I've been following you for years since I first read about you here in St Louis. I think you have focused too much here on affect rather than substance, an easy trap to fall into.
I think both candidates proved they can assume the office the of president if need be, and preside over the Senate, the two constitutional roles of the position they are running for.
Vance softened Trump's policies in ways that I think are simply not accurate depictions of his actual plans, such as they are for such a man. Some things that stood out to me--I don't recall any action taken by Trump to shore up the "collapsing of its own weight Affordable Care Act," as Vance claimed. Maybe you know what those were. I do know that the Biden administration did indeed make the program more attractive with a greater level of subsidy for low-income folks, and the fact that 50 million people are now enrolled in the ACA or its Medicaid expansion component tells us something is working.
I also do not think unchecked immigration is making our housing shortage what it is--Vance made that claim repeatedly. What data supports that? Many have argued we have a housing shortage because that market has never fully recovered from the 2008 crash. Vance's idea about federal lands for housing is simply a fantasy--little to none of that land is in areas where it could be usefully turned into housing. .
I do agree Walz could have made a better case for the current Administration policies that are exactly what Vance said he and Trump wanted--expansion of US industry, increased energy production, and reduced immigration (done by executive order).
I think you should give Walz credit for pointing out that Congress--mostly Republicans-- put together a bill that Trump and craven Republicans torpedoed because Trump told them to. And Vance refused to say that Trump lost the 2020 election and abetted the January 6 rioters.
While the debate was far more civil than I expected, and certainly both men were in agreement on some points, calling Vance the winner simply because he's smoother than man who's successfully served six terms in Congress and two as governor of a successful state seems a bit of a stretch.
Hi Michael, thanks for weighing in. I agree that Vance was disingenuous in how he spoke about Obamacare, seeing as Trump repeatedly tried to repeal the law. In terms of him “salvaging” the law, I’m not sure what he’s referring to either. One issue he did mention in this context was the No Surprises Act, a bipartisan bill Trump signed into law to increase hospital price transparency and crack down on surprising billing. I do not think it would be accurate to say that “salvaged” the law, but it was the main argument he pointed to on Trump’s health care record. On immigration and housing, here is one study Vance cited on X this morning: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1051137717300025. Many economists do not view immigration as the leading cause of the housing shortage, but there is evidence to suggest it at least contributes.
Also -- I think you’re exactly right here: “I do agree Walz could have made a better case for the current Administration policies that are exactly what Vance said he and Trump wanted--expansion of US industry, increased energy production, and reduced immigration (done by executive order).”
I was very struck how many times Vance gave him an obvious opening to highlight the policies of the (Biden)-Harris administration ... and Walz just didn’t. Maybe the campaign views that as a lost cause — that voters already think the Biden admin has led to less oil production and more migrants, and it isn’t worth changing their minds — or, more likely, Walz just messed up and forgot the talking points.
- The piece about federal land being used for housing is heavily directed at Nevada. Metro Las Vegas has a national park blocking further expansion to the west and national wildlife range blocking expansion to the north. Plus some smaller federal land holdings in the other two directions. I would need to dig a bit but memory says the federal government owns the highest percentage of land in Nevada of all the states.
- Trump improving the ACA (Obamacare) is reality only in Trump's factless brain.
I disagree with your approval of Vance's comment that Republications need to regain America's trust on abortion. This statement on his part implies that Republicans would control the decision-making on that issue. What women really want is for Republican men to step aside and let women control their own health. It is not about trusting GOP leadership.
Gabe your commentary was insightful but missing the most, to me, important aspect: Vance was clearly smoother but he lied relentlessly. Truth is the most important aspect of any discourse.
Yes, Gene, completely yes. After I finished Gabe’s post I was all set to write the very note that you wrote. Thanks for stating the case so clearly and thanks for saving me the time. Ignoring Vance’s (and by proxy Trump’s) torrent of lies was a gross oversight.
