A VP Debate That Changed Nothing
A mild-mannered JD Vance out-debated a nervous Tim Walz. It won't matter.
The wife and I watched the first hour or so of the Vice Presidential debate between Ohio Senator J.D. Vance and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz before calling it a night. The contest was notable for relative civility, Vance’s comfortability, and Walz’s nervousness and inability to answer simple questions. (Apparently, the night closed with a question about whether Trump won the 2020 contest that Vance should have been prepared for and wasn’t.) It did not, however, change my mind as to whether Donald Trump should become President again and I strongly suspect that, like other VP debates before it, it will have next to no impact on the race.
WaPo (“Vance, Walz square off in what could be final meeting of presidential campaigns“):
It was a political joust with a healthy side of Midwest nice.
Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) shook hands twice Tuesday before the only vice-presidential debate of the cycle, exchanging broad smiles before repeatedly paying each other respect as they launched sustained and biting attacks on each other’s running mates.
In marked contrast to the September presidential clash between former president Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris — who hardly concealed their disgust with each other — the running mates often went out of their way to be gracious, while focusing more on policy differences than personal slights.
They offered praise, sympathized and acknowledged that they agreed on how to address some of the country’s most vexing and divisive issues. At the same time, neither man shied away from the dirty work they had to do for their campaigns.
Vance referred to “our Democratic friends” even as he suggested that Harris had “enabled the Mexican drug cartels to operate freely in this country” and set the stage for the global instability that has sparked a widening war in the Middle East.
“Tim, I think you’ve got a tough job here because you’ve got to play whack-a-mole,” Vance said in an expression of sympathy before an attack. “You’ve got to pretend that Donald Trump didn’t deliver rising take home pay, which of course he did. You’ve got to pretend that Donald Trump didn’t deliver lower inflation, which of course he did. And then you simultaneously got to defend Kamala Harris’s atrocious economic record.”
Walz turned from the first question about the Middle East to argue that the nation doesn’t need “a nearly 80-year-old Donald Trump talking about crowd sizes” to solve the situation. He quoted Trump’s recent dismissal of the traumatic brain injuries sustained by U.S. troops during his presidency as “headaches.” And he chided Trump for conducting diplomacy on Twitter and for not paying federal taxes.
Walz followed up by criticizing Vance for repeating unsubstantiated claims that immigrants in the senator’s home state had been eating the pets of their neighbors, a claim that local officials say lacks evidence. He also said Trump had helped to scuttle a bill that would have solved the immigration problem, because he wanted to run on immigration reform.
NYT (“Civility and Then a Clash Over Jan. 6: Seven Takeaways From the Debate“):
Senator JD Vance of Ohio and Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota spent most of their only debate aiming not at each other but at their running mates, relitigating the last two administrations and eight years as each promised his ticket would deliver a new direction for the nation.
It was a substantive and mostly civil debate between two Midwestern men that laid bare the policy chasm between the two parties on immigration, abortion and foreign policy. But no issue made clearer the size and stakes of the country’s current political divide than the final topic of the night, when Mr. Vance refused to concede that former President Donald J. Trump had lost the 2020 election.
“Tim, I’m focused on the future,” Mr. Vance said, trying to move on. “That is a damning nonanswer,” Mr. Walz replied.
Mr. Vance looked polished throughout. Mr. Walz spoke haltingly, especially at the start, taking a series of verbal stutter-steps before getting to his point.
Vice-presidential debates rarely reshape presidential elections, and neither man appeared to suffer a race-defining stumble. But this one, uniquely, is scheduled — for now — to be the final debate of 2024.
This is followed by the “seven takeaways” of the headline, which I’ll simply bulletize:
- Vance had no answer for a basic question: Did Trump lose the 2020 election?
- A smooth Vance sought to cast Harris as the status quo.
- Walz began unsteadily, but found his footing on abortion.
- Vance tried to reframe Trump as the candidate of stability.
- Walz called himself ‘a knucklehead’ for misrepresenting his past.
- Vance sought to go from ‘weird’ to relatable.
- The mics were hot until they were not.
Pretty much all the reporting is the same.
