Last Tuesday, October 1, the first, and probably only, debate between VP nominees J. D. Vance and Tim Walz was telecast on CBS. The network reported that an estimated 43 million persons watched it. This sounds like a lot, but it was a sizeable decrease from the estimated 58 million who watched the 2020 VP nominee debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris.
For the most part, as one might expect, the post-debate analysis of who won followed along party lines. As I said after the Trump-Harris debate the key is not who “won,” but the post-debate effect on the polls. Often, they are not synchronized. So far, the post-debate polls have moved slightly in favor of Trump, but the race remains extremely close, and an unforeseen external event could be decisive. More on this below.
My analysis and opinion of the debate is as follows:
- Both candidates were unusually cordial to one another. There was some animosity but not nearly to the level of other debates. It was almost as if the two of them were going out for a beer after the debate.
- In general, Vance seemed more polished, more professional, more presidential and in better command of the facts and issues. On the other hand, Walz came across as uncomfortable, nervous and jittery. A few times he exhibited a “deer in the headlights” look.
- Once again, the moderators were biased in favor of the Dem. For example, even though all parties had agreed that the moderators would remain neutral and refrain from fact-checking they did so to Vance on a few occasions. Finally, he had to remind them that it had been agreed beforehand they wouldn’t do so.
- I objected to the selection of questions. For example, there was no question regarding the violent protests in 2020 that wreaked destruction on many cities, including Minneapolis. As you may recall, Walz had resisted requesting assistance from the MN National Guard for several days. Moreover, he and his wife kept the windows in their home open the better to see, hear and smell the protests and fires in Minneapolis. How weird was that? There was no mention of Walz’ “stolen valor.” He retired from his Guard unit (essentially quit) when he heard it was going to deploy overseas, which has drawn much rancor from other members of his unit. Finally, there was no question on fracking, which is one of, if not the, key issues in the key swing state of PA. These were all issues on which Harris-Walz was vulnerable. I would have loved to hear Walz’s explanation regarding them.
- Walz had two particularly bad moments. He uttered two sound bites that people will remember, even those who did not watch the debate. They will likely be repeated over and over again on social media and in political advertisements. (1) He confused a trip to China with one to Hong Kong. That was when he uttered his soon to be famous “knucklehead” comment. The second one was when he stated he had become “friendly” with “school shooters.”
- Walz’s best moment occurred with respect to the 2020 election. Vance was reluctant to acknowledge that Trump had lost, but he did denote that Trump had asked demonstrators going to the capitol to protest “peacefully and patriotically” and that Trump had repeatedly requested additional security, which was denied.
- The Dems continue to bring up two issues about which they lie – the 2025 Project and abortion. Trump has repeatedly denied any knowledge of or involvement with Project 2025, and he has reiterated time and again that pursuant to SCOTUS’ recent ruling the issue of abortion has been relegated to each state where the voters will decide that state’s policy. Give it up, already!
- Walz was weak regarding the ME conflict. He refused to state that Harris’ support for Israel was “iron clad.” Vance pointed out that there had been no conflicts during Trump’s presidency.
- The analyses of most commentators fell along party lines, although the NY Times opined that “Vance dominated the debate,” and some members of CNN’s post-debate round table said they were “disappointed” with Walz’s performance. Full disclosure: CNN disclosed that according to its post-debate instant poll there was no “clear-cut” winner.
- On the GOP side, Newt Gingrich was particularly effusive in rating Vance’s performance. He commented that he (Vance) showed “exactly how to do it (the debate).” He added that Vance “handled the [biased] moderators [well] and vindicated Trump’s judgment in picking him [as his running mate.”
- The implication was that Harris exhibited poor judgement in selecting Walz. That renewed speculation that PA Governor Josh Shapiro would have been the better choice, but he was passed over to appease the antisemitic leftwing of the party.
- Initial post-debate polls have shown a slight movement in favor of Trump, but the race remains extremely close with any advantages in the swing states still within the margin for error. Matt Towery, pollster and Fox News political analyst, declared that Vance had the better performance, and that Trump should receive a “bump” (in the polls).
- Robert Cahaly, chief pollster for the Trafalgar Group, was particularly impressed with the manner in which Vance handled the issue of climate change. Vance had pointed out that if Harris and her allies truly cared about the effect of fossil fuels on the environment, they would seek to use American-produced energy as it is much cleaner and more environment-friendly than energy produced elsewhere.
CONCLUSION
I wouldn’t place too much emphasis on the VP debate. All the polls say the election remains a virtual dead heat. There is still a month to go before ED, although early voting has already commenced in some states.
History tells us that a lot can happen between now and ED to influence the election. For example, there are four current events – the destruction wrought by Hurricane Helene, the war in the ME, the war in Ukraine, and the dockworkers’ strike – any one of which could have a decisive effect. Harris has the chance to boost her candidacy or doom it depending on how she handles them.
Also, there could be some unforeseen event such as a 9/11-style terror attack, another deadly natural disaster or some other unforeseen event. For example, some of you may recall Superstorm Sandy, which occurred on October 29, 2012 and had a significant impact on the 2012 election.
This is a most critical election, and all indications are that it will be historically close and go down to the wire. Stay tuned.
We Built It Blog by Larry Jacob 