A few takeaways from the VP debate
Vance gave a slicker, more confident performance, if you were able to overlook all the rampant lying.
Tim Walz appeared to be pretty nervous out of the gate last night in CBS’ Vice Presidential debate, as I would also be if I were arguing with a deeply sexist man wearing that much eyeliner. A televised debate is not the ideal forum for an earnest Midwestern dad who prefers to be giving impromptu carburetor tutorials and motivational locker room speeches to America’s youth, to be fair. But after the first couple wobbly answers—and a gaffe or two that included Walz accidentally saying he’s “become friends with school shooters”—the governor hit his stride and delivered a pretty solid debate performance that was honest, relatable, and rich in policy specifics, even if he was a bit too kind to J.D. Vance.
Vance, meanwhile, came off as ultra-confident and pretty slick, side-eyeing Walz throughout the night with the smarmy smirk of someone who knows he’s better practiced at pretending to be who he needs to be at any given moment for a national audience—or code-switching,” as Tim Miller aptly put it. Vance had a well-rehearsed answer for everything, even if he wasn’t answering honestly. When asked about calling Donald Trump “America’s Hitler” in 2017, Vance quickly blamed the media.
“Sometimes, of course, I disagree with the president, but I’ve also been extremely open about the fact that I was wrong about Donald Trump. I was wrong, first of all, because I believed some of the media stories that turned out to be dishonest fabrications of his record,” Vance said. “When you screw up, when you misspeak, when you get something wrong, and you change your mind, you ought to be honest with the American people.”
When Vance was pressed about having previously supported a national abortion ban, he lied and claimed he never had, but added that there should be "minimum national standards" on abortion, which…is just a slicker, less scary term for a national abortion ban. (This prompted Trump to post a long rant in all caps insisting he would veto a national abortion ban, which he very likely wouldn’t.) Vance added that he and Trump are “pro-family” and simply want to give pregnant women more “options,” though Vance has compared abortion to slavery, said women should be forced to stay in violent marriages for the sake of their children, described the child-free among us as “miserable cat ladies,” and said working moms who require child care aren’t “normal people.”
Walz, in turn, specifically named multiple women who’ve been hurt or killed by state abortion bans and ably pushed back on the Vance-Trump line that abortion should be “left to the states” to decide. “How can we as a nation say that your life and your rights, as basic as the right to control your own body, is determined on geography?” he said in one particularly strong line.
Another strong moment for Walz was when he took Vance to task on making up a racist and xenophobic story about Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, eating people’s pets. Creating those stories, Walz said, “vilified a large number of people who were here legally in the community of Springfield…The governor had to send law enforcement to escort kids to school.”
Vance couldn’t defend himself on that point and so just changed the subject. "The people that I’m most worried about are the American citizens that have had their lives destroyed by Kamala Harris' open border. It is a disgrace," he said.
Vance was so flustered by losing that particular exchange that he ended up desperately talking over the women moderators and complaining about being fact-checked about the Haitian migrants’ legal status, which prompted Margaret Brennan to cut off his mic and say “thank you, Senator, for explaining the legal process” in such a cutting way it became an instant classic.
As to who won the debate overall, it appears to be a wash. Both candidates significantly improved their favorability numbers. NBC’s group of undecided voters preferred Walz, whereas the Washington Post’s preferred Vance. CBS' numbers showed, pretty much, a tie:
I’m curious, for those of you who actually tuned in last night (nerds): Who do you think won?
Vance won on performance, Walz won on substance and relatability. He effectively invoked the specter of Vance overseeing elector certification on January 6th, 2028. (I recorded Nixon’s press conferences on cassette tape in the 1970s. Ancient nerd here.)
I think Vance came off better in on screen charisma, but Walz was more solid in his explanations and clarifying policy platforms. However, to the uninitiated, my worry is that they'll take Vance's confidence as the qualifier for the points he was making and taking it as gold.