Thank you so much Gene! Gabe, if you were in front of me I would say that you choosing a liar over facts disturbs me. Also, I think you choosing winners and losers is not the reporting we need. Just the facts, please.
I object to your accepting a JD Vance statement as true and example of good talking point of Trump’s case for president’ “Above all, like Trump in his debate with Biden but unlike Trump in his debate with Harris, Vance was relentless in driving home Trump’s best talking point: the argument that the world is more chaotic and that the economy is worse now than it was when Trump was in office.” The economy by every measure under Biden/Harris was/ is better than it ever was under Trump. Please consider withdrawing that statement.
Does Vance understand, or do the moderators understand that the Constitution does not allow a Vice President to do anything he criticized her for not doing? Just what does he think the job he is applying for requires or allows? Or does he expect to be President soon after Jan. 20, 2025? His performance was as ignorant and inappropriate as it was smooth and polished, in my opinion.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I do think Harris can’t have it both ways. Yes, it’s true that VPs have very little power. But it’s *also* true that she has yet to name a single way she would act differently as president than Joe Biden. I do think if she is calling herself the change candidate, it’s fair to ask that question — and if the answer is she would stay the course, it’s absolutely fair to tie her to the policies of the Biden administration, since — even if she may not have had much power to effect them — she has not pointed to any she disagrees with.
Everybody seems to expect Harris to come out with very detailed plans and policies, but she's been scrambling for only a few months to get her campaign off the ground. I'd rather she focus on campaigning right now instead of getting distracted with what at this point would only be theoretical policies. I am completely confident that she will prepare solid policies in collaboration with what I expect will be a very competent cabinet and group of advisors, whereas the other candidate has only very scary and destructive policies, if he has any at all. I don't even need to know if she'll hang on to Biden's polices, or if she'll develop her own. Hopefully she will retain the ones that have been so successful. But her policies are totally irrelevant to me given Drumpf's toxic proposals and philosophy.
Here again, though, I thought Waltz let a stinging rebuttal elude him. He could have replied with something about how Vance doesn’t understand the first thing about the job he is asking the American people to elect him to do.
I would love to see a detailed analysis of Vance's comments about the experts and their support for expanded trade (said differently the policy let each country do what they do best --- best quality and best cost) so the optimized system would lift all countries.
The reality is globalization mostly worked economically but most of the improvements in people's life went to the poorer countries. Americans did benefit as I'll get to in a moment. The challenges were and, in some case still are, when smaller part of the country loses industry (e.g., furniture in the Carolines). Any benefit of cheaper, better, ... furniture is across the entire country. The experts said back then that some support for overly effective areas would be needed. That never happened.
A massive positive impact of freer trade was the incredible improvement in American built cars. Going back 50 years, if your car lasted 4 years, it was the exception. The imported, mainly, Japanese, with much higher quality and longevity forces massive quality improvements in American built cars. Just a personal experience --- 44 years ago I purchased a Toyota -- no recalls nor any warranty issues --- put about 160K miles on in 7 years. 42 years ago my wife purchased a Ford Mustang --- we had 11 warranty issues (and its a bit scary if they can't remember to put the little plastic cover over the seat belt bolt or the 2nd bolt in the trunk handle, what else did they miss) plus, at least, 2 recalls. Today an American built car lasts a decade.
Plus it’s definitely true that Americans were able to buy a lot of stuff very cheaply for a long long time as a result of globalization. Unfortunately we’ve become used to that and the wake-up is going to be quite uncomfortable.
Your commentary was by far the best I read on the debate: balanced, fair, and full of direct data connected to reality (i.e., what they actually said as opposed to labels or caricatures). Other older and more experienced commentators would do well to learn from the youngest and now the best among them.
The biggest winner last night was Vance’s 2028 campaign. If people were wondering how MAGA gets laundered into something new post-Trump, Vance’s night was the answer. Great write up Gabe.
