don't think it's a coincidence that this was timed for just after the vice presidential debate -- J.D. Vance has been much more of an anti-abortion zealot than Donald Trump, and while Tim Walz hit Vance fairly hard on this subject, I imagine Republicans thought he'd bloody Vance a bit more. Vance has tried to sound reasonable on abortion during this campaign, but he's on record as an anti-abortion zealot:

From JD Vance's Senate campaign website. Up as late as yesterday. Since removed.

[image or embed]

— Bob Mann (@bobmann.bsky.social) October 2, 2024 at 10:17 AM

Maybe this will lose Trump a few votes in the evangelical community -- remember, those folks not only oppose abortion but believe husbands should do the talking in every couple. But I'm worried that it will further confuse moderate voters, some of whom are telling pollsters that they plan to vote for referenda that uphold abortion rights while also voting for anti-abortion Republican candidates.

My guess is that it won't have much impact either way -- but J.D. Vance's nice-guy act at this week's debate gave the party one victory in its effort to conceal how much Republicans hate the rest of us and want to compel us to live our lives their way. I don't want the GOP to get another win like that.

NO, J.D. VANCE DID NOT WIN LAST NIGHT'S DEBATE

Here are some divergent opinions about last night's debate. First, from media elitists at The New York Times:

And now ordinary people:

We shouldn't be surprised. Media elitists value poise, preparation, looking good in a suit, being well spoken in an emotionally beige way. Prior to the debate, J.D. Vance did the kind of prep you'd do if you were preparing for oral arguments before the Supreme Court. He was polished and ready. I'll admit that Democrats whose best debate performances have demonstrated this level of preparation and poise -- the Clintons, Barack Obama, and, yes, Kamala Harris -- have impressed me.

Tim Walz didn't impress the elitists at the Times -- but ordinary people who watched the debate liked him just fine. Vance was smart and slick, but Walz was smart and human. Debate viewers came away liking both candidates more than they did before the debate, but even after the debate, Vance's numbers were no better than break-even, while Walz's numbers were strong. From CNN:

Following the debate, 59% of debate watchers said they had a favorable view of Walz, with just 22% viewing him unfavorably – an improvement from his already positive numbers among the same voters pre-debate (46% favorable, 32% unfavorable). Debate watchers came away from the debate with roughly neutral views of Vance: 41% rated him favorably and 44% unfavorably. That’s also an improvement from their image of Vance pre-debate, when his ratings among this group were deeply underwater (30% favorable, 52% unfavorable).

It's just debate watchers, but 59%-22% is a spectacular approval rating in this political climate (41%-44% isn't). In CBS's poll of debate watchers, Walz's post-debate approval rating is 60%-35%; Vance's is 49%-47%.

And it's not just personal favorability:

A 65% majority of debate watchers now say Walz is qualified to serve as president if necessary, with 58% saying the same of Vance. Prior to the debate, 62% of the same voters thought Walz was qualified to assume the presidency if needed and 50% that Vance was qualified to do so.

And at CBS:

If you have an elite background, the rumpled guy whose sentences sometimes didn't quite parse seemed unprepared to be president. (Times op-ed columnist Megan Stack said Walz "often looked woolly and discombobulated, widened eyes suggesting panic.") But viewers had a different impression.

Maybe it's because Walz seemed more in tune with their views. CNN:

Debate watchers said, 48% to 35%, that Walz is more in touch than Vance with the needs and problems of people like them, and by a similar margin, 48% to 39%, that Walz, rather than Vance, more closely shares their vision for America.

CBS:

Walz has a strong advantage on the first two issues. The others are a tie.

I'm often unhappy when American voters choose folksy -- Ronald Reagan, the Bushes, even Trump, with his outer-borough accent and coarse language, which people all over the country seem to read as an economic class marker, even though Trump is the billionaire son of a millionaire. (Reagan, of course, was a wealthy actor married to a rich doctor's daughter, and the Bushes were old money.) But if that's what Americans want, it's good if a Democrat was the one who provided it last night. No matter how many times Vance talked about his past, Walz was the candidate on stage who seemed to know what it's like to lead an ordinary life.

