CNN Being CNN: Democrats Argue That JD's Beatdown of Walz Was Actually Bad for Trump-Vance

In this episode of "You Can't Make It Up, CNN Already Did"...

Despite JD Vance's obvious beatdown of bumbling Tim Walz in Tuesday's vice presidential debate, leave it to CNN to find (make up) a very thin silver lining behind a very dark cloud.

And that was before the debate even started.

CNN's simp Democrat contributors absurdly argued that if Vance mopped the floor with the ill-prepared, serially-lying Minnesota governor, it would actually be bad for Vance. No, really.

Irrational rationalization at its "best"? Of course. After all, the self-proclaimed Most Trusted Name in News™ never fails to amuse the rational and objective among us.

ALSO READ:

Tim Walz May Just Have Ended Harris Campaign With Admission and Bizarre 'School Shooter' Comment

HOT TAKES: Democrats, Media Seethe As Republicans Cheer After Vance Dominates Vice Presidential Debate

Veteran Democrat hack and CNN regular David Axelrod kicked off the festivities.

Look, I think that he was hired basically as Donald Trump's designated hitter. Donald Trump is a casting director, and he was convinced he would be good on TV for him, and this debate is obviously the most important television appearance there is.
And, you know, he comes in, we all know having worked with (CNN Democrat contributor) Van Jones, how these Yale-educated lawyers, very slick –

CNN's lone conservative contributor, Scott Jennings, interrupted Axelrod to take a pointed jab at Tim Walz.

Easy, easy! You’re going to trigger Walz, you keep talking about Yale. He hates that Yale.

Axelrod persisted.

But you know, they have very different personalities. Vance is, you know, he is a bit predatory on that debate platform and Walz, his strength is his warmth and is his everydayness. It's kind of like a Labrador versus a coyote. And the question is, people root for the Labrador, but can he get enough swipes him to keep the coyote off him?

Oops. Despite the Democrat Party's ongoing attempt to paint the Ohio senator as a far-right attack dog, Vance couldn't have been more polite and gentlemanly. No matter to CNN.

Jones admitted that Vance is hard to debate, but not for the reasons that any objective viewer saw in the event, where he was cool, in control of the facts, and politely but strongly in control of Walz (emphasis, mine)

Look, I think J.D. Vance is dangerous to debate. First of all, you don't know which J.D. Vance you're going to get. He's such a phony that he could either be the phony Appalachia guy or he could be the kind of suck up that he was to get a job with Donald Trump.
When you’re dealing with somebody who has high IQ-low integrity, high IQ-low empathy, high IQ but really no – willing to hurt Haitian children to get ahead, willing to change his whole personality to get a position with Donald Trump, that is a dangerous person for a good man to debate; somebody who actually is going to be constrained by facts, who’s going to be constrained by his desire to be a unifier.
So, I think it's going to be a tough night for a coach Walz to show that good guys can win even against low integrity people like him.

Where to begin?

It was clearly JD Vance who was in control of the facts, even when he correctly fact-checked CBS debate moderator Margaret Brennan after she incorrectly "fact-checked" him about Haitians in Springfield, Ohio.

CNN host Anderson Cooper even asked Axelrod and Jones if they were "trying to lower expectations" for Waltz ahead of the debate. Both simps declared that they weren't — which was exactly what they were doing, and looking like fools in the process.