Trump Adviser Defends J.D. Vance’s Awful 2020 Election Debate Answer

During Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance refused to answer a direct question on whether Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz called Vance’s response “a damning nonanswer.”

CNN’s Jim Acosta tried to ask the same simple question to Corey Lewandowski, a senior adviser with the Trump campaign, in an interview on Wednesday.

“Yeah Corey, why is this so difficult for the Trump campaign to answer? I mean, it’s 2024,” Acosta said. “Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election, can you answer that?”

Like Vance, Lewandowski attempted to sidestep actually answering the question.

“Jim, I think it’s very simple,” Lewandowski said. “The American people have passed the 2020 election, and focused on an election which is just under five weeks away.”

“So look, we can go back and relitigate the 2020 election or we can look at what we can do to make America for the everyday Americans who are struggling under Bidenomics—”

“Yeah, but Corey,” Acosta interjected. “It’s not relitigating, it’s just a simple question. Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election? I mean, that’s easy.”

“Why are we talking about 2020 anymore?” Lewandowski said. “Does the American people care about the 2020 election anymore?”

Acosta pointed out that on the campaign trail, Trump has repeatedly claimed that there was “widespread fraud” in 2020, and had already begun to tee up challenges to election results.

“But Jim, Jim, we know there was fraud, there’s no question there was some fraud that took place in the 2020 election,” Lewandowski said. “There’s no question about that.”

“No widespread fraud,” Acosta clarified.

“But what does widespread mean, Jim? I mean, is one vote that was illegal enough?” Lewandowski said, exasperated.

“There were instances of voter fraud from Trump supporters,” Acosta pointed out. “I mean, you know that from the 2020 campaign.”

Trump and his allies have been accused of coordinating a plot in which 84 fake electors across seven states signed false electoral certificates claiming that Trump won the presidential election in their states.

Acosta noted that experts, including officials from the Trump campaign, had affirmed that there was no widespread voter fraud, as Lewandowski continued to spiral about what “widespread” actually meant.

“So I guess what you’re saying is, is that Donald Trump did not lose the 2020 election,” Acosta interjected. “Is that what you’re saying?”

“What I’m saying is Joe Biden is the president of the United States. You recognize that, and I recognize that,” Lewandowski said, continuing to whine about how they ought to talk about the 2024 election instead.

“Will Donald Trump honor the results of the 2024 election?” Acosta pressed. “Will he do that?”

“Jim, did-did-did Hillary Clinton honor the results? No. Did Democrats honor the results?” Lewandowski cried.

“Yes, she did. She called and conceded the election,” Acosta replied.

As Lewandowski continued to rant, Acosta explained, “Corey I was with you guys on election night in Manhattan in 2016. She called, she called the then president elect and conceded the election.”

Completely unwilling to address any of Acosta’s “hypotheticals” or reckon with his own damning nonanswer, Lewandowski continued to rant about illegal immigration and the economy.

It’s become increasingly clear that no member of the Trump campaign is willing to answer simple questions about the previous election, or ensure a peaceful transition of power in the next one.

On Tuesday night, Donald Trump made a threat against the electoral process that was quickly overshadowed by the vice presidential debate.

The former president was in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for a campaign speech, after which he took questions from the press. Trump was asked whether “he trusts the process this time around,” alluding to his refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election and attempts to overturn it.

“I’ll let you know in about 33 days,” Trump said, about the time until November’s elections.

It’s a disturbing statement from Trump, and this close to the election, it’s a promise to follow through on the other similar election threats he’s made in the last few months. It’s worth remembering that he’s been refusing to say that he would accept unfavorable election results since his 2016 campaign for president. And his infamous rejection of the 2020 presidential election results was followed by the Capitol insurrection on January 6, 2021, as well as fake elector plots across the country in states including Georgia, Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona.

This time around, his supporters are already plotting to swing the election in his favor. In Georgia, his supporters are using the state election board to make changes that would help him. Across the country, many Republicans say they won’t accept the election results if he loses and even pledge to take action. Trump himself is attacking the U.S. Postal Service and laying the groundwork to delegitimize mail-in ballots, even though his handpicked Postmaster General Louis DeJoy is hurting the postal system on his own.

November’s election could very well be chaotic, especially if results are very close in battleground states. Trump is desperate to return to the White House and enact vengeance on his enemies, as well as bury the legal cases against him. Will the electoral system be able to withstand MAGA’s plots?

J.D. Vance’s big idea to prevent school shootings is … bigger locks?

During the vice presidential debate Tuesday, Vance offered his answer to how he would address school shootings. “And I say this, not loving the answer,” Vance said.

