Welcome to Beg to Beg to Differ, the Bullworks Weekly Roundtable

discussion featuring civil conversation across the political spectrum.

We range from center left to center right.

I'm Mona Charon, syndicated columnist and policy editor at the Bulwark, and I'm joined

by our regulars.

Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution in the Wall Street Journal,

Damon Linker, who writes the sub-stack newsletter notes from the middle ground,

and Linda Chavez of the Niskanid Center.

Our special guest this week is Edward Luce, who is a senior writer at the Financial Times, and we are delighted to welcome him back.

So first topic, the VP debate and the response to it.

So there were reactions from professional political watchers who said that J.D. Vance once again

shape shifted and turned himself into a competent and seemingly appeal somewhat even appealing character

whereas Walsh struggled on the other hand, the immediate snap polls that were conducted by CBS and by CNN and others found

that voters were pretty much divided right down the middle as to who won and who lost.

So Ed Luce, I'd like your reaction to the debate.

First of all, how did you evaluate that contrast you know between what a lead opinion

thought and what voters thought it's a really good question I'm unfortunately I'm

sort of more in line with the elite opinion in that I don't think

Governor Waltz is a very good debater and I think advance is a very effective shape shifter.

I mean he was kind of that fantasy that people used to have

about Ron DeSantis among certain non-Trump Republicans that he is Trumpian without being Trump. He appeared to be civil, he appeared to be genial,

he did come across as genial and he appeared to be rational. I mean, and this is not of course to minimize the sort of string of whopping lies that he told and his evasiveness over January the 6th his what aboutism over

...