Vance wins on style points, Walz rallies late
Will it move the needle?
The VP debate between Tim Walz and JD Vance was a largely civil, substantive affair. There were things to appreciate about both candidates, things to criticize about both candidates, and a few bones to pick with the host, CBS News.
Vance
JD Vance was the more polished debater. His voice was calm, he made his points more clearly, he pivoted away from difficult topics more skillfully and he prosecuted his case against Kamala Harris more effectively.
After a rough start to his role as Trump’s VP, last night may have helped resurrect his image, particularly among Republicans and independent voters. He seemed reasonable. But a lot of what he said just was not true, and unfortunately, Tim Walz let him get away with it, particularly early in the debate when most Americans likely were watching.
I found Vance to be too slick by half. He relied on two main arguments, regardless of the issue under discussion. Whenever the topic was Kamala Harris’ proposals for her administration, for example, to help Americans buy homes, Vance would say something like, “Well, she’s been in office the last three-and-a-half years, so why hasn’t she already accomplished these things?” That’s a specious argument, because Harris has been the VICE-president – not the person sitting in the oval office setting administration policy. But he returned to that argument multiple times without really addressing the substance of the Harris plans.
Vance’s second go-to argument was, of course, immigration. In MAGA world, immigration is the root of all evil. It’s those immigrants who are being “given” millions of free homes that are driving up the cost of housing. They’re taking jobs away from real Americans. They’re responsible for America’s drug addiction.
Walz pointed out that it was Donald Trump who ordered Republicans in Congress earlier this year to kill a bi-partisan bill that would have helped alleviate the situation at the border. Walz raised the topic of Vance’s comments on immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, but he never really scored a direct hit. Vance is the guy who made up the whole dog-eating story, and later admitted that sometimes you have to lie to bring attention to an issue, but Walz only struck a glancing blow rather than the uppercut to the chin that he could have delivered.
Republicans are likely happy with Vance’s performance. He managed to leave the debate stage relatively unscathed, without being held responsible for some of the reprehensible things he has said in the past.
Walz
Tim Walz was nervous and his answers were jumbled at the outset of the debate. He was talking too fast, stumbling around a bit. The first question was about Iran’s missile strikes on Israel, which is not an issue that a midwestern governor has to deal with. He clearly was uncomfortable on the topic, and it showed.
He fumbled badly a question about earlier statements he’s made about having been in Asia during the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. Minnesota Public Radio reported earlier in the day that he wasn’t there. I don’t know that voters much care whether he was in Asia or not 35 years ago. Walz said he misspoke and said he can be “a knucklehead at times.” But it was a dent on his credibility.
Viewers who stuck around for later parts of the debate saw Walz find his footing closer to the end of his debate, when talking about the future of democracy. He asked Vance directly whether Trump lost the 2020 election. Vance answered, “I’m focused on the future…” while trying to pivot to some nonsense about Kamala Harris wanting censorship. Walz replied, “That is a damning non-answer.” It was Walz’s best moment.
Outside of that one exception, Walz landed only glancing blows on Vance. Walz built his national image by calling Trump and Vance “weird”. Well, Vance was standing right next to him and he never pointed out his weirdness. He didn’t directly ask him why he made up the story about Springfield. He never mentioned Vance’s support for Project 2025. He never directly nailed him to the wall like Harris did in her debate with Trump. That allowed Vance to skate by with too many exaggerations and misstatements. It was a missed opportunity.
CBS News
Moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan were non-factors, which is how the CBS News bosses wanted it. A few things annoyed me.
Both candidates did a good job of wrapping up their answers in the allotted time. There’s a countdown clock they can see, and both Walz and Vance stopped talking on time, only to have one of the moderators repeatedly say, “Senator your time is up.” It’s pointless to say that AFTER the candidate has stopped talking, but it happened often. A minor complaint, but I found it annoying.
There was only one instance where Brennan fact-checked Vance on a statement he made about immigrants being in Springfield, Ohio, illegally, when in fact they have legal work status to be there. Vance objected to being fact-checked and demanded time to respond, but the moderators interrupted and when Vance kept talking, they cut off his microphone.
Despite promoting a QR code on screen where viewers could find live fact-checking, the code wasn’t up for quite a while and I couldn’t get it to work when it did show up.
Does it move the needle?
Republicans will likely be pleased while Democrats will be slightly disappointed in the debate. Normally, VP debates don’t have a big impact on the race because most voters choose based on who’s at the top of the ticket. But in a race this close, any little edge might mean the difference between winning and losing.
As always, I’m interested in how you saw it.
Check out other members of the growing Iowa Writers’ Collaborative.
I agree with you on all counts, Dave. From an objective point of view, Vance appeared more poised and polished. That goes a long way with a lot of people.
Walz' bumbled answer about his China visit really bothered me. He would have won big points if he had admitted up front he misspoke about the timing of the visit. As a result, he looked cagey. And I know he's a decent guy.
Good analysis Dave. Walz should have reminded Vance that Congress controls funding for the programs JD said VP Harris never got accomplished. Regarding censorship, nobody has been a bigger threat to the 1st amendment & press freedom than Trump.