NYT polled their opinion writers and others in a compilation titled “‘He Made Trumpism Sound Polite, Calm and Coherent’: 13 Writers on JD Vance’s Debate Performance.” There’s a lot of back-and-forth but this graphic is illustrative:
Not only did they overwhelmingly think Vance won but most somehow found it inspiring. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
WaPo went for amateurs in “Who won the Vance-Walz VP debate? We asked swing-state voters.”
Almost twice as many thought Vance won. Then again, a nonrandom sample of 22 is less than worthless.
Still, I find some of the takeaways amusing:
- “Vance did a fantastic job of showcasing what could be the future of Republican presidential candidates. He was poised and articulate and civil. But he is partnering with the exact opposite in Donald Trump. Trump’s policies have proven to be dangerous and divisive. I cannot vote for a bully or for a campaign based in hate.”
- “I found this debate to be very amicable. They both seemed to care about the American people and were agreeable to what each other had to say. I’ve never seen a debate like tonight’s.”
But—again acknowledging the silliness of a small sample—there’s this:
So, the group was slightly more predisposed to the Trump-Vance ticket (11-9-2) before the debate and wound up 13-9-1 afterward. For those who prefer words to pictures:
Among the 12 voters who leaned toward former President Donald Trump and Vance before the debate, five said they would “definitely” vote for Trump afterward. Seven said they would still probably vote for Trump.
And among the nine voters who leaned toward Vice President Kamala Harris and Walz before the debate, six said they would definitely support Harris after the debate. Two said they would probably vote for Harris. One switched to probably backing Trump.
Finally, among the two voters who were undecided before the debate, one said they would probably vote for Harris and one said they would vote for a third-party candidate.
So, ostensibly, Vance’s performance turned a Harris leaner into a Trump leaner and Walz’ performance turned a neutral voter into a Harris leaner. Color me skeptical.
I find it hard to believe that any VP debate, absent a candidate that completely came apart at the seams, would move the needle in any way.
VP debates are all but useless, other than driving media clicks for a few days, and getting those of us who pay attention to politics in a lather over candidate performance.
I am way too stressed about the race at the top of the ticket to care much at all about how the second string did.
Vance’s performance should scare us all because he is one cheeseburger and one close election away from the presidency. And he can control himself and seem reasonable.
Changes nothing for the election.
According to Vance, Trump saved the Affordable Care Act.
Apparently, one can openly lie (in fact, Trump tried to repeal the ACA) and NYT op-ed writers somehow find this “inspiring.”
WTF is wrong with these people?
I’ve never bought into the conventional flippant assumption that vp debates “don’t matter.” What is generally true is that (1) they get less attention than the top-of-the-ticket debates (2) they haven’t been known to be followed by any significant shift in polling for the race (3) historically they haven’t produced very many super-memorable moments (4) perhaps the best-remembered moment from such a debate, Lloyd Bentsen’s “You’re no Jack Kennedy,” was uttered by a vp candidate on a ticket that went on to lose in a landslide.
I think a lot of this is oversimplistic. First of all, I think Quayle was a genuine drag on the GOP ticket in 1988, and that moment with Bentsen did him no favors. It’s just that they had so much else going favorably for them, it wasn’t sufficient to fundamentally change the race. And part of Dukakis’s problem was that he was to a certain extent being overshadowed by Bentsen, which is presumably why one faithless elector cast their vote for Bentsen-Dukakis instead of Dukakis-Bentsen.
I also think that in the 1992 vp debate, the performance of Perot’s running mate James Stockdale (his obviously scripted opening where he said “Who am I? Why am I here?” was ripped from its context to imply the 68-year-old was senile, a perception that SNL helped reinforce) did significant damage to the Perot campaign. Perot wasn’t headed toward a win by that point anyway, but I think it hurt him.
With regard to Vance and Walz, I dunno. The debate itself probably didn’t change too many minds, but the post-debate clip war might have a small effect.
Too many pundits interpret the question of “Will such-and-such impact the election?” as some all-or-nothing matter; if it doesn’t absolutely upend the entire race, then it’s completely irrelevant. I believe that’s a fallacy. These things can potentially matter around the edges.
So what we learned last night was that Vance is a much better liar than Trump and has at least one other personality that he can change into whenever he needs to.
Edit: And I’ve asked before but why is the Edit window suddenly much smaller than it was before? Just for the hell of it?
