We learned something about Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) on Tuesday night: He’s much better under the bright lights of a debate stage than he is at ordering donuts.
For most of us, it would be the other way around. But perhaps Vance was built for this. On the campaign trail, he often comes across as cringe-worthy. But on the debate stage, Vance came across as competent and effective.
Aside from appearing to be a real human being, Vance’s other astonishing magic trick was this: He somehow turned Kamala Harris into the incumbent president. It was as if Joe Biden never existed, and we have been living through the last four years of the “Harris administration” (or even the “Harris-Biden administration”), which is to suggest that she was responsible for everything bad that has transpired these last four years.
This was an impressive act of prestidigitation, partly because it greatly inflates the power and influence any veep has. It dramatically undercuts one of Harris’s selling points (how can you be a “change” candidate and the incumbent?), and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) let him get away with it.
In the process of accomplishing this task, Vance also clearly went out of his way to appear reasonable — a far cry from the reputation created by his noteworthy comments about “childless cat ladies” and the like.
If Walz showed up to the debate thinking Vance would present as “weird” — and I suspect Walz planned for that — then he was the victim of a bait-and-switch. Vance might have even disarmed Walz by presenting Trump’s positions in a gentle manner that the former president himself would never attempt, and by occasionally complimenting Walz.
Somehow, it all worked. It is unclear why Vance excelled in this format, but one theory is that his background as an Ivy Leaguer, frequent podcast guest and pundit better prepared him for this milieu.
Walz, by contrast, is a former teacher and football coach. Both careers involve communication, but Vance’s background may work better with the inorganic world of a televised debate stage.
For this reason, Vance seemed incredibly eloquent. But it also strikes me that the kinds of people with backgrounds similar to Vance (highly educated writers) might be predisposed to praise his debate performance.
After all, it makes sense that Ivy league-educated writers and pundits would appreciate Vance’s impressive debate style and performance, even if they don’t like him or agree with his politics. Game recognizes game, as they say.
Meanwhile, Walz appeared nervous for at least the first half of the debate, a far cry from the fire-breathing cable news guest who got on the presidential ticket by virtue of TV hits where he cast Republicans as “weird.” His resting facial expressions made him look pale and perplexed.
When the camera wasn’t on him, Walz appeared to be furiously making notes — a behavior that did not translate well on the split screen. And he made an embarrassing gaffe when he said that he has “become friends with school shooters” (he obviously meant to say the families of the victims of school shootings).
To television pros and coastal elites, the contrast was stark. But how will Vance’s slick performance play in Peoria?
Perhaps not as well as you might think. According to a CNN Instant Poll, “59 percent of debate watchers said they had a favorable view of Walz, with just 22 percent viewing him unfavorably — an improvement from his already positive numbers among the same voters pre-debate (46 percent favorable, 32 percent unfavorable).”
Meanwhile, “Debate watchers came away from the debate with roughly neutral views of Vance: 41 percent rated him favorably and 44 percent unfavorably. That’s also an improvement from their image of Vance pre-debate, when his ratings among this group were deeply underwater (30 percent favorable, 52 percent unfavorable).”
This is just one snap poll, but it could well be that the less-polished, more folksy Walz actually won the debate, if the goal is likability.
Until now, I have focused on style over substance, partly because style arguably matters more when it comes to these televised performances. But compared with the presidential debates we have been treated to in recent years, this debate felt more like Lincoln-Douglas.
But there were two issues where the candidates were clearly unwilling to engage. One had to do with Vance’s assertion (articulated in a manner that Trump could never attempt, much less pull off) that in Minnesota, “a doctor who presides over an abortion where the baby survives — the doctor is under no obligation to provide life-saving care.”
Walz denies this is true, and it’s hard for any compassionate person to fathom that it is. However, The Dispatch, a reputable center-right outlet that can hardly be described as pro-Trump, has pointed out that it is.
Walz also failed to provide an adequate answer to why he had previously claimed to be in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests, finally saying that he “misspoke.” Unfortunately for Walz, exaggerations such as these have become a trend.
Now, Walz wasn’t the only one who couldn’t give a straight answer. When pressed by Walz, Vance refused to say whether Trump actually won the 2020 election. This was Walz’s most effective moment, but unfortunately for him it came quite late in the night.
At the end of the day, my guess is that this debate won’t matter at all in November. But if Vance is looking to carry his party’s mantle someday, he probably helped his chances; Walz, not so much.
Sure, there was plenty of sophistry and lies, but that’s all within the parameters of normal politics. Vance felt that he had to come off as normal and decent, which is a good sign. These were two functioning humans, neither of whom presented as senile or crazy, and both of whom were sometimes able to make serious, compelling points.
By 2024 standards, I think this qualifies as a good night.
Matt K. Lewis is a columnist, podcaster and author of the books “Too Dumb to Fail” and “Filthy Rich Politicians.”