“We have to make the doors lock better. We have to make the doors stronger,” Vance explained. “We’ve got to make the windows stronger, and, of course, we’ve got to increase school resource officers. Because the idea that we can magically wave a wand and take guns out of the hands of bad guys, it just doesn’t fit with recent experience.”

It was a particularly weak moment for Vance, who had previously touted that he had “well-developed views on public policy” he planned to put on display during the debate.

Online, it seemed like Vance was the only one into his limp answer to gun violence.

A Gen-Z college student interviewed by MSNBC after the debate called Vance’s answer “ridiculous.”

“I mean, the issue is guns, the issue is not better locks on doors,” she said.

California Representative Adam Schiff wrote in a post on X, “Vance solution for gun violence? Stronger doors at school? Stronger windows? Really?How about an assault weapons ban and background checks. And a VP who put kids over the NRA.”

Meanwhile, Vance’s opponent, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz replied, “Sometimes it is just the guns.”

Last month, after a deadly mass shooting at Apalachee High School in Georgia, Vance resigned himself to school shootings as a bleak “fact of life” and made a similar suggestion about school security being the solution.

“We’ve got to bolster security so that if a psycho wants to walk through the front door and kill a bunch of children, they’re not able to,” Vance said.

At the time, Vance was criticized for his callous acceptance of mass violence and blatant reluctance to strengthen gun laws.

Donald Trump has fleshed out his Project 2025–inspired Department of Education plan, and it involves handing the reins and lofty responsibilities of public school administration over to a group of people with all the time in the world: parents.

“I figure we’ll have like one person plus a secretary,” the Republican presidential nominee told a crowd in Milwaukee Tuesday night. “You’ll have a secretary to a secretary. We’ll have one person plus a secretary, and all the person has to do is, ‘Are you teaching English? Are you teaching arithmetic? What are you doing? Reading, writing, and arithmetic. And are you not teaching woke?’

“Not teaching woke is a big factor,” Trump continued. “We’ll have a very small staff. We can occupy that staff right in this room, actually I think this room is too large. And all they’re going to do is they’re going to see that the basics are taken care of. You know, we don’t want someone to get crazy and start teaching a language that we don’t want them to teach.”

Not only do parents already have enough on their plates without trying to run the public school system, it’s likely that Trump has a specific group of parents in mind to direct education policy.

The goals he lays out are startlingly akin to the policy points of the far-right “parents’ rights” group Moms for Liberty, who hosted Trump as the keynote speaker at their annual conference in September. Moms for Liberty has recently ingratiated itself significantly into national politics and was listed as a member of Project 2025’s advisory board.

In the same speech, Trump also drew attention to the amount of real estate occupied in D.C. by Department of Education buildings, plotting that the dissolution of the federal agency would allow “somebody else to move in.”

“They’re run by the state, and run by the parents, because in Washington—you know half of the buildings, such a large number, every building you pass in Washington says Department of Education,” Trump said. “You’re gonna have a lot of vacant space. Now we can have maybe somebody else move in.”

Trump’s proposal to dismantle the Department of Education wholesale is nearly identical to Project 2025, despite his campaign spending months trying to distance itself from the 920-page Christian nationalist manifesto.

Project 2025 has also proposed revisiting federal approval of the abortion pill, banning pornography nationwide, placing the Justice Department under the control of the president, slashing federal funds for climate change research in an effort to sideline mitigation efforts, and increasing funding for the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate may not have changed many minds in the electorate. 

Polls following the contest between Republican Senator J.D. Vance and Democratic Governor Tim Walz don’t show an uncontested winner, with CNN reporting that 51 percent of viewers gave the edge to Vance versus 49 percent for Walz.

The favorability numbers for both candidates improved after the debate: Walz’s went from 46 percent favorable and 32 percent unfavorable to 59 percent favorable and 22 percent unfavorable among people who watched the debate. Vance’s numbers went from 30 percent favorable and 52 percent unfavorable to 41 percent favorable and 44 percent unfavorable.

But largely, the debate didn’t change many people’s minds.

Politico’s polls found that who viewers thought won the debate depended on their political loyalties. About 72 percent of Democrats think Walz won the debate, with a similar number of Republicans thinking Vance won. Perhaps more importantly, Walz won over independents, with 58 percent of them saying that he was the winner as opposed to 42 percent for Vance—but these people were also more likely to say they didn’t even watch the debate.  

