I watched last night’s vice presidential debate and I’m glad I did. It demonstrated that it is still possible for two competing candidates from two different political parties to conduct a civil, articulate, and coherent discourse, something that has been in some doubt lately. Short take: I would rather have either of the two candidates I saw last night as president than either of the two at the tops of their respective tickets. Otherwise, I thought the debate was interesting but unlikely to have much impact on the outcome of the election.
I did not think that CBS’s moderators covered themselves in glory, signaling their biases pretty clearly. I’m sure their co-partisans were delighted. Hint to media outlets: “fact checking” candidates on things they are providing correct answers to debases fact checking.
The Politico Staff thought that Vance won:
JD Vance not only was polished, but offered a more cutting critique of Kamala Harris than his running mate, Donald Trump, managed in his own debate with her last month.
Tim Walz, on the other hand, took a while to warm up — and wasn’t that great even when he did.
The debate, light on body blows and heavy on policy, was won by Vance on style points.
The editors’ of the Wall Street Journal’s take resembled mine:
The political cliche is that vice-presidential debates don’t matter to the ultimate election result. But even if that turns out to be true about Tuesday’s debate between Tim Walz and JD Vance, Americans were at least able to watch a substantive debate that came closer to revealing the election choice than anything their running mates have offered.
Mr. Vance in particular helped the ticket and himself. The sarcastic candidate of “childless cat ladies” fame was nowhere in sight. The Ohio Senator was respectful, well prepared, articulate, and relentless in reminding voters about the flaws of what he called “the Kamala Harris Administration.” This is a case Donald Trump was unable to make in his debate, or for that matter anywhere in the weeks since President Biden left the race.
Mr. Walz was likable and avuncular, though he sometimes seemed frenetic and overstuffed with too many facts and prepared attack lines. On presence and command, Mr. Vance won the debate going away.
I found Marsha McHardy’s report at Newsweek interesting and informative:
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz saw a significant bump in polling after Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate in New York, surpassing Ohio Senator JD Vance in postdebate momentum.
The showdown saw the two candidates largely focus on differences, with Vance repeatedly hitting Vice President Kamala Harris on border security, while Walz lambasted former President Donald Trump on abortion rights. Newsweek has contacted the Vance and Walz campaigns for comment via email.
A flash poll conducted by CNN and SSRS after the debate among 574 registered voters who watched the showdown found that 51 percent of respondents said that Vance came out on top, compared to 49 percent who said the same of Walz. The margin of error was +/- 5.3 points.
A CBS News flash poll performed in conjunction with YouGov also showed Vance winning by a slim margin, with 42 percent of 1,630 respondents saying they thought the Ohio senator won the debate, to Walz’s 41 percent. The margin of error was +/- 2.7 points. Seventeen percent of respondents said the debate was a draw.
In a Politico snap poll of the debate, while voters were split 50-50 on who won, Walz was seen to have won with independents by 58-42. He was also preferred as vice president by 44 percent of independents, with 36 percent choosing Vance.
However, despite Vance’s win, the CNN/SSRS poll also shows that Walz saw a bigger rise in his favorability ratings after the debate than Vance.
According to the poll, the Minnesota governor saw a 23-point boost in his favorability ratings, going up from +14 to +37. Meanwhile, Vance saw a 19-point boost in his favorability ratings, going up from -22 to -3.
So, did last night’s debate make any difference? Or could the election be held today and the results would be little different than waiting until November?
“Not covering themselves in glory” hardly says it. Try covering themselves in feces. I think ABC and CBS (and others) are committing slow motion suicide. Why watch them? Why have them conduct debates?
It’s a charade. Media are just self important lightweights prancing about as if they have gravitas. No self awareness.
BTW. If the objective is to elect the smartest candidate it’s Vance hands down and Harris dead last.
If it’s policy, YMMV. But given the issues of economy, border, foreign policy and abortion, it’s 3to 1.
If it’s character, I think Vance runs away with it.
If it’s “hooray for our side”…..well, we all know how prom queen elections go…..
If I’m looking at a VP, I’m asking: will they have influence?
I have been told that the depth of my understatement is remarkable for someone not actually British.
I thought yesterday showed both candidates were picked primarily as “insurance”; that the Presidential nominee is protected from plots to replace them if their term of office is turbulent.
Walz comes off as well below the averageness of Kamala. Being called out on his biography exaggerations for months, even to a national debate and not being prepared says something. No Democrat will go “Tim is an acceptable replacement” if Kamala’s Presidency is challenged.
As for Vance, Democrats won’t be so eager to impeach Trump or plot other means if the VP is Vance. He shows the discipline and the ability to communicate to “respectables” that Trump doesn’t and means he could achieve things Trump talks about but is likely beyond his talents.
Didnt watch but read some of it. Vance sounded much different than the Vance out on the campaign trail or in interviews. He basically lied and presented the views that would make him sound more moderate. That said, I think he is very bright. He is a major plus for the Christian nationalists as long as he can hide what he really believes from most voters until he is in office, assuming Trump wins. (He is basically a sales guy so I expected him to come off as polished.)
Steve
“I have been told that the depth of my understatement is remarkable for someone not actually British.”
Ok. Now that’s a belly laugh for the day. So true. A New-Yawker you ain’t. And I presume you know that “hardly says it” is a Texas-ism.
On moderators; at the rate things are going, AI moderators will be more trusted by the next election.
It doesn’t even need to be that smart to be more effective.