If you watched Tuesday’s vice presidential debate hoping for something like a WWE SmackDown event, then you were probably left disappointed. However, if you wondered what fascism on novocaine looks like, or what a political “prevent” defense versus a blitz looks like, you might have enjoyed yourself.

Republican vice-presidential candidate JD “Smokey Eyes” Vance and Democratic vice-presidential candidate Tim “Coach” Walz squared off in a CBS News event deemed the undercard event of the century. Expectations were low and interest relatively high. Still, all you could do was sigh.

With a serious tone and knitted brows, Norah O'Donnell and Margaret Brennan moderated the debate, which ran for 90 minutes at the CBS Broadcast Center in New York. While the ghost of Walter Cronkite was probably wretched in anticipation of the event, which studio heads boasted would feature no fact-checking from the moderators, early in the debate the journalists abandoned that vow after Vance refused to drop the obvious and dangerous lie about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, which he’s propagated for weeks.

“And just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio, does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status, temporary protected status,” Brennan made clear. Vance complained about the fact-checking. “Margaret, the rules were that you were not going to fact check and since you’re fact-checking me, I think it’s important to say what’s actually going on,” he protested. A few seconds later, they cut Vance’s mic after he continued to talk.

The telling fact was that Vance, in complaining about being fact-checked, openly admitted he wanted to get away without being called on his lies — and expected to do so.

Of course, there was plenty of criticism of the moderators from Trump supporters about that, but Walz supporters also criticized the moderators after they asked Walz about his misleading statements regarding a 1989 visit to China. “I’m a knucklehead sometimes,” he said as he stumbled to explain his claim that he was in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square massacre.

But then the moderators asked Vance a more serious question regarding a time when Vance called Trump “America’s Hitler.” The answer from Vance was telling on many fronts. He, of course, shot the messenger. “I was wrong, first of all, because I believed some of the media stories that turned out to be dishonest fabrications of his record.”

If Vance is to be believed, he had been living under a rock, poked his head out one day and read some horrible things about Trump and, as a conditioned response, he believed them. He never independently verified anything he heard and never engaged in critical thinking. He just believed. That alone should disqualify him from being a vice presidential candidate. We need critical thinkers. But, more importantly, inasmuch as the facts make clear that Trump is exactly the monster we know him to be, this also shows that Vance is firmly from the Roy Cohn school of politics: He always attacks, denies responsibility for everything and always claims victory. The difference? Vance tries to do it with a smarmy smile.

Those two questions, juxtaposed against each other, underscore one of the greatest problems in today’s politics. Trump partisans were screaming that the moderators were too tough on Vance while the Democratic partisans moaned in agony about “false equivalence.” As a reporter, I saw something different. The moderators sought to bring out criticisms against each candidate and allow them to answer questions about those criticisms. It is obvious that one candidate had a lot more to answer for than the other, and the moderators trusted the American voting public enough to see the difference.

Vance was gracious. Walz was gracious. They shook hands more than once. They smiled at each other. They agreed with each other on some issues. Walz never blitzed Vance. Vance never really challenged Walz. Trump followers told me they were pissed. Democrats who wanted a smackdown were equally upset. Their groans and moans could be heard across the nation. Both of them missed the point: Vance threw Donald Trump under the bus. Trump would never agree, about anything, with people he claims are destroying America and the First Amendment, and who are communists, baby-murderers and mental defectives. Trump is one step away from calling Democrats witches who’ve cast evil spells and are intent on burning down the country he aims to “Make Great Again.” JD Vance said we live in a beautiful country; Trump claims we live in a “hellscape."

A group of undecided voters in Pennsylvania mentioned that it looked like we were “watching a sequel to ‘The Nice Guys,’" with the audience voting to decide who was Russell Crowe and who was Ryan Gosling. This kinder, gentler nature made quite an impression on highly partisan viewers — few of whom were happy to see it.

Admittedly it was hard to digest Vance showing empathy for Walz’s children, who had to suffer from the results of a school shooting, especially after Vance's recent remark that school shootings are just a “fact of life.” He also obfuscated the facts on health care, reproductive care and which party brought down the cost of prescription medication. His stock answer to nearly every question was a variation of “It’s all Kamala Harris’ fault.” 

Few seemed to have bought into it. But, Vance had an audience of one in mind, he hit his mark and smiled. Thus it went for the majority of the debate. And while Walz adhered closer to reality than Vance, it was mostly a vanilla debate — until the end.

