Vance and Walz Face Off in Heated, But Predictable, Vice Presidential Debate

Feature and Cover Vance and Walz Face Off in Heated But Predictable Vice Presidential Debate

Ohio Republican Senator JD Vance and Minnesota Democratic Governor Tim Walz took the stage for a highly anticipated vice presidential debate, one of the final opportunities to sway voters before Election Day. However, according to operatives from both parties, neither candidate did much to sway undecided voters, a group that has remainedlargely unmoved by vice presidential debates historically.

Both political strategists and analysts believe that vice presidential debates rarely play a decisive role in elections, a trend that seems likely to hold true this year. With one of the presidential candidates being former President Donald Trump, who enjoys universal name recognition, the debate was seen more as a formality than a significant factor in voter decision-making.

“Nobody in history has voted for a presidential candidate based on a VP debate,” stated Matt Bennett, co-founder of the center-left think tank Third Way and a former campaign aide during Michael Dukakis’ 1988 presidential run. Reflecting on his past experiences, he added, “I watched the 1988 VP debate in a Dukakis campaign office, and when [former Sen. Lloyd] Bentsen dropped his ‘you’re no Jack Kennedy’ line, we high-fived in glee. Then we went on to lose 40 states.”

As expected, both candidates stuck to familiar talking points during Tuesday night’s debate, held in New York City. While the city prides itself as a cultural hub, its influence on the rest of the country is often debated. Both Vance and Walz used their opening statements to highlight their backgrounds and appeal to their respective bases.

Vance emphasized his working-class roots and military service, portraying himself as a champion of the common man. He credited Trump with bringing “stability in the world” by fostering “deterrence” and called into question Walz’s stance on abortion. Vance’s narrative focused on presenting Trump as a decisive leader who kept America safe and stable.

Walz, in turn, highlighted his upbringing in a small Nebraska town and his own service in the National Guard. He praised Vice President Kamala Harris for her “steady leadership” in international affairs and emphasized the importance of alliances. Walz also criticized Vance for scapegoating migrants, arguing that blaming them for various problems was unfair and misleading.

Despite the candidates’ differing views, there were a few moments of tension during the debate. In one heated exchange over the legal status of migrants in Springfield, Ohio, the candidates’ microphones had to be muted. Toward the end of the debate, Walz put Vance on the spot, pressing him to clarify his stance on Trump’s 2020 election loss and the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Vance avoided directly answering the question, deflecting the topic.

While the debate had its share of fiery exchanges, it was also notable for the contrasting styles of the candidates. Walz initially appeared shaky but found his footing as the debate progressed. Vance, on the other hand, maintained a more polished demeanor throughout the night, a reflection of his media experience.

Both campaigns were quick to declare victory after the debate, with the Trump campaign releasing a statement that read: “Senator Vance unequivocally won tonight’s debate in dominating fashion. It was the best debate performance from any Vice-Presidential candidate in history,” according to top aides Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita.

Meanwhile, Harris’ campaign chair, Jen O’Malley Dillon, countered with her own statement, proclaiming, “On every single issue — the economy, health care, foreign policy, reproductive freedom, gun violence — Governor Walz won.”

Despite these claims of success, most of the attacks made during the debate were directed at the presidential candidates rather than at Vance or Walz themselves. The debate felt more like a clash of their running mates’ policies than a personal confrontation between the two vice presidential hopefuls. Both candidates even acknowledged their opponents’ genuine attempts to address critical issues, contributing to an overall tone of civility, unusual for such political events.

“Zero movement. Something for each side to like,” commented Democratic strategist Pete Giangreco. This sentiment was echoed by a national GOP strategist, who texted ABC News an image of a Venn diagram illustrating the overlap of “people interested enough in politics to watch the VP debate” and “Undecided voters.” The circles, unsurprisingly, did not intersect.

“Both did what they had to do. No major mistakes,” the GOP source observed. “Neither will break anything.”

In a lighthearted moment near the end of the debate, Walz referenced popular TV programs competing for viewers’ attention that evening, including “Dancing with the Stars.” This comment underscored the challenge of garnering attention for vice presidential debates, which traditionally attract smaller audiences.

Though both campaigns will likely race to highlight key moments from the debate in hopes of swaying voters, history suggests that vice presidential debates rarely shift the political landscape. It’s often said that the primary goal of a running mate in a debate is to “do no harm,” and while a strong performance may not significantly boost a ticket, a poor showing can be damaging.

According to a former senior Trump administration official, some voters tuned in to the debate to get a sense of Harris’ potential administration due to her limited media presence. They praised Vance, stating he “was in a different class tonight.” However, this official also acknowledged that many undecided voters were likely watching other events, such as the MLB playoffs or reruns of popular sitcoms like “Seinfeld,” rather than tuning into the debate.

In the end, both Vance and Walz managed to avoid any major blunders, maintaining the status quo. While they may have given their respective parties reasons to cheer, it is unlikely that their performances will have a lasting impact on the election. The debate left undecided voters largely where they started – still undecided – and with more interest in upcoming presidential debates or, perhaps, entirely different distractions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More Related Stories

-+=