"Did He Lose the 2020 Election?"
The moment we will remember from the Vance-Walz debate
.jpg){kind=link}
Everything was going smoothly for JD Vance. In the Vice Presidential debate with Tim Walz, I would have given him the overall victory had it not been for Vance’s answer to the easiest question of the night.
It was a question we had to wait almost 90 minutes to hear. And surprisingly, it did not come from the moderators, but from Tim Walz himself when discussing Donald Trump and democracy.
“Did he lose the 2020 election?”
Tim Walz had stumbled through numerous answers for most of the preceding 90 minutes of the debate. He often seemed unsure of his responses, and he didn’t always have a strong command of the facts.
Vance, by contrast, was polished, articulate, and skilled at sanding down some of Trump’s rougher edges. He praised Trump’s accomplishments during his first administration. He was happy to detail Trump’s record in practically all areas but one.
January 6th and Trump’s ongoing election denialism.
“When Mike Pence made that decision to certify the election, that's why Mike Pence isn't on this stage” - Governor Tim Walz
Whether Trump lost the 2020 election should have been an easy answer for JD Vance
As I have detailed in recent essays, the rule of law and the peaceful transfer of power are fundamental principles of American democracy. Donald Trump’s reckless disregard for both should immediately disqualify him from the presidency.
Trump has spent the last 4 years lying about winning an election he conclusively lost. That’s not an opinion. It’s a conclusion that’s heavily substantiated by ~60 court cases, some of which were presided over by Trump-appointed judges.
“And for anyone still grasping at the possibility that there was such pervasive election fraud in 2020 that would have made a material impact on the election results, answer this – why did ~60 court cases all reject the substantive merits of every single challenge? Why did nobody challenge any down-ballot results (Senate, House, etc.) on the same ballots Trump had issues with? How did Dominion Voting and others win huge defamation cases against Fox News and others (hi Rudy!) where truth is an affirmative defense?” - from Donald Trump Did Some Good, But the Bad Far Outweighs It
Despite all of this compelling evidence that Trump lost, JD Vance held the party line in his debate with Tim Walz. He lived up to the reasons why Donald Trump likely selected him as his running mate.
Vance demonstrated why he was chosen to replace Mike Pence.
So what was Vance’s specific answer to the question: did Trump lose the 2020 election?
Silence for a few seconds. And then:
“Tim, I’m focused on the future.”
Vance could have said something like, “Look, we lost in 2020, but we’re focused on winning in 2024.”
But he didn’t. And that should be telling for anyone undecided about this election.
Tim Walz hammered that point home by saying:
“That’s a damning non-answer.”
The problem for Vance is that he can’t admit Trump lost the 2020 election and remain Trump’s running mate. Election denialism is the litmus test for Trump and MAGA. They ride or die on that issue.
If Vance cannot support the results of a free and fair election — as all credible evidence indicates about 2020 — it doesn’t matter where he stands on policy issues. All other issues become meaningless.
A peaceful transfer of power and the rule of law are the foundation for everything.
As Walz pointed out — how can Americans, given Vance’s “damning non-answer”, be comfortable with Vance checking the conscience of Donald Trump?
What I’m concerned about is — where is the firewall with Donald Trump? Where is the firewall if he knows he could do anything, including taking an election. ... So, America, I think you’ve got a really clear choice on this election of who’s going to honor that democracy, and who’s going to honor Donald Trump? - Governor Tim Walz
If Vance cannot agree with the basic principles of American democracy, how can any voter trust his views on policy, from abortion to the War in Ukraine (which surprisingly wasn’t discussed)?
A more polished version of Donald Trump
What we witnessed in the Vance-Walz debate was a more polished version of Donald Trump. Vance had clear command of Trump’s core issues from the economy to foreign policy. He presented the MAGA platform with nicer packaging. He sounded reasonable for much of the night.
This made Vance all the more terrifying when he refused to answer this simple question about Donald Trump: “Did he lose the 2020 election?”
It took nearly the full 90 minutes, but when Walz posed this question to Vance, it revealed Vance’s true colors. He was no longer the reasonable communicator of a sane-washed MAGA platform. He was no longer a compelling and potentially digestible version of MAGA.
Vance revealed that he was just like Donald Trump, only a little more polished. He demonstrated with his refusal to answer the 2020 election question a willingness to defy truth, reality, and facts to do his boss’s bidding. Vance showed why he replaced Mike Pence.
Here’s the takeaway — don’t fall for JD Vance.
Yes, he’s smooth. He’s articulate. He’s even very reasonable at times, as Tim Walz highlighted.
But in the end, he’s simply a more polished version of Donald Trump; someone who’s more capable of pulling the wool over unsuspecting voters’ eyes; someone who is willing to put his political party over the rule of law and even the peaceful transfer of power if it potentially leads to one result.
Power for JD Vance.