I’m not so sure about that, Gabe. It’s all a matter of opinion, of course, but I believe this softer side of Vance was a calculated one-time aberration. And whether Trump wins or loses, it’s unlikely that Vance can perpetuate this empathetic persona for the next four years. He’ll revert to being who he is.
Disingenuous? This is what people mean when they say trump gets away with stuff. He lied and pretty words just soften the truth that he lied and he lied often. And you are failing to point it out in your commentary. That’s a huge problem for any journalist. You know the facts and none of your points did anything to fact check the nonsense you’re dealing with the horse race and not the dangers we face from the orange guy and his pretty slimy sidekick. What you call the trump fallacy disregards the facts that previous candidates would have been in the trash if they said even a tenth of what orange guy and his side kick say. And what would have been your reaction if Biden or Harris had said anything remotely similar. I’ll chalk it up to you being young but it is definitely time for you to do some soul searching about what your job as a journalist is.
Yes, as I stated in an earlier comment, ignoring Vance’s torrent of lies was a gross oversight from Gabe. He’s usually way better than that. Gabe, that is. Not Vance!
I'd like to quote this paragraph on Facebook. May I?
"I thought this back-and-forth was such a perfect distillation of one of the crucial divides in American life right now: trust vs. distrust of expertise. A lot about the 2024 election — and the realignment that has found Dick Cheney and AOC and Kamala Harris arrayed on one side, and Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. and Donald Trump on the other — can be explained by this divide, as voters increasingly split over whether they trust or are disillusioned by the “establishment.” You don’t always see a major divide like that boiled down so perfectly to one exchange on national TV, and it was striking to watch it play out in real time."
Gabe, by the time WUTP was released I'd read the commentaries in the NYT, WaPo and WSJ. Yours is more complete and more astute than these others combined.
TPS has been given to Haitian (and other) migrants regardless of whether they entered legally or not. Your writing suggests that TPS makes illegal entry legal. It does not. It “temporarily” (the initial group of Haitians were given TPS in 2010) protects migrants from deportation (because of the sorry state of their home country (with Haiti, first because of an earthquake, now because of gang violence.) There are now 500,000 Haitians with TPS—about 4.5% of the population still in the country.
Both moderators were lousy. The quality of the debates suffer because of their lack of quality (and depth of knowledge) and inability to control their bias. How I pine for the days of Jim Lehrer.
The Governor looked like he was about to have an apoplectic fit at the beginning—not a good look. (Imagine Walz in the kitchen with Kruschev!) His answer about Tiananmen Square was nuts. I know someone who was in Beijing on a tour. She was thankful that she got out and wanted to kiss the tarmac when she arrived in the U.S. Not an experience you get confused about.
The compromise immigration pill had a poison pill. It authorized a fund (small but destined to grow) for legal fees for migrants. The ABA has been trying to get its finger in the pie for years and not solely with noble purpose. The mandatory emergency activation numbers in the bill were too high (5,000 for 7 consecutive days) or 8,500 in one day and Vance should have pointed that out. (In June 2024, there were 2,700 “encounters” per day and that is with the “new” standards in place. That is still over one million per year.
Thanks for the detailed summary. Relative to #11 ~ I have been under the impression that
corporate decisions were primarily responsible for taking advantage of the "opportunities" that economic globalism offered. Now, you could call CEO's etc. 'experts', but I think if you research academic economists and the economic theories of 'experts' you tend to read negative critiques of the more detrimental outcomes of offshoring and low wages and lack of environmental controls.
A better response to Vance's attack here might have been to turn around his assertion that Kamala did it...and that the support given by Trumps tax breaks to these so called corporate experts resulted in stripping away America's manufacturing.
I've been following you for years since I first read about you here in St Louis. I think you have focused too much here on affect rather than substance, an easy trap to fall into.
I think both candidates proved they can assume the office the of president if need be, and preside over the Senate, the two constitutional roles of the position they are running for.
