It’s now become “a thing” among conservatives to wait for the JD Vance ambush of Sunday morning mainstream political media.

Clips of Vance expertly handling hostile questioning from Face the Nation‘s Margaret Brennan circulate around conservative Twitter the way Michael Jordan–era highlight reels used to get played throughout the day on rebroadcasts of Sportscaster.

Do we think this would be happening for Nikki Haley? Or for Doug Burgum?

Is anyone among the many, many pundits who confidently explained that JD Vance was a disastrous, “net-negative” pick who “will do harm” to the ticket going to revisit his views? I remember a lot of glee from these pundits when Democrats were spending millions to bury Vance on TikTok and Instagram in the week after his selection as Trump’s running mate. And then a lot of silence, as the campaign finished and Vance’s favorability rating had improved the most of all four major party figures in the contest.

There are related busts in the predictions game. How many of the same people explaining what a loser Vance was also told you that Donald Trump could not win again, and that there was no realignment happening in American politics.

Anyway, consider the source as we have ongoing discussions about who deserves to work in the Department of Defense or to be the director of national intelligence.

From RealClearPolitics:

Compared to other prominent figures in Trump’s political circle, voters also indicated that they want Vance to have a bigger influence on Trump’s second administration. When respondents were asked how much influence they wanted various individuals to have in the administration, 34% said they wanted Vance to have “a lot” of influence. This was higher than the 27% who said the same for Elon Musk and the 19% who preferred Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to have significant influence.

Again, consider the source from those who told you confidently that Vance was a bad idea and should have zero influence.