For the American press, JD Vance is the winner
According to the American press, Republican JD Vance dominated the debate, facing a less than charismatic and convincing Tim Walz.
Mark Z. Barabak, political reporter for the Los Angeles Timestherefore believe that “Vance was the big winner of the night, without a doubt. He may have been misleading, shedding his MAGA persona, polishing his edges, and completely misrepresenting many of Trump’s positions. But he was much more effective as a messenger and, I dare say, more affable than Walz, who was agreeable enough, but not as cheerful as the young senator from Ohio.”.
“Tonight was boring, but one thing caught my attention: Vance is a chameleon.judged Anita Chabria, editorialist of the Los Angeles Times. This guy is willing to say literally anything to further his ambition. He completely changed his positions on abortion and immigration, reducing them to platitudes that no one would disagree with. I promise you he will resume his hateful rhetoric at his next meeting. (…) Walz was simply overwhelmed by Vance’s deft ability to say what seemed most convenient to him. » The journalist still estimated that Walz had “does a good job”.
The New York Times described the meeting as “intense and tense, ending in a clash for democracy” – However, the debate was generally relatively cordial. Nicholas Nehamas, the newspaper’s political correspondent, said “Mr. Vance’s well-practiced television style clashed with Mr. Walz’s flat, sometimes nervous and hesitant approach”.
Jim Geraghty, contributing columnist Washington Postjudged that this “Tuesday night couldn’t have been better for JD Vance: polished and smooth like the fine china your mother only brings in at Christmas. The contrast between the prepared, detailed, concentrated and memorizing senator from Ohio and the erratic, improvised and erupting volcano [Donald Trump]It couldn’t be more striking. “Vance seemed like a man who knew that whatever happens in November, he will almost certainly run for president in 2028.”.
Kathleen Parker, columnist for Washington Postshe wrote that, “Without reading the debate transcript, I would say Vance won, even if you didn’t like his answers. “Walz did pretty well, except for the China question and a few other questions he ignored, but I didn’t expect much from him.”.