Vance softened Trump's policies in ways that I think are simply not accurate depictions of his actual plans, such as they are for such a man. Some things that stood out to me--I don't recall any action taken by Trump to shore up the "collapsing of its own weight Affordable Care Act," as Vance claimed. Maybe you know what those were. I do know that the Biden administration did indeed make the program more attractive with a greater level of subsidy for low-income folks, and the fact that 50 million people are now enrolled in the ACA or its Medicaid expansion component tells us something is working.
I also do not think unchecked immigration is making our housing shortage what it is--Vance made that claim repeatedly. What data supports that? Many have argued we have a housing shortage because that market has never fully recovered from the 2008 crash. Vance's idea about federal lands for housing is simply a fantasy--little to none of that land is in areas where it could be usefully turned into housing. .
I do agree Walz could have made a better case for the current Administration policies that are exactly what Vance said he and Trump wanted--expansion of US industry, increased energy production, and reduced immigration (done by executive order).
I think you should give Walz credit for pointing out that Congress--mostly Republicans-- put together a bill that Trump and craven Republicans torpedoed because Trump told them to. And Vance refused to say that Trump lost the 2020 election and abetted the January 6 rioters.
While the debate was far more civil than I expected, and certainly both men were in agreement on some points, calling Vance the winner simply because he's smoother than man who's successfully served six terms in Congress and two as governor of a successful state seems a bit of a stretch.
Hi Michael, thanks for weighing in. I agree that Vance was disingenuous in how he spoke about Obamacare, seeing as Trump repeatedly tried to repeal the law. In terms of him “salvaging” the law, I’m not sure what he’s referring to either. One issue he did mention in this context was the No Surprises Act, a bipartisan bill Trump signed into law to increase hospital price transparency and crack down on surprising billing. I do not think it would be accurate to say that “salvaged” the law, but it was the main argument he pointed to on Trump’s health care record. On immigration and housing, here is one study Vance cited on X this morning: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1051137717300025. Many economists do not view immigration as the leading cause of the housing shortage, but there is evidence to suggest it at least contributes.
Also -- I think you’re exactly right here: “I do agree Walz could have made a better case for the current Administration policies that are exactly what Vance said he and Trump wanted--expansion of US industry, increased energy production, and reduced immigration (done by executive order).”
I was very struck how many times Vance gave him an obvious opening to highlight the policies of the (Biden)-Harris administration ... and Walz just didn’t. Maybe the campaign views that as a lost cause — that voters already think the Biden admin has led to less oil production and more migrants, and it isn’t worth changing their minds — or, more likely, Walz just messed up and forgot the talking points.
Two addons:
- The piece about federal land being used for housing is heavily directed at Nevada. Metro Las Vegas has a national park blocking further expansion to the west and national wildlife range blocking expansion to the north. Plus some smaller federal land holdings in the other two directions. I would need to dig a bit but memory says the federal government owns the highest percentage of land in Nevada of all the states.
- Trump improving the ACA (Obamacare) is reality only in Trump's factless brain.
I disagree with your approval of Vance's comment that Republications need to regain America's trust on abortion. This statement on his part implies that Republicans would control the decision-making on that issue. What women really want is for Republican men to step aside and let women control their own health. It is not about trusting GOP leadership.
Gabe your commentary was insightful but missing the most, to me, important aspect: Vance was clearly smoother but he lied relentlessly. Truth is the most important aspect of any discourse.
Yes, Gene, completely yes. After I finished Gabe’s post I was all set to write the very note that you wrote. Thanks for stating the case so clearly and thanks for saving me the time. Ignoring Vance’s (and by proxy Trump’s) torrent of lies was a gross oversight.
Thank you so much Gene! Gabe, if you were in front of me I would say that you choosing a liar over facts disturbs me. Also, I think you choosing winners and losers is not the reporting we need. Just the facts, please.