Demographically, Walz’s strongest support came from people who tend to support the Democratic Party: younger people, those aged between 25 and 34, people with college degrees, and Black and Latino poll respondents, according to Politico. Vance drew his support from Republican standbys: people over 55, white voters, and people without college degrees. Men and women were evenly divided on who won. 

Vance came into Tuesday night’s debate in a massive polling deficit, showing him as more unpopular than any other vice presidential pick in modern U.S. history at this point in the race. He may have improved his standing somewhat given that starting point, but it wasn’t at the expense of Walz. Republicans don’t have much of an answer for Vance’s unpopularity, so it’s up to the Republican vice presidential nominee to improve his stock. 

On Tuesday night, while Vance did say some horrific things about January 6 and immigration, it doesn’t appear to have hurt him, at least according to these early polls. Now he just has the task of staying away from weirdness and hoping more damaging statements from his past don’t resurface.

There was another incredible fact-check during debate night on Tuesday that came only after the stage lights turned off.

In the spin room, Donald Trump Jr. spoke with CNN journalist Kaitlan Collins, using the opportunity to complain about what he sees as the demonization of his father by the media.

“The media has radicalized the people that are trying to kill my father. I’ve had to deal with that twice now in the last two months,” said Trump’s eldest son. “That didn’t just magically happen, that’s not him. The media created the fake Russia scenario,” he continued, winding up to place the blame of political violence squarely on Democrats and journalists.

“You can’t blame the media for those threats,” Collins replied. “There’s been no evidence that that’s what drove those—”

“When someone calls and allows people to have a platform to call someone literally Hitler every day for nine years, it creates it,” Trump interjected. “Whether you want to believe it or not, that’s a fact.” What he didn’t realize, however, is that he set the journalist up for a scathing correction.

“But as you know, J.D. Vance once likened your dad to Hitler as well. He questioned if he was America’s Hitler,” Collins reminded him.

One wonders how Don Jr. could even forget this, considering that Vance himself was asked about his disparaging comments about Trump, including the Hitler comparison, on the debate stage just an hour before.

In his response, Vance similarly blamed the media for misleading him about the former president. “I believed some of the media stories that turned out to be dishonest fabrications of his record,” said Vance, using the typical MAGA scapegoat to explain away his long list of previous critiques.

Donald Trump’s potential second vice president—Ohio Senator J.D. Vance—brushed off the events of January 6 during Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate, and refused to definitively say whether he would challenge November’s election results.

While cooking up an answer for the last question of the debate, Vance dove into the hypercharged history of the attempted MAGA coup, but with his own revisionist twist.

“The governors of every state in the nation, Republicans and Democrats, certified the 2020 election results and sent a legal slate of electors to Congress for January 6,” said CBS News’s Norah O’Donnell. “Senator 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 immediately attempted to deflect the question, focusing instead on inflation, housing, and groceries, before quickly addressing the actual content of O’Donnell’s question.

“Look, what President Trump has said is that there were problems in 2020, and my own belief is that we should fight about those issues, debate those issues peacefully, in the public square, and that’s all I’ve said, and that’s all that Donald Trump has said,” Vance said, without making mention of any of the multiple instances in which Trump has publicly defended his supporters who ransacked the U.S. Capitol.

Vance opted to double down during a heated back and forth with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz moments later.

“He is still saying he didn’t lose the election,” Walz said, turning to face Vance. “I would just ask that, did he lose the 2020 election?”

“Tim, I’m focused on the future,” Vance responded, twisting his argument into a weird tie-in about Vice President Kamala Harris and Facebook’s content moderation policies during the Covid-19 pandemic.

“That is a very damning nonanswer,” Walz said.

“I don’t run Facebook,” Walz continued. “What I do know is I see a candidate out there who refused and now, again, and I’m pretty shocked by this. He lost the election. This is not a debate. This is not, anywhere other than in Donald Trump’s world. When Mike Pence made that decision to certify that election, that’s why Mike Pence isn’t on this stage.

“Where is the firewall, if he knows he can do anything including taking an election, and his vice president’s not going to stand to it? That’s what we’re asking you, America. Will you keep your oath of office, even if the president doesn’t?” Walz said. “So, America, I think you’ve got a really clear choice on who is gonna honor that democracy and who is gonna honor Donald Trump.”

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz was asked to respond to Donald Trump’s outlandish abortion talking point during the vice presidential debate Tuesday.

“Former President Trump said in the last debate that you believe that abortion ‘in the ninth month is absolutely fine.’ Yes or no, is that what you support?” asked CBS moderator Norah O’Donnell.

“That’s not what the bill says, but look, this issue is what’s on everyone’s mind,” Walz replied, explaining that Trump had made way to destroy national protections for abortion.

