One of the most noticeable divides in the unusual presidential election of 2024 is the way Donald Trump and JD Vance react to being fact-checked during debates.

Former President Trump and Ohio Senator Vance have portrayed accuracy as a great threat to democracy in America, both last month and following Tuesday’s vice presidential debate.

In contrast, their opponents, Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota’s Gov. Tim Walz, seem indifferent to fact-checking and are somewhat amused by the opposing side’s dramatic reactions when moderators interject.

This brings up an important question: what does this reveal about who is more likely to tell the truth as they vie for the presidency?

It’s rare to see a debate winner complain about moderators fact-checking. Harris clearly outperformed Trump in their debate last month, and since then, Trump has complained about the ABC News moderators who dared to clarify the discussion.

Now it’s Vance’s turn to portray himself as the victim, despite the fact that his debate with Walz on Tuesday night was broadly — and I would argue accurately — deemed a tie.

How a minor fact-check on the Haitian immigrant narrative went awry

The CBS News debate, hosted by Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan, began with their announcement that they would “enforce the rules and give the candidates a chance to fact-check each other’s claims.”

Despite a lot of talk about not fact-checking candidates, contrary to what ABC News did with Trump last month, the rules released by CBS before the debate did not prohibit moderators from making clarifying comments.

This issue arose when Brennan brought up immigration. Walz criticized Vance for having stated that “if I have to create stories” for media attention “then that’s what I’m going to do,” regarding Vance’s false claims about legal Haitian immigrants seeking jobs in Springfield, Ohio.

Walz argued that these claims “dehumanize and vilify other individuals.”

Opinion: Who was the victor in the vice presidential debate? Vance and Walz clash on abortion and immigration.

Republicans in Ohio, from the governor downwards, have asserted that the statements made by Vance and echoed by Trump during his debate with Harris – “They’re eating the dogs. They’re eating the cats.” – are false.

In response, Vance got defensive, attributing issues with housing and “overwhelmed” public schools and hospitals in Springfield and the nation to “millions of illegal immigrants.”

Brennan attempted to wrap up the exchange, stating, “And just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio, does have a significant number of legal Haitian migrants.”

That’s when things took a turn for the worse for Vance, who evidently struggled to hear the clarification that was meant to conclude the discussion.

That moment in the debate highlighted what to expect for the remainder of this election

Vance, visibly frustrated, attempted to continue discussing the topic while O’Donnell tried to redirect him with a question about the economy.

This led to Vance’s statement that will likely be repeated in the coming weeks: “The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check.”

It was a moment revealing vulnerability in what had otherwise been a strong, although often untruthful, performance by Vance.

CBS News then muted Vance’s microphone as he went into detail about how migrants attain legal status in the country. Walz’s microphone was also muted as he reacted to Vance’s assertions.

Republicans have a chance to succeed because of him.

This moment marked a sudden shift in the political landscape during a debate where Vance appeared to be significantly more polished and skilled than Walz until that point.

It also served as a cue, similar to last month’s presidential debate, for supporters of the Trump-Vance ticket to start blaming the moderators as soon as things didn’t go in their favor.

‘The moderators were insufferable’

As the debate progressed, Trump’s campaign communicated their frustration by sharing clips of Vance’s interactions with the moderators on social media, stating, “They became so irritated that they cut off his microphone.”

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican from Florida who has previously attempted to fact-check Trump before finally yielding to his party’s leader, took note of this sentiment and tweeted a complaint about fact-checking moments later: “Once again, another major media outlet embarrasses itself during a debate.”

Fox News also weighed in, with political analyst Brit Hume commenting after the debate: “The moderators were insufferable – making it feel like it was three against one against Vance – and Vance handled it well.” Trump’s team quickly shared that clip on social media as well.

If Hume’s comment about “three on one” sounds familiar, it’s because Trump and his team have been repeating that phrase since his ABC News debate with Harris last month.

Following last month’s debate, Trump’s campaign stated: “Last night’s debate was an undeniable win for President Donald J. Trump — despite the disgraceful three-on-one format.”

Republicans view fact-checking as biased

For nearly ten years, Trump has utilized a political strategy that positions him as both the victor and the victim – always claiming victory while asserting that he had to navigate a rigged system to achieve it.

Vance, who was once regarded as an engaging intellect (who was opposed to Trump), has cast aside that persona to become a devotee of Trump’s narrative of triumph and victimization.

While Vance portrays himself as a champion of free speech, Trump has suggested that ABC News should lose its broadcasting license for what he perceives as “unfair” treatment during the debate.

If all of this seems nonsensical to you, that’s probably because it’s intended to be that way. You cannot oppose accuracy and expect it to make sense. A choice must be made. Trump and Vance have evidently opted for a stance against fact-checking.