Republican Vice Presidential nominee JD Vance 3.1 had a very good debate. He was well-practiced, largely non-specific, and person-like. In fact, he was almost personable, with some points his opponent shared with his Democratic opponent, Tim Walz.
The problem is, we know Theilian Politician Model Vance 3.1 is a special model for the event. And we remember the previous models. The Vance 3.0 will be back on the campaign trail trying to make people forget the fallible Vance 2.0 that sucked up to right-wing nationalist groups–and honestly, the current model still leans that way–and certainly to erase any memory of the Vance 1, which referred to Trump as “America’s Hitler,” a “moral disaster,” and a “douchey celeb.”
Vance 3.1 reverted back to the 2.0 in refusing to say he would certify an election Republicans had lost even though state legislatures certified them. “Tim, I’m speaking of the future,” Vance said. “That is a damning non-answer,” Walz responded.
Vance 3.1 shouted out an “I love you” to some unknown, unnamed presumably older woman who had some type of impact on him, leaving the specific target mysteriously dangling to scores of light-minded senior women who thought a toy-accurate Ken doll had finally come to life on their screens and spoken to them directly. But he did effectively dodge most every question, from how he’d pay for a $5.8 trillion additional debt (Answer: with tariffs) to how he’d create jobs (Answer: with tariffs) to what will pay for tax-free overtime pay (Answer: with… you get the idea). He failed, however, to address the question on how consumers don’t end up paying for the tariffs. Curious, huh?
Walz, on the other hand, did what he was supposed to do: Walz explained the campaign’s position on issues. He didn’t break out any shockingly new positions. He questioned Vance’s ridiculous repeating of Trump claims; when Vance claimed Trump would open state land to build much-needed housing, Walz asked what land specifically Trump would turn into his Freedom Cities. Walz disclosed that his 17-year-old developmentally disabled son witnessed a school shooting, something that seemed to take Vance by surprise and even prompted a statement of sympathy.
The Original Walz stuck with facts and policies, without formatively addressing the Gish Gallop of lies Vance 3.1–an experienced academic debater–advanced. When 3.1 suggested a way to reduce the problem of school shootings would be to harden the buildings’ windows and doors, The Original Walz quipped, “I thought it was the guns.” Walz listened to Vance 3.1’s talking points designed for a bipartisan audience new to the pair, and then quickly and efficiently dismissed them with data, a story, or a policy.
One time Walz got unsettled when he gave a somewhat rambling response full of talking points about China instead of answering why he incorrectly cited the time period he visited the country; conservative internet warriors tried to make the fact that Walz said he was in China during the Tiananmen Square massacre in the Spring of 1989 when he was, in fact, in Hong Kong in the summer after, but The Original Walz dismissed it as a simple misstatement, “I got the time wrong, but I was there during the ’89 Democracy Movement.” [paraphrase] And poof went the conservative talking point.
Vance 3.1 served its duty: it was bland, lifelike and believable–if you don’t know the history of the model. The Original Walz projected the security and durability of a model build and updated over years of experience, ready for the job at hand. After some early nerves passed, Walz was able to continue Harris’s talent of connecting with audiences through stories and personal connections to stories. Vance 3.1 tried discussing his family, but it seemed forced, a glitch that plagues all Vance and Trump models when they must interact with reality.