As I wrote a couple of months ago, pundits used to complain that Democrats didn't want to appeal to "beer-track" voters anymore, but when Harris picked Walz over the obviously "wine-track" Josh Shapiro, the same pundits attacked her for it. Last night, Walz was clearly the beer-track guy. Vance was the wine-track guy. Debate watchers thought Vance was sharp, but they thought Walz was empathetic and relatable. That's why Vance didn't score the big win the pundits thought they saw.

AT THE NEW YORK TIMES, J.D. VANCE IS SEEN AS THE MAIN CHARACTER IN TONIGHT'S DEBATE

For several weeks after she entered the presidential race, Kamala Harris did something that no one else has managed to do: she became the main character in a race against Donald Trump. In every other contest -- the 2016 and 2024 primaries, the 2016 general election, even the race he lost in 2020 -- Trump was the main character. He was the candidate everyone talked about. His words and deeds set the terms of every debate. No one ever stole the spotlight from him -- until a woman who hadn't even planned to run deployed her intelligence, her understanding of the media environment, and her charisma to turn Trump into a supporting character. Even if she loses next month, Democrats should study what she did and learn from it.

Unfortunately, Trump is the main character again. He's regained the spotlight with increasingly dark, dishonest, and slanderous pronouncements -- but he's also benefited from the fact that Harris listened to the pundits and changed the focus of her campaign to wonkish policy pronouncements, as well as a trip to the border. Predictably, the media figures who demanded all this of her weren't satisfied. Even in the New York Times endorsement of Harris, there was continued grumbling:

Many voters have said they want more details about the vice president’s plans, as well as more unscripted encounters in which she explains her vision and policies. They are right to ask. Given the stakes of this election, Ms. Harris may think that she is running a campaign designed to minimize the risks of an unforced error — answering journalists’ questions and offering greater policy detail could court controversy, after all — under the belief that being the only viable alternative to Mr. Trump may be enough to bring her to victory. That strategy may ultimately prove winning, but it’s a disservice to the American people and to her own record. And leaving the public with a sense that she is being shielded from tough questions, as Mr. Biden has been, could backfire by undermining her core argument that a capable new generation stands ready to take the reins of power.

I agree with Oliver Willis that Harris can't satisfy the media and was building much more momentum when she was focusing on being a joyous anti-Trump warrior:

... I am in favor of political wonkery. We need policy wonks, we need leaders who either understand the wonky details of how to get things done or surround themselves with nerds who get excited about data and policy and making everything work. I’m not against wonking.

That said, Vice President Kamala Harris has to stop being as wonky as she was the last week of her campaign. If she keeps it up, she is in danger of simmering down the incredible momentum she has had since she became the lead in the presidential campaign.

... She could give a presentation with a mountain of PowerPoint slides and white papers from the world’s most prominent experts (aka what Hillary Clinton did, as well as Elizabeth Warren) and it won’t change the narrative.

... The candidate herself has encapsulated this concept in her statement, “When we fight, we win.” So, fight. Don’t wonk. And win. Please.

*****

It's understandable that Trump regained the spotlight. Getting media attention has been his life's work. But it appears that the media -- or at least the Opinion section of The New York Times -- would like us to regard J.D. Vance as the main character in tonight's vice presidential debate.

Patrick Healy has convened a roundtable of Times opinion columnists -- two conservatives (David Brooks and Ross Douthat), a conservative who doesn't think she's a conservative (Pamela Paul), and a liberal (Tressie McMillan Cottom). After a couple of general questions (for instance, "What are the biggest 'known unknowns' for you on each V.P. candidate?"), Healy begins asking questions about the two candidates individually. It's clear that he's far more interested in Vance than in Tim Walz.

Healy's questions include the following:

Rule No. 1 for vice-presidential debates is “first, do no harm” — don’t say anything that creates problems for the top of the ticket. JD Vance has the bigger burden here, because the moderators are likely to press him on his past criticisms of Donald Trump and his attacks on “childless cat ladies” and false claims about migrants eating neighbors’ pets. Millions of people will be watching. Do you think Vance will help or hurt the ticket by the end of the night?