The “debate” showed that smooth and disingenuous makes the Trumpism go down more easily and impresses people who should know better…like the NYT opinion writers. Trump is obviously both impulsive and ignorant while Vance is a shameless opportunist . Neither of them has a moral compass. It was feared that DeSantis would be the “Smarter Trump,” but last night showed that Vance has that title wrapped up.
These veep debates may not change outcomes, but they can help a campaign feel better or worse on its way towards winning or losing. That’s not nothing.
I recall Joe Biden’s ferocious devouring of Paul Ray in 2012 calming liberals’ nerves — and generating positive news cycle for the blue team after Obama’s shaky debates and lackluster polling sent Democrats into their inevitable next cycle of doom panic.
Maybe Vance could’ve done something similar for Trump? But not if the topline post-debate headlines are about Jan. 6, abortion, and election denial.
It won’t seep into the culture to hurt them as much as Trump’s “they’re eating the cats” and “operations on transgender aliens in prison.” But I can’t imagine fact-check complaint memes, clips rehashing MAGA’s attempted coup, and chryons on Republicans’ abortion havoc are a great way for Trumpers to start the Oct sprint.
Our patriarchal pundit class has honed in the 2020 election exchange. The first thing my mom mentioned when she called me after was Amber Thurman, whose preventable death came up. If hers isn’t a household name, it should be.
@drj:
Insularity and an excess of privilege.
“Aaron Rupar/Noah Berlatsky“
Why does it even matter if Vance is a much better liar than trump? 50% of the American people have no problem with Trump’s lies. The latest swing state polls show him coming back pretty strongly. He will probably win.
“Rex Huppke/USA Today”
While the debate …
@Lucysfootball:
Better change your diaper or you’ll leave moisture stains all over the furniture. It matters because recognizing liars and their lies is an obligation of citizenship.
In an hour I’m off to go door-to-door canvassing with the Democratic candidate’s team in my state. Trump has not won this election yet and getting hysterical about polls with still a month to go isn’t productive. And that’s all the time I have to spend today on cowards.
@MarkedMan:
I want to make it clear that Perot didn’t lose in 1992 because Admiral Stockdale began the debate with “Who am I? Why am I here?”
Walz: “it’s just the guns”. No blame for the shooter.
And the censor’s clarion call of “Fire in a crowded theater”.
https://bsky.app/profile/joshuajfriedman.com/post/3l5j4vbmid52q
Polls have Vance and Walz tied. Even the Fox poll.
I hoped this would be the case. Texting last night with wife and daughter, three politics-obsessed ‘word people,’ we had Vance the clear winner. But normal people – none of us here – are more about relatability and vibe, and Vance is clearly a reptile. No one wanted to go to a cook-out with Vance.
@drj: “NYT op-ed writers somehow find this “inspiring.””
Catholic dominionist Ross Douthat was so ecstatic about his pal Vance’s debate that he posted a column claiming he had smashed it… about fifteen minutes in.
Vance plays really well with those who have to pretend to be anti-Trump to stay respectable at mainstream publications but whose every utterance shows them yearning for another term.
And for Douthat, Vance’s crazy obsession with control the bodies of women isn’t a bug — it’s his main goal in life.
If Democrats were smart (and they are not), they would be out talking about how Vance outshines Trump.
I thought Vance did a much better job talking about the economy. Which, of course, is considered (whether true or not) their strong suit. The Harris/Walz team are letting them get away with that. I happen to be in the Karl Rove camp of campaigning against the opponents strength and Walz should’ve had a litany of oppo ready to go on the Trump economy.
BTW, only saw the first half and then crashed.
VP Waltz, what is your response to Iran’s attack on Israel?
Well, I grew up in Nebraska and liked to ride bicycles……..
I think the questions to be asked about VP’s are: 1) given the example of vegetable Joe, could this person take over and , 2) will they have influence as VP?
Of course, deep thinkers want to know if they would be fun at a cook-out. Or maybe a game of Twister.
In order to think that Vance won, you have to be really uninformed about some very basic areas where Vance just flat out lied or was unable to tell the truth. Jan 6th, abortion, healthcare, 2020…
I’m not surprised focus groups and snap polls have the debate at roughly 50-50.
@Jack would like us to think he’s a real “deep thinker” above the vibe talk. Isn’t that cute?
The NYT responded positively to sanewashing. Color me surprised.