A clear gain for the man who has it harder
If those watching the vice presidential debate Tuesday night were expecting fireworks, they were sorely disappointed.
Unlike the debate clashes earlier in this campaign, there were no car crash moments, undignified arguments or malicious name-calling.
In fact, both J.D. Vance and Tim Walz approached the debate with remarkable restraint; Referring to each other politely and courteously, when they found a point of agreement they accepted it.
“I didn’t know your 17-year-old had witnessed a shooting,” Mr. Vance said, turning to his opponent during a debate about gun crimes. “I’m sorry about that. Lord have mercy.
“I appreciate that,” Mr. Walz replied. “I enjoyed this discussion,” he later told Mr. Vance.
The only real moment when moderators muted both men’s microphones occurred during a debate about immigrants in Springfield, Ohio.
When the same issue came up in last month’s presidential debate, Trump made headlines for days with his claim that immigrants were “eating cats and dogs.”
This time, there was an undercurrent of disagreement over the special legal status of Haitian immigrants and the forms they used to obtain Temporary Protected Status.
While the candidates were debating, host Margaret Brennan interrupted: “Gentlemen, your microphones are cut so the audience can’t hear you.”
Mr. Vance, who made a name for himself with his outlandish remarks about “childless cat ladies” and his odd behavior on the campaign trail, managed to leave a warm and human impression. It wasn’t “weird,” as Mr. Walz put it at an earlier rally.
His answers on policy issues were detailed and he repeatedly talked about children and families in a way that appealed to female voters who hold Ms. Harris’ lead in the polls.
Mr. Walz, whom Ms. Harris chose for his friendly Midwestern charm, was the one to face the cameras.
He stared out of his depths at the scene, stammering over his words, agitated and unable to understand some of the most obvious lines of attack he would use against Mr. Vance.
While at one point he mistakenly said he was “friends with the school shooters,” he was apparently referring to his parents.
Perhaps the worst moment of his night came when he was challenged about his claim that he was in China during the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.
Admitting that he might have been a “shitbag”, he admitted that he “misspoke” and that he had in fact gone to Hong Kong months later. “I’m going to get carried away by the rhetoric,” he said.
His scripted attack lines on “Project 2025” and his claim that Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance would implement a nationwide pregnancy registry were undone by his rival’s surprisingly moderate response on abortion.
“We have to do a better job of regaining people’s trust,” Mr. Vance replied. “Donald Trump and I are committed to pursuing pro-family policies.”
There is an obvious reason for the friendliness of the exchange of views at the discussion stage.
In fact, both candidates were discussing each other’s bosses. As Mr. Vance noted at the beginning of the event: “Many Americans don’t know who either of us are.”
There were interesting points of difference between the two men on some issues, such as border control, climate change and the economy.
But the harshest criticism was directed at Trump and Ms. Harris, who were not in the room.
Responding to a question about the crisis in the Middle East, Mr. Walz said: “Having Donald Trump, who is nearly 80 years old, talking about crowd sizes is not what we need right now.”
Mr. Vance shot back: “When did Iran, Hamas and their proxies attack Israel? “It was during Kamala Harris’ administration.”
Tuesday’s debate is unlikely to have a major impact on polls ahead of next month’s election.
The two people who really matter in a presidential race are the two candidates who will not face each other again before voting day for the top office.
Mr. Vance had a much harder job in a debate where the prize was for each man to captivate the audience on behalf of his boss. Despite everything, he was the clear winner.
This terrible performance can change a lot
Why was J.D. Vance, a hard-core MAGA convert with seemingly limited ability to choose, chosen as Vice President over Marco Rubio or Tim Scott? Tonight showed us why. Putting his Yale-honed debate skills to the test, the senator from Ohio launched a series of judicially devastating attacks on the Biden administration and questioned the President’s decision on the Vice President’s pick.
Vance’s obvious advantages became clear within the first few minutes of the debate; He gave a clear response to the tensions emerging in the Middle East following Iran’s massive rocket bombardment of Israel; While a vital ally offered a strong rhetorical defense, he shrewdly reminded voters that no new war has been started during Donald Trump’s term as prime minister. It’s hard to believe that this is the same man who infamously struggled to communicate with voters one-on-one, and there was no trace of his occasional strange vocal tics and stilted delivery. This was pure Ivy league brilliance.
There would be no repeat of the bait-and-switch strategy that worked so well to draw out Kamala Harris’ Republican opponent in the presidential debate. Indeed, Walz struggled to keep up with the young senator, ignoring his direct provocations to rail against Donald Trump, the man he would clearly prefer to serve.
Walz’s failure to hold Vance accountable for his unpopular positions on controversial issues like abortion led CBS moderators to fill in the gaps. Well-prepared, Vance was able to respond without falling into the trap of appearing grumpy. Before launching his own version against his opponent, he asked the CBS moderator to undergo a selective fact check.
Immigration was always going to resonate strongly with the MAGA faithful, but J.D. Vance’s masterful connection between the crisis at the border and the fentanyl crisis will resonate especially with working-class swing state voters. Turning up his nose at the CBS moderator’s heavy-handed terminology, Vance argued that “the real family separation policy in this country is Kamala’s open border.” Walz’s “dehumanizing” response felt like a Clinton-era moral finger-wagging exercise. He knew it too from his panicked expression.
What about Hong Kong? Walz’s face contorted into a Biden-esque, confused expression. Didn’t he claim to be in Hong Kong during the brutal crackdown on Tiananmen Square, even though he actually resided in Nebraska? Walz awkwardly tried to dodge the question before admitting he “misspoke.”
Looking like a distracted student called on by his teacher to answer a challenging math question, Walz’s performance showed little to no improvement in the second half of the discussion. In one particularly brutal episode, Vance methodically described the Trump administration’s material policy achievements, such as falling inflation and higher wages. Vance empathized with the “tough job” Walz would have to play to discredit the former president. He swallowed and his eyes began to widen.
If the Presidential debates aren’t important, the Vice Presidential debates are so unimportant that they don’t even warrant a second thought. Normally. But this is not a normal election cycle. A bizarre debate performance exposed Biden’s mental disability and set in motion a brutally swift defense of a sitting president and queening of his despicable running mate.
Harris’ campaign has since tried to sustain itself on nothing but good vibes and high energy; this strategy failed to mobilize crucial independent voters at an exciting moment in the election. Make no mistake, Walz’s casual gee-shucks routine was a deliberate attempt to engage these voters. But like his boss, Walz has proven that a compelling media narrative does not create a leader. In an exciting election, this underperformance could make all the difference. The real vice presidential pick turned out to be wrong Tuesday night, and it wasn’t the man from Ohio.