JD Vance argues that Donald Trump's economic policies delivered positive results, citing rising take-home pay and low inflation, but cherry-picks data and ignores negative aspects like the national debt and trade deficit. While Vance rightly highlights some positive economic indicators, his argument relies heavily on selective data and ignores crucial context, making his claims incomplete and potentially misleading. And, just like Walz in this same segment, he never answers the main question posed to him by the moderator.

1. red herring • Vance does not directly answer the question of how he would pay for the $5.8 trillion increase to the deficit that the Wharton analysis estimated Trump's economic plan would cause.

MODERATOR: Senator... the Wharton School has done an analysis of the Trump plan and says it would increase the nation's deficit by 5.8 trillion. My question is... How do you pay for all that without ballooning the deficit?

JD VANCE: Well, first of all, you're going to hear a lot from Tim Walz this evening, and you just heard it in the answer, a lot of what Kamala Harris proposes to do...

Instead of addressing that specific question, Vance pivots to attacking Harris' economic record as Vice President, defending Trump's previous economic achievements, and questioning the credibility of the economists who analyzed the plans.

This evasion of the direct question about paying for the deficit increase can be considered a red herring fallacy, as Vance distracts with other tangential points rather than actually answering how large deficits would be funded under Trump's plan.

2. cherry picking and nut-picking • Vance selectively highlights positive economic indicators during Donald Trump's presidency while ignoring other relevant factors, such as the increase in the national debt and the trade deficit. It presents a biased and incomplete picture of his economic performance.

Donald Trump's economic plan is not just a plan, but it's also a record. A lot of those same economists attack Donald Trump's plans, and they have PhDs, but they don't have common sense and they don't have wisdom, because Donald Trump's economic policies delivered the highest take home pay in a generation in this country, 1.5% inflation, and to boot, peace and security all over the world.

This cherry picks select positive economic data points from Trump's presidency while ignoring negative factors like rising deficits and income inequality.

Conversely, Vance selectively highlights negative economic indicators during Kamala Harris's time as Vice President, while ignoring other relevant factors, such as the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act.

And then you've simultaneously got to defend Kamala Harris's atrocious economic record, which has made gas, groceries, and housing unaffordable for American citizens.

This presents a biased and incomplete picture of the Biden-Harris administration's economic performance.