During the presidential debate last month, Trump had claimed that Walz supported abortion in the ninth month—and after. Trump claimed that Walz “also says, ‘Execution after birth’—execution, no longer abortion because the baby is born—is OK. And that’s not OK with me.”

No one supports “abortion in the ninth month,” which is not a medical procedure, but Republicans continue to claim Democrats do in order to fearmonger about abortion.

During the vice presidential debate, Trump posted an all-caps rant on Truth Social claiming he doesn’t support a national abortion ban.

The moderators repeatedly asked questions of Walz that were shaped around right-wing talking points. When asking the two candidates to explain their leadership qualities, Walz was asked specifically to respond to reporting Tuesday that suggested he’d lied about being in Tiananmen Square in May 1989—a startlingly specific question, which clearly knocked Walz off his game. Walz took the opportunity to introduce himself to the viewers, and when pushed on the question, said that he “misspoke.”

Meanwhile, J.D. Vance was not asked about admitting to blatantly lying about Haitian immigrants in Ohio.

The Trump-Vance ticket hasn’t ruled out bringing back one of the Trump administration’s most insidious policies.

During CBS’s vice presidential debate Tuesday night, J.D. Vance skirted and deflected a direct line of questioning about a highly controversial immigrant processing program that separated children from their families.

“Senator Vance, your campaign is pledging to carry out the largest mass deportation plan in American history and to use the U.S. military to do so,” started CBS’s Margaret Brennan. “Could you be more specific about exactly how this will work, for example, would you deport parents who have entered the U.S. illegally and separate them from any of their children who were born on U.S. soil?”

But the Republican number two pick wouldn’t answer the question outright. Instead, Vance went on a conspiratorial tangent about the influx of fentanyl (the vast majority of which is actually trafficked in by U.S. citizens), crime, and minimum wage before finally touching on the policy’s victims.

“We have 320,000 children that the Department of Homeland Security has effectively lost,” Vance said. “Some of them have been sex trafficked. Some of them hopefully are at home with their families. Some of them have been used as drug trafficking mules.”

Vance didn’t cast judgment on the Trump-era program, though. Instead, he opted to deflect the blame of the program onto someone who had absolutely no involvement in its proliferation: Vice President Kamala Harris.

“The real family separation policy in this country is unfortunately Kamala Harris’s wide open southern border, and I’d ask my Americans to remember when she came into office, she said she was going to do this,” the vice presidential pick said. “Real leadership would be saying, ‘You know what, I screwed up. We’re going to go back to Donald Trump’s border policies.’ I wish that she would do that. It would be good for all of us.”

Trump, meanwhile, has made his stance on the cruel policy perfectly clear. In an interview with Univision in 2023, the former president appeared open to resurrecting the violent blueprint, arguing that his administration’s family separation policy was not only an effective deterrent but actually decreased the number of undocumented immigrants entering the country.

“When you hear that you’re going to be separated from your family, you don’t come,” Trump said at the time. “When you think you’re going to come into the United States with your family, you come. And we did for a period of time family separation, and others have, too, by the way.”

J.D. Vance flew off the handle during the vice presidential debate Tuesday night after one of the moderators tried to fact-check him about his favorite topic, the Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. 

While responding to Vance’s justification of mass deportations, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz highlighted Vance’s role in spreading lies about Haitian immigrants in Springfield. Walz said that Vance’s rhetoric had “vilified a large number of people who were here legally in the community of Springfield.” 

“When it becomes a talking point like this, we dehumanize and villainize other human beings,” Walz said. 

CBS moderator Margaret Brennan interjected, saying, “Just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio, does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status. Temporary protected status.”

Vance immediately started blubbering, as moderator Norah O’Donnell attempted to pivot to the next question.

“I think it’s important because, the debate—Margaret. Th-the rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check me, and since you’re fact-checking me, I think it’s important to say what’s actually going on,” Vance said. 

He then launched into an explanation of the CBP One app, which serves as a portal for immigrants to access U.S. Customs and Border Patrol services. Donald Trump has previously claimed that Kamala Harris had implemented an app that allows a “virtually unlimited” number of migrants to enter the U.S. 

Vance claimed that undocumented immigrants could be granted asylum “at the wave of a Kamala-Harris-open-border wand.”

“Thank you, Senator, for describing the legal process, but we have so much to get to, Senator,” O’Donnell said.

“Those laws have been on the books since 1990,” Walz said, referring to the laws that grant immigrants temporary protected status.  

“The CBP One app has not been on the books—” Vance said, before his mic was cut off.