That seems like a partisan take rather than an objective one.

I wouldn't say the BBC is partisan...They called it for Vance: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y0863ry88o

Overall though do agree it was a fairly close debate not particularly one-sided.

Will say if guys like Vance & DeSantis are the future of the GOP that a significant upgrade over Trump.

I still don't quite understand why DeSantis fared so poorly w/ the GOP for this election. He appears to be far more competent/palatable than Trump but here are.

DeSantis has made a few mistakes that have shaken previous supporters and infuriated others. I've mostly scratched my head at most if it, but one that I couldn't ignore was the adorable plot to turn our State Parks into sports facilities. I simply cannot trust or support anyone who views our priceless preserves as untapped resources in need of strip malls and golf courses. Florida is already at or past a sustainable threshold with the diseased variety of "progress" that prevails here.

For me, once we altogether lose the quintessence of this state (this isn't Disneyland or Lennar), it'll be little more than a Skinner Box with perennial cyclones, bad traffic and pestilence, surrounded by cement embellished views of red tide.

Nobody voted for Vance (or for vice presidents generally.) I've seen nothing to suggest he has the kind of popularity or RNC establishment support that would make him a viable presidential candidate. The only way he gets there is if Trump dies, which is possible but not relevant to the DNC's strategy for the next election.

Vance was pretty good at talking on Rogan.