NYT columnist remarks on Vance's portrayal of Trumpism as calm and coherent in VP debate against Walz

Sponsored Ad

Ohio Senator J.D. Vance portrayed Trumpism in a calm and coherent manner during the vice presidential debate against Tim Walz, according to a New York Times columnist. Binyamin Appelbaum, a member of the NYT editorial board, noted that Vance effectively presented his party's platform in a way that might broaden its appeal. "He made Trumpism sound polite, calm, and coherent," Appelbaum commented, emphasizing Vance’s ability to frame his stance differently from what many associate with the movement.

Appelbaum, who serves as the lead writer on economics and business for the NYT editorial board, questioned whether voters would respond positively to Vance’s performance, especially given the contrast between the senator’s debate style and the public persona of former President Donald Trump, whom Vance represents.

In the same debate analysis, Josh Barro, a writer for the NYT newsletter "Very Serious," noted that Vance was more agile than Walz during the debate's early exchanges, but he faltered on topics such as abortion and the 2020 election results. Barro observed that while Vance was rhetorically skilled, certain contentious issues presented challenges for him.

Among the 13 columnists featured in the NYT’s debate reaction roundup, most felt Vance had the upper hand in the debate. However, columnist Charles M. Blow disagreed, asserting that Walz had won, while two others declared the debate a tie.