ANALYSIS — I used to be a debate skeptic. I was skeptical that debates changed the trajectory of elections. But after President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump squared off in one of the most consequential debates in history on June 27, and considering the race between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is incredibly close, the vice presidential debate became must-watch television.
It will take at least a few days to know whether GOP Sen. JD Vance of Ohio and Democratic Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota delivered a performance that persuaded independent voters in the seven toss-up states, but here are some initial takeaways.
1. The presidential race was close before the vice presidential debate and it will be close after the debate.
I know I say this in response to almost every piece of news, but it still rings true. In an evenly divided country where the vast majority of voters have already decided whether they’re going to support Trump or Harris, it’s difficult to have a game-changing event.
2. It’s hard to declare a winner.
As a single event, Vance won the debate. He was more polished, didn’t ever look rattled and didn’t seem to veer from his game plan or talking points. Walz was visibly nervous at the beginning and stumbled over his words at times (including saying that he befriended school shooters). But that doesn’t mean Vance persuaded voters, which is more important to the election. It will take at least a few days for viewers to digest what they saw or for people who didn’t watch to consume the media coverage and decide whether their minds were changed before we can really declare a winner.
3. Vance followed in Harris’ footsteps.
While the content of their performances was very different, Vance played the role of Harris in the debate. On Sept. 10, Harris delivered the debate performance that Democrats wish Biden would have delivered on June 27. She was agile in defending her own policies while simultaneously going on the attack. On Tuesday, Vance delivered the performance Republicans wish Trump had delivered on Sept. 10. He kept the focus on Harris and stayed away from many of the internet fights.
4. Whiplash on Harris.
For the first three years of the current administration, Republicans have dismissed Harris as ineffectual and irrelevant. During the debate, Vance elevated Harris and portrayed her as the most consequential vice president in history. According to the senator, she was effectively playing the role of a king with the power to make decisions and set policies that reverberated around the country and the world. It’s the right strategy for Republicans, considering the overall voter dissatisfaction with the direction of the country under the Democratic administration. It makes sense to try to hold her responsible, even though vice presidents don’t have that much power. It’s also striking to think about whether Republicans believe Mike Pence held similar power in the Trump administration.
5. The veil of ‘Midwest nice.’
There was a starkly different tone in the vice presidential debate. Unlike the presidential debate, Walz and Vance demonstrated a minimal level of respect for each other and seemed to go out of their way to acknowledge times of agreement. But that doesn’t mean they played nice. Moments of agreement were usually followed by an attack. Even then, those moments were usually delivered in a softer tone that could have been more palatable to voters compared with the presidential debate. And neither Vance nor Walz went to obvious attack lines about military records or “childless cat lady” comments.
6. Whiplash on Obamacare.
Considering the modern version of the Republican Party came to power in response to the Affordable Care Act, and the former president has spent considerable time trying to repeal it, it was stunning to hear Vance elevate Trump as the champion of Obamacare. It’s more evidence that the ACA has evolved to become an integral part of life for many Americans, and Republicans realized that its repeal could have political consequences. Trump has been trying to have it both ways on the issue for a while now, but I’ve never heard Republicans go as far as elevating Trump as the savior of Obamacare like Vance did on Tuesday night.
7. Republicans might take the 2020 election to their political grave.
It’s not clear how many swing voters made it to the end of the debate when Vance declined to acknowledge Trump’s 2020 election loss, but they’ll hear about it in the subsequent media coverage. While that stance is probably popular with Trump’s base, it’s a loser with critical independent voters. Kari Lake of Arizona, and even Trump himself, are examples of candidates who would be in a much stronger electoral position if they’d just moved on from 2020. Trump is well within striking distance of Harris despite his actions on Jan. 6 and subsequent legal issues.
He’d be in an undeniably stronger position if he’d just taken the loss and moved on to the next fight. With the way so many Americans think fondly of his time in office, Trump would be a clear favorite in this race. But Republicans always seemed determined to make elections more difficult than they need to be.
The post 7 things I think I think about the vice presidential debate appeared first on Roll Call.