Ross, you interviewed JD Vance for a long Q. and A. last spring, and you’ve known him for years. In Vance’s comments at rallies and in interviews, have Americans been seeing the “real” Vance, or is this a Trump-campaign-molded version of Vance? Would Vance be talking so much about Haitian migrants in Ohio if he was running with a candidate other than Trump?

David, how do you think Vance will try to take on Walz? Does Vance risk overdoing it?

In interviews and our Times Opinion focus groups, some voters have said they had a pretty positive impression of Vance when Trump picked him in July — mostly from his book, “Hillbilly Elegy,” and his Republican convention speech — but their opinions changed for the worse in the last couple of months. What if anything could Vance do to change that tonight? Or is he better off focusing on achieving something else at the debate (and if so, what?).

Can he do anything to help himself in the likability department?

Some of these questions are tough, but there's a subtext: Vance has alienated a lot of voters -- he can turn that around, can't he? You get the feeling that Healy is rooting for Vance to do that.

There's only one Walz-specific question:

Tim Walz has come under attack by Vance and Trump over his experience in the Army National Guard and his strong support for L.G.B.T.Q. rights and the rights of parents of transgender children. Republicans have portrayed Walz as a progressive extremist — and lopped in Harris with him. Do you see vulnerabilities for Walz onstage tonight?

Apart from that, Healy doesn't seem interested in Walz.

Douthat is part of this roundtable even though, as Healy says, he has a prior relationship with Vance, which means he can't possibly be objective. And we learn that this is also true of David Brooks:

Brooks: Like Ross, I’ve known Vance for a long time. In 2018, I gathered some friends at my house to help JD think through his life options. This route wasn’t the one we recommended! (And he didn’t think he’d have a career in politics, at least any time soon.)

So Healy is asking someone who served as J.D. Vance's life coach to offer opinions on his character and how he'll do tonight.

Brooks concedes that his mentee can be a tad unpleasant, but it's all liberals' fault:

I think the emergence of the angrier kind of Vance that Ross alludes to occurred when the “Hillbilly Elegy” movie came out. Many critics not only savaged the movie (I thought it was melodramatic, but pretty decent). They also savaged Vance as a man, in snobby and immature ways. I spoke with Vance at the time and understood that anybody would be affected by this coastal condescending scorn. It was a classic red-pill moment. So if Vance returns the nastiness, he is not faking it.

Which tells you everything you need to know about whether this panel can pass judgment on Vance without pro-Vance bias. Brooks even dismisses the questions surrounding Vance's 180 on Trump:

... I don’t think Vance is being totally opportunistic. Yes, he has totally flip-flopped on Trump’s character. But his life mission is pretty much the same: to upend the policies that have favored knowledge workers and, in his view, betrayed other kinds of workers.

So it's cool that he's running with the guy he once referred to as "cultural heroin."

Tressie McMillan Cottom pushes back a bit:

Cottom: I speak to very different people than Ross and David do when it comes to Vance. I speak to people from Appalachia, the very people that Vance supposedly wants to save from coastal scorn. I was in West Virginia and Kentucky this past weekend. The working-class Appalachians I speak to see Vance as a poser and very much a member of the coastal elite that Vance considers himself in opposition to. These working class Appalachians were just as scornful of Vance’s portrayal of them. Many of them reject his political rhetoric and policy approaches. I do not believe Vance is running for those voters. He is running on those voters. The question will be how much more mileage he thinks he can get out of that shtick.

These voters get it -- Vance is "a poser and very much a member of the coastal elite." Not only has he been mentored and bankrolled by half-mad tech billionaires like Peter Thiel, he also pals around with two of the best-known op-ed columnists at The New York Times, who then say nice things about him in print. Which is why the consensus view in this roundtable is that Vance and not the truly non-coastal, truly non-elite Tim Walz is tonight's main character.