I object to your accepting a JD Vance statement as true and example of good talking point of Trump’s case for president’ “Above all, like Trump in his debate with Biden but unlike Trump in his debate with Harris, Vance was relentless in driving home Trump’s best talking point: the argument that the world is more chaotic and that the economy is worse now than it was when Trump was in office.” The economy by every measure under Biden/Harris was/ is better than it ever was under Trump. Please consider withdrawing that statement.
Does Vance understand, or do the moderators understand that the Constitution does not allow a Vice President to do anything he criticized her for not doing? Just what does he think the job he is applying for requires or allows? Or does he expect to be President soon after Jan. 20, 2025? His performance was as ignorant and inappropriate as it was smooth and polished, in my opinion.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I do think Harris can’t have it both ways. Yes, it’s true that VPs have very little power. But it’s *also* true that she has yet to name a single way she would act differently as president than Joe Biden. I do think if she is calling herself the change candidate, it’s fair to ask that question — and if the answer is she would stay the course, it’s absolutely fair to tie her to the policies of the Biden administration, since — even if she may not have had much power to effect them — she has not pointed to any she disagrees with.
Everybody seems to expect Harris to come out with very detailed plans and policies, but she's been scrambling for only a few months to get her campaign off the ground. I'd rather she focus on campaigning right now instead of getting distracted with what at this point would only be theoretical policies. I am completely confident that she will prepare solid policies in collaboration with what I expect will be a very competent cabinet and group of advisors, whereas the other candidate has only very scary and destructive policies, if he has any at all. I don't even need to know if she'll hang on to Biden's polices, or if she'll develop her own. Hopefully she will retain the ones that have been so successful. But her policies are totally irrelevant to me given Drumpf's toxic proposals and philosophy.
Here again, though, I thought Waltz let a stinging rebuttal elude him. He could have replied with something about how Vance doesn’t understand the first thing about the job he is asking the American people to elect him to do.
I would love to see a detailed analysis of Vance's comments about the experts and their support for expanded trade (said differently the policy let each country do what they do best --- best quality and best cost) so the optimized system would lift all countries.
The reality is globalization mostly worked economically but most of the improvements in people's life went to the poorer countries. Americans did benefit as I'll get to in a moment. The challenges were and, in some case still are, when smaller part of the country loses industry (e.g., furniture in the Carolines). Any benefit of cheaper, better, ... furniture is across the entire country. The experts said back then that some support for overly effective areas would be needed. That never happened.
A massive positive impact of freer trade was the incredible improvement in American built cars. Going back 50 years, if your car lasted 4 years, it was the exception. The imported, mainly, Japanese, with much higher quality and longevity forces massive quality improvements in American built cars. Just a personal experience --- 44 years ago I purchased a Toyota -- no recalls nor any warranty issues --- put about 160K miles on in 7 years. 42 years ago my wife purchased a Ford Mustang --- we had 11 warranty issues (and its a bit scary if they can't remember to put the little plastic cover over the seat belt bolt or the 2nd bolt in the trunk handle, what else did they miss) plus, at least, 2 recalls. Today an American built car lasts a decade.
Plus it’s definitely true that Americans were able to buy a lot of stuff very cheaply for a long long time as a result of globalization. Unfortunately we’ve become used to that and the wake-up is going to be quite uncomfortable.
Your commentary was by far the best I read on the debate: balanced, fair, and full of direct data connected to reality (i.e., what they actually said as opposed to labels or caricatures). Other older and more experienced commentators would do well to learn from the youngest and now the best among them.
Thank you so much, Diana!
The biggest winner last night was Vance’s 2028 campaign. If people were wondering how MAGA gets laundered into something new post-Trump, Vance’s night was the answer. Great write up Gabe.
I agree — this is a performance that will linger in the ’28 primaries, no matter if the Trump/Vance ticket wins or loses in November.
I’m not so sure about that, Gabe. It’s all a matter of opinion, of course, but I believe this softer side of Vance was a calculated one-time aberration. And whether Trump wins or loses, it’s unlikely that Vance can perpetuate this empathetic persona for the next four years. He’ll revert to being who he is.