---

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

---

O’Donnell began the final question by saying, “Let’s talk about the state of democracy,” before she leveled Vance with this direct question: “Sen. Vance, you have said you would not have certified the last presidential election and would have asked the states to submit alternative electors. That has been called unconstitutional and illegal. Would you again seek to challenge this year's election results, even if every governor certifies the results?"

Vance tried to slip the noose, but couldn’t. He wanted to speak of the future and the “inflation crisis caused by Kamala Harris,” but would not answer the question. When Walz was given a chance to address it, he first said he enjoyed the night’s debate (bringing groans from Democratic supporters) but then showed the blitz. He said that on this particular issue, “we are miles apart,” before hammering home the point. “This was a threat to our democracy in a way that we had not seen. And it manifested itself because of Donald Trump's inability to say — he is still saying he didn't lose the election.”

Walz then turned directly to Vance: “I would just ask that: Did he lose the 2020 election?”

“Tim, I'm focused on the future,” Vance stammered before an ineffective attempt to deflect. “Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 COVID situation?” Vance shot back.

“That is a damning non-answer,” Walz declared.

“He lost the election,” Walz said of Trump. “This is not a debate. … Will you stand up? Will you keep your oath of office even if the president doesn't? And I think Kamala Harris would agree. She wouldn't have picked me if she didn't think I would do that, because of course that's what we would do. 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.”

With that, they went to a commercial break, and you could hear the sarcophagus slam shut on Vance’s smiling fascism. 

That was the moment that mattered most. It was a leisurely, friendly and smiling walk into a trap. All night long it seemed amiable, and Walz — the former high school defensive coach — sat back in a prevent defense. In the end, though, he nailed the one thing that separates Trump and his minions from everyone else: They do not respect our democracy.

For those who, for whatever reason, are still on the fence about the presidential race, that may be the moment that matters most. “How can I be sure he’ll respect my vote,” an undecided voter told a CNN reporter later. That is the question, indeed. 

There's one question I would have loved to see the moderators ask: Why did Trump need a new running mate?

Walz embraced the “nice guy” image during the debate as a strategy. He was a gentleman, a gun-owning, football-coaching, Midwest regular guy who presented a completely different image of manhood from the toxic masculinity of Trump and Vance. It worked. Some Democrats believed it worked too well and that Walz didn’t go after Vance as he should. But Walz wasn’t trying to reach the faithful. He was trying to convert the faithless by showing a different image than one presented by MAGA, while at the same time driving home the fundamental differences between fascism and democracy. He went a long way in showing how valuable he’d be as a vice president.

At least he did according to the dozens of undecided voters I spoke with. A source close to Walz, who spoke to me on the condition of anonymity, said his team were on the fence about the strategy. “But I think it worked," this person said. "I think we threaded a needle and I think we won the debate. We’re very happy about that, but only time will tell. We still have several weeks before Election Day and this election is too close to call.” Even so, as the Walz source admitted, “Sure, there were things he could have beaten Vance up about, but that’s not what he chose to do. I think it was the right choice.”

Vance, on the other hand, was off the stage for less than five minutes before Trump began sending emails and posting on social media how his boy had busted up Walz and toed the company line. Trump, as usual, was missing the point.

What the MAGA godhead failed to understand is that there's a reason Vance didn’t burn hot at the debate either. He wanted to put a kinder, gentler face on Project 2025, the GOP’s fascist tendencies and its desire to destroy organized labor, health care and the economy. In short, Vance was trying to show that if Trump loses — which is increasingly likely — then he, at just 40 years of age, is the heir apparent in the Republican Party. Vance has a long-term plan in mind — to be the fascist of the future— and he may have played his hand successfully.

Vance made a night of politely blaming Harris for every known problem in the universe — and tried to take credit for lowering prescription drug prices. If Vance had kept on going, I think he would have tried to blame Harris for athlete’s foot, halitosis and gingivitis while taking credit for the theory of relativity and breaking the sound barrier — well, except that he still denies "weird science."

As we cruise into the last few weeks of the campaign, the die may be cast for 2024, but JD Vance is just getting started.

His timing couldn’t be better — at least for himself and perhaps for the GOP. Special counsel Jack Smith unloaded an October surprise late Wednesday in his ongoing federal election case against Trump. According to one document in his massive filing, one private political adviser described Trump’s plan three days before Election Day in 2020: “He’s going to declare victory. That doesn’t mean he’s the winner, he’s just going to say he’s the winner.”

Vance, like Trump, will say anything. The difference? He’ll smile while he does it.