Election Countdown, 33 Days to Go: Did We Learn Anything from the VP Debate?
Election Countdown, 33 Days to Go: Did We Learn Anything from the VP Debate?
Yes. In ways the debaters probably did not anticipate.
The candidates last night. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.)
Ross Douthat of the New York Times had written his verdict on last night’s VP debate, and had it proofread, edited, and posted on the Times’s web site, by the time the debate reached its midway point. Impressive clairvoyance! By then he apparently had seen enough to declare JD Vance the runaway winner, thanks to what the item’s headline called (remember, the debate was still underway) Vance’s “Dominant Debate Performance.”1
Statesmanlike as always, I waited until half an hour after the debate was over, including its consequential final ten minutes, before putting up this Tweet-scale summary:
On the morning after, I still think that basically sums it up. Additional points, looking at where each candidate was strongest and weakest:
Where Vance was strongest: Return to ‘normalcy.’
On the campaign trail, and in old podcasts and interviews that have recently been unearthed, JD Vance has come across as a better-educated version of Donald Trump himself. Pushing “they’re eating dogs” race-baiting calumnies. Excusing those inflammatory lies as just useful “stories.” Taking an Alito-like absolutist line on abortion, and a Musk-like natalist view of women’s proper functions in their child-bearing and then post-menopausal years. Telling Megyn Kelly this summer about his wife, “Obviously, she’s not a white person… but I love Usha, she’s such a good mom.”
In short, weird. Leading to his polling status as the least-liked vice-presidential candidate in history.
Through at least the first hour of last night’s debate, Vance did a consistent job of what Trump managed through the first half-hour of his fateful debate in June with Joe Biden. Namely: Addressing an audience as if it still contained “undecideds” or the “Trump/Vance-curious,” rather than being purely a distilled MAGA crowd. Calm tone. The occasional self-deprecating “I might be wrong” line. (Obviously I’m talking about Vance here; Trump has never done this.) A smile, a handshake, and an air of bonhomie. A minimum of personal criticism or attack. See, I’m normal!
Some VP debates have been notable for their rancor. For instance, Lloyd Bentsen ripping apart Dan Quayle in 1988. Walter Mondale luring Bob Dole into displaying his nasty side in 1976. Joe Biden with Sarah Palin in 2008. Al Gore with Dan Quayle and James Bond Stockdale in 1992.
Others have had a “we’re just pals” tone, at odds with the larger dynamics of the campaign. The most egregious was in 2000, when Al Gore’s fatefully mistaken choice as running mate, Joe Lieberman, cozied up to then-VP nominee Dick Cheney in a way that suggested Lieberman would be happy however the votes turned out.2
Last night’s event was not as chummy as Lieberman with Cheney. But Vance had clearly, and shrewdly, decided that this was his opportunity to introduce “the new JD Vance,” and he mostly did a good job of it.
Where Walz was strongest: Obamacare, abortion, election denial, and January 6.
Among the reasons it was fatuous to post a “Vance Won!” assessment halfway through the debate is that the final ten minutes were the most significant. That was when Vance told the most serious of consequential and provable lies, which will (or should) give rise to news follow-ups in the days ahead.
-That Donald Trump had “saved” ObamaCare, as opposed to working tirelessly to repeal it;
-That Vance himself had not supported a nationwide ban on abortion, when in fact he clearly had;
-That Trump had “peacefully” agreed to a transfer of power, when in fact he was impeached for inciting the January 6 insurrection and trying to block certification of election results;
-His refusal to say that Joe Biden had legitimately won the election of 2020, or to address why Mike Pence was no longer on the Republican ticket.
It was too bad for Walz, in real time, that all of this occurred 80+ minutes into a late-night debate, when fewer viewers would still be around to see it. It’s good for Walz and the Dems that more viewers will see these clips in online ads than watched the debate in real time.
Walz came closest to a knockout blow in the final minutes of the debate. That is when he finally—finally!—raised the point of why JD Vance was on stage as Trump’s running mate, rather than Mike Pence:
Walz: When Mike Pence made that decision to certify that election, that's why Mike Pence isn't on this stage.
What I'm concerned about is where is the firewall with Donald Trump?
Where is the firewall if he knows he could do anything, including taking an election and his Vice President's not going to stand to it. That's what we're asking you, America. Will you stand up?
Will you [looking at Vance] keep your oath of office even if the President doesn't? And I think Kamala Harris would agree. She wouldn't have picked me if she didn't think I would do that because, of course, that's what we would do.
So, America, I think you've got a really clear choice on this election of who's going to honor that democracy and who's going to honor Donald Trump.
You can see this segment starting at time 1:37:00 of the YouTube video below:
Where Walz was weakest: Pushback in general. ‘Where were you in June, 1989?’ in specific.
Was JD Vance’s smiley, aiming-at-Mr. Reasonable demeanor part of what put Tim Walz on his back foot—hesitant to use his own normal repertoire of zingers? I don’t know, and I suspect that nervousness (90%), and perhaps a strategy of projecting “Minnesota nice” himself (10%), put a damper on Walz.
For the first hour-plus of the debate, Walz refrained from the kind of “what are you saying?? You weirdo!” pushback on Vance that has been his specialty on the campaign trail. That could have been just nerves. But Walz could and should have been better prepared for one question. That was the stupid ‘gotcha’ query about whether he had really been “in China” in early summer of 1989, when the Tiananmen Square crackdown occurred, as opposed to being there two months later, in that same summer, when all accounts agree that he began a year-long teaching assignment.
Why is this a stupid question?