NPR! 1-A! So happy for you getting these interviews! You and your generation are my hope for the future.
This was a great article to read, Gabe. Thanks again!! And yes, a salute to midwestern civilities including yours!
Disingenuous? This is what people mean when they say trump gets away with stuff. He lied and pretty words just soften the truth that he lied and he lied often. And you are failing to point it out in your commentary. That’s a huge problem for any journalist. You know the facts and none of your points did anything to fact check the nonsense you’re dealing with the horse race and not the dangers we face from the orange guy and his pretty slimy sidekick. What you call the trump fallacy disregards the facts that previous candidates would have been in the trash if they said even a tenth of what orange guy and his side kick say. And what would have been your reaction if Biden or Harris had said anything remotely similar. I’ll chalk it up to you being young but it is definitely time for you to do some soul searching about what your job as a journalist is.
Yes, as I stated in an earlier comment, ignoring Vance’s torrent of lies was a gross oversight from Gabe. He’s usually way better than that. Gabe, that is. Not Vance!
My sentiments exactly.
NPR! 1-A! So happy you are getting excellent interviews! You are blessed!
I'd like to quote this paragraph on Facebook. May I?
"I thought this back-and-forth was such a perfect distillation of one of the crucial divides in American life right now: trust vs. distrust of expertise. A lot about the 2024 election — and the realignment that has found Dick Cheney and AOC and Kamala Harris arrayed on one side, and Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. and Donald Trump on the other — can be explained by this divide, as voters increasingly split over whether they trust or are disillusioned by the “establishment.” You don’t always see a major divide like that boiled down so perfectly to one exchange on national TV, and it was striking to watch it play out in real time."
p.s. I don't have a Substack. I clicked on the wrong link and found myself signing up for something I don't plan to continue.
Gabe, by the time WUTP was released I'd read the commentaries in the NYT, WaPo and WSJ. Yours is more complete and more astute than these others combined.
TPS has been given to Haitian (and other) migrants regardless of whether they entered legally or not. Your writing suggests that TPS makes illegal entry legal. It does not. It “temporarily” (the initial group of Haitians were given TPS in 2010) protects migrants from deportation (because of the sorry state of their home country (with Haiti, first because of an earthquake, now because of gang violence.) There are now 500,000 Haitians with TPS—about 4.5% of the population still in the country.
Both moderators were lousy. The quality of the debates suffer because of their lack of quality (and depth of knowledge) and inability to control their bias. How I pine for the days of Jim Lehrer.
The Governor looked like he was about to have an apoplectic fit at the beginning—not a good look. (Imagine Walz in the kitchen with Kruschev!) His answer about Tiananmen Square was nuts. I know someone who was in Beijing on a tour. She was thankful that she got out and wanted to kiss the tarmac when she arrived in the U.S. Not an experience you get confused about.
The compromise immigration pill had a poison pill. It authorized a fund (small but destined to grow) for legal fees for migrants. The ABA has been trying to get its finger in the pie for years and not solely with noble purpose. The mandatory emergency activation numbers in the bill were too high (5,000 for 7 consecutive days) or 8,500 in one day and Vance should have pointed that out. (In June 2024, there were 2,700 “encounters” per day and that is with the “new” standards in place. That is still over one million per year.
Gabe,
Thanks for the detailed summary. Relative to #11 ~ I have been under the impression that
corporate decisions were primarily responsible for taking advantage of the "opportunities" that economic globalism offered. Now, you could call CEO's etc. 'experts', but I think if you research academic economists and the economic theories of 'experts' you tend to read negative critiques of the more detrimental outcomes of offshoring and low wages and lack of environmental controls.
A better response to Vance's attack here might have been to turn around his assertion that Kamala did it...and that the support given by Trumps tax breaks to these so called corporate experts resulted in stripping away America's manufacturing.