It was civil. It was cordial. It was substantive.
And there’s no question that JD Vance easily won the vice presidential debate. Tim Walz did better than anticipated – perhaps those expectations were deliberately set low – but despite some strong counterpunching, he frequently stumbled.
Each man had a mission: to defend his running mate and rough up the opposing presidential candidate.
But Vance had a second goal beyond talking up Donald Trump, and that was softening his own image. He made a concerted effort to project empathy, to appear reasonable, to be open to opposing viewpoints.
VOTERS REACT TO GOV TIM WALZ DODGING TIANANMEN SQUARE QUESTION: ‘I’M A KNUCKLEHEAD AT TIMES’
There is a caricature of the Ohio senator as a hard-right ideologue with little sympathy for women, as reflected by the famous childless cat ladies comment. But when the subject of abortion came up, he went out of his way to sound sympathetic to the pro-choice side:
“I know a lot of Americans don’t agree with everything that I’ve ever said on this topic. And, you know, I grew up in a working-class family in a neighborhood where I knew a lot of young women who had unplanned pregnancies and decided to terminate those pregnancies because they feel like they didn’t have any other options. And, you know, one of them is actually very dear to me. And I know she’s watching tonight and I love you.
“And she told me something a couple of years ago that she felt like if she hadn’t had that abortion, that it would have destroyed her life because she was in an abusive relationship. And I think that what I take from that as a Republican who proudly wants to protect innocent life in this country, who proudly wants to protect the vulnerable, is that my party? We’ve got to do so much better of a job at earning the American people’s trust back on this issue, where they frankly just don’t trust us.”
(Vance’s website describes him as “100 percent pro-life.”)
Walz countered with specific stories of women who died or whose health was damaged because they lived in states that tightly restrict abortion.
The Minnesota governor hit his talking points, but regularly took a long time to get to his main argument. A question about Kamala Harris’ plan to build 3 million housing units produced a detour about how Walz has only bought one home.
Walz often spoke in a clipped shorthand – the ACA, Springfield, Vance creating stories – without explaining, for instance, that he meant the false tale of Haitian migrants eating pets.
The CBS moderators, Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan, edged into ABC territory by fact-checking only Vance, despite saying they would try to avoid that. After the senator referred to illegal immigrants in the Ohio town, Brennan said Springfield “does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status, temporary protected.” That’s a point Walz should have made, but didn’t.
Many questions were framed from the left. “Senator Vance,” said Brennan, “you oppose most gun legislation that Democrats claim would curb gun violence. You oppose red flag gun laws and legislation to ban certain semi-automatic rifles, including AR-15s.”
Walz’s worst moment was one he should have anticipated, a story in the New York Times and elsewhere saying he was not in China for the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests as he had claimed, but got to Hong Kong months later. The governor began with a word-salad answer about growing up in Nebraska before retreating to “I’ve not been perfect. And I’m a knucklehead at times.”
Pressed again, he said he had misspoken.
Vance’s worst moment was about Jan. 6. O’Donnell began, “You have said you would not have certified the last presidential election and would have asked the states to submit alternative electors that has been called unconstitutional and illegal.”
POLITICS HIJACKS HURRICANE DEVASTATION IN THE SOUTH, BIDEN CALLS TRUMP A LIAR
The senator countered that Trump “said that on January the 6th, the protesters ought to protest peacefully. And on January the 20th, what happened? Joe Biden became the president. Donald Trump left the White House.”
This time Walz was ready. Trump “lost this election and he said he did. 140 police officers were beaten at the Capitol that day, some with the American flag. Several later died.”
He turned to Vance and said: “Did he lose the 2020 election?”
When Vance tried the “focused on the future” line again, Walz called that “a damning non-answer.”
But Vance largely came off as a Bush-style compassionate conservative. He must figure that win or lose, he’ll be running for president in 2028 and needed to combat all the negative coverage.
Walz looked like a man who was happy to survive his turn on the national stage. The debate would have looked very different if Harris had picked Josh Shapiro, given that she’s tied with Trump in Pennsylvania.
The Harris campaign has bubble-wrapped Tim Walz, not allowing him to do a single solo interview. JD Vance is constantly doing interviews, podcasts and press conferences, the best kind of preparation for a big debate. And that, in the end, may have been the difference.
