Opinion: Why are Trump and Vance so annoyed by facts?

The most conspicuous fault line in 2024’s very peculiar presidential election has to be the histrionics Donald Trump and JD Vance have shown us about fact-checking during debates.
The former one-term president and his running mate, a senator from Ohio, cast accuracy as the real looming threat to democracy in America last month and again after Tuesday’s vice presidential debate.
Their opponents, Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, by contrast, seem almost agnostic about fact-checking but bemused by the other side’s erratic eruptions when debate moderators weigh in.
Which raises the question: What does all that tell you about who is more likely to speak the truth as they compete for control of the White House?
I’ve never seen a debate winner complain about fact-checking by moderators. Harris clearly defeated Trump during their lone debate last month. And Trump has wailed since then about the two ABC News moderators who had the audacity to bring clarity to that conversation.
Now it’s Vance’s turn to play victim, even though his debate with Walz on Tuesday evening was widely – and I’d say accurately – judged a draw between the two candidates.
The CBS News debate was moderated by Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan, who opened by explaining that they would “enforce the rules and provide the candidates with the opportunity to fact-check claims made by each other.”
While there had been plenty of chatter about not fact-checking the candidates, as the moderators of the ABC News debate did with Trump last month, the rules published by CBS News before the debate did not rule out moderators offering clarifying comments.
Still, that became an issue when Brennan asked about immigration issues. Walz knocked Vance for previously saying that “if I have to create stories” to get media attention “then that’s what I’m going to do” ‒ in justifying the senator’s debunked claims about legal Haitian immigrants who were drawn to Springfield, Ohio, by open jobs.
Walz said those claims “dehumanize and villainize other human beings.”
Opinion:Who won the vice president debate? Vance and Walz spar on abortion, immigration.
Republicans in Ohio, from the governor on down, have said that the claims Vance made and Trump amplified in his debate with Harris – “They’re eating the dogs. … They’re eating the cats.” – are not true.
Vance turned defensive, blaming “millions of illegal immigrants” for problems with housing availability and “overwhelmed” public schools and hospitals in Springfield and across the country.
Brennan attempted to conclude the back-and-forth with this: “And just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio, does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status.”
And that’s when things went from bad to worse for Vance, who clearly had trouble hearing what was meant to be the final word on the subject come from a mouth that was not his
Vance, openly irritated, tried to keep talking about the topic as O’Donnell attempted to head him off while turning to a question about the economy.
That prompted the sound bite from Vance that you’ll probably hear plenty of times in the next five weeks: “The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check.”
It was a moment of open weakness in what had otherwise been a strong, if not always factual, performance by Vance.
CBS News then muted Vance’s microphone as he delved into a detailed description of how migrants seek legal status in this country. Walz’s microphone was also muted as he reacted to what Vance was saying.
Opinion:I was wrong about Vance. VP debate shows Republicans can win because of him.
That came as an abrupt moment of political parity in a debate where Vance, up to that point, had seemed far more polished and adept than Walz.
It was also a signal, as it was last month in the presidential debate, for Trump-Vance ticket allies to start barking at the refs when the game stopped going their way. Time to blame the moderators.
Trump’s campaign sent the message as the debate continued, posting video of Vance’s exchange with the moderators on social media while claiming, “They got so annoyed that they cut off his mic.”
U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican who long ago tried to fact-check Trump before completely surrendering to his party’s titular leader, got the message and posted this complaint about fact-checking two minutes later: “Once again another major media outlet embarrasses themselves on a debate stage.”
Fox News, of course, chimed in. Political analyst Brit Hume offered this on the channel after the debate was over: “The moderators were obnoxious – and made it feel like three-on-one on Vance – and Vance was just fine.” Trump’s camp quickly circulated a video of that, too, on social media.
If Hume’s phrasing – “three on one” – rings familiar, it’s because that’s the same line Trump and his allies have been muttering over and over again since his ABC News debate last month with Harris.
Here is how Trump’s campaign expressed that sentiment in a news release the day after last month’s debate: “Last night’s debate was an indisputable victory for President Donald J. Trump — despite a disgraceful three-on-one format.”
Trump has used for nearly a decade a political tactic of playing the victor and victim – always claiming triumph while insisting he had to overcome a rigged system to get there.
Vance, not long ago seen as an engaging and interesting intellectual (who detested Trump), has abandoned all that to be Trump’s victor-victim disciple.
Vance fancies himself as an advocate for free speech. But Trump suggested that ABC News should lose its broadcast license for what he deemed “unfair” treatment during his debate.
If none of that adds up for you, that’s because it’s not supposed to. You can’t oppose accuracy and make sense. You have to pick. Trump and Vance have clearly chosen, given their aversion to fact-checking.
Follow USA TODAY elections columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan