A Lukewarm Night, but One that Goes to Vance, Nonetheless

If you tuned into Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate – and the only one of the 2024 cycle – you probably weren’t too surprised, just as you likely weren’t after the presidential debate about a month ago.

However, unlike the near-universal face-palming Donald Trump (R-FL) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) received from their debate performances – The Messenger editorialized it as: “Trump Takes Bait, Harris Reads from Script” – this debate wasn’t nearly as spicy. In fact, if it was a spice, it would probably be closer to flour or cornmeal.

This is not something we lament; in fact, this is more of a standard debate. Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) took multiple opportunities to make this election a referendum on Joe Biden (D-DE), while Governor Tim Walz (D-MN) defended Harris’ record and involvement in the Biden Administration.

This is about as run-of-the-mill as it gets, and it shows. The Messenger made no official winner declaration in the presidential debate, not that we are obliged to, but both candidates failed to state their positions effectively, all while Trump battled the moderators while Harris wasn’t speaking.

This debate was different, however. The Messenger gives Tuesday night to Senator Vance.

We’ll begin with the obvious: not many people were likely awaiting this night to be a significant help in their decision for president. Not only are the vice presidential debates viewed as more of an exhibition match compared to presidential debates, but we’re comfortable with the assumption that people who watched are politically involved and sat down to root for their team. There’s nothing wrong with this, it’s just the dose of reality we have to request for context.

Undecided voters might have had some help, but we’re also comfortable in assuming that that bloc of voters probably won’t make up the difference of voters in select states required for either candidate to win. In the political era of yesteryear, it’s probable that Tuesday night could have had more of an impact. But in the hyperpartisan environment of today, we see this as a remote possibility.

The big aspect of this debate, however, was not as much in the conduct or cordiality displayed on stage, but rather how many in the political world, especially the Democrats, were likely disarmed by Vance’s performance.

From what we have seen and heard around town and in discussion posts online, it seemed that many were expecting Vance to come off as more dismissive and play hard offense, as he has appeared in some situations with the press, allowing for Walz to simply allow Vance to be his own worst enemy.

But that’s not at all what happened. Vance was confident, concise, highly articulate, and avoided various pitfalls that inevitably become the most replayed scene-stealers of the night.

Moreover, Vance did something remarkable that likely frustrates many Republicans: Vance was more successful in tying Biden’s record to Harris than Trump was in tying the record to his own opponent.

In the presidential debate, Trump started out decently, but it quickly fell apart as he took bait after bait, with Harris offering little substance and quickly escaping to scripted platitudes when the going got tough. It was canned, but she played it off reasonably well. Trump, on the other hand, was difficult to understand.

The same cannot be said for Vance. Not only was he easily understandable, but he cut right through to policy many Republicans likely wish Trump had.

One notable example was the abortion question, a massive liability for Republicans since the Supreme Court’s 2022 overturning of Roe Vs. Wade. Vance has been smeared as an anti-abortion advocate, whose religious views are incompatible with modern America. Instead, Vance took that liability and turned the argument around in such a way that Walz was clearly not expecting. Vance openly recognized the GOP’s struggle with the abortion issue, opining that the party needs to earn voters’ trust back on the issue. Vance vehemently denied any plans of a national ban and vocally supported fertility treatment and presenting other options to women who feel abortion is their only alternative.

Walz handled his portion of the question decently, but unmistakably floundered when Vance pressed him on the legal language of the Minnesota bill that Walz signed that does not require doctors to perform live-saving care to late-term infants who survive botched abortions.

Stunningly, Walz could not provide an answer, simply stating “that’s not what the law says,” and that his philosophy on the matter is simply: “Just mind your own business.”

Vance’s performance also highlighted his softer image, which he emphasized by talking about his three young daughters frequently and even reacting with a “Christ, have mercy,” reply to Walz’s story about his son having witnessed a shooting. The softer image from Vance is almost a necessity to balance the ticket with a personality like that of Donald Trump.

Walz’s performance was not terrible, but he was clearly having trouble throughout the night. At times, he looked visibly uncomfortable, especially when pressed with a difficult question. Walz had several.

Failing to settle the score on Minnesota’s abortion laws that he signed as governor notwithstanding, Walz also failed to take an easy mea culpa on his 1989 trip to Hong Kong. Walz claimed that he arrived there during China’s notorious retaliation against the Tiananmen Square protestors. We’ll give the moderators kudos on not only specifically asking Walz to clarify his timeline, but also following up to request that he answer that question specifically.

In the end, Walz says he merely “misspoke” about his timeline. It’s certainly not the end of our world here at The Messenger, but his clear floundering in trying to simply state his mistake, or even simply admitting to have lied about it years ago, was more cringe-inducing than the actual fib itself, whatever his motive, or lack thereof, for telling it.

Walz also simply passed on debating Vance on tariffs, perhaps the strongest part of Trump’s night just a month ago. Walz railed against Trump’s trade war with China, saying it impacted how the Midwest was able to regulate their economies. The problem is, Biden and Harris haven’t repealed the tariffs. The Trump-era trade war is, in some ways, still being waged, and Harris-Walz are simply running against an effigy that they don’t clearly intend to burn any time soon. We’d love to give them credit for that, if only they’d concede it’s an idea that’s clearly working.

We’ll also take a moment to “out-Midwest” arguably the most “Midwestern” politician in this race, besides, arguably, Senator Vance.
Iowa was a state Republicans had just gotten used to losing until Trump hit the campaign trail in 2016. The farm crisis of the late 1980s gave the state to Michael Dukakis (D-MA) over George H. W. Bush (R-TX), one of just ten states to back Dukakis in his landslide loss to Ronald Reagan’s (R-CA) right-hand man. Bill Clinton (D-AR) secured Iowa twice, followed by a narrow Al Gore (D-TN) in 2000. George W. Bush (R-TX) was able to flip it back, but Barack Obama’s (D-IL) Midwestern roots and populist overtones pushed the state desperate for “change” to his column twice, and by rather decent margins.

Not only did Trump flip a state won only once by a Republican in the last near-forty years, but he did so by a near-ten-point margin. In the 2020 race, pundits and pollsters alike seemed bullish on Biden’s chances in the Hawkeye State, asserting that the trade war hurt Iowa’s soybean farmers so much that they were almost certain to pass on a second dose of Trump.

Trump essentially repeated that ten-point margin in 2020, despite polls showing Iowa no better than a coin toss.

We relay this anecdote to say that Midwesterners probably understand what they’re voting for, and as much as Walz wants to gin up his “Midwestern” flair, his neighbors likely support the Trump-era policy, even if it did hurt some farmers in the short run. Trade wars are effective in bringing about long-term economic change.

Walz was also visibly disarmed at Vance’s quick jabs regarding Walz’s logic. Walz asserts that the “experts” and their advice should be heeded. Vance countered that the “experts” have advised on outsourcing manufacturing and jobs would save the U.S. money in the long run and create a vibrant middle-class economy. Walz conceded that he agreed with most of Vance’s points, but still fell short of saying the quiet part out loud. Vance, however, pinned him on this, unfolding Walz’s logic before his very eyes, in that Walz believes the Trump economy was not as good as statistics show.

What was most jarring of the night, however, was Walz’s erratic movements on stage and his wide-eyed expressions into the camera. He didn’t look natural or that he belonged; he looked nervous and put on the spot. He didn’t do himself any favors by trying to stammer out his viewpoints and shuffle his notes trying to recall his rehearsal notes.

To Walz’s credit, he was still more understandable than Trump was for most of the presidential debate performance last month. Even if we don’t find Walz’s policies and logic agreeable, we at least understood where he was coming from, most of the time.
It takes a big person to admit when he or she is wrong, especially when the world is watching. This is perhaps the biggest moment of the night, in our opinion.

When nailed on his Tiananmen Square timeline, Walz stammered and simply said he “misspoke.” His folksy, affable demeanor, while charming at times, didn’t land well, in our opinion, when he called himself a “knucklehead” and that “he’s not perfect.”

We agree. After all, who is?

Now, let’s hear how Vance handled his past incorrectness.

When asked about his prior reservations about a Trump presidency in 2016, Vance stated: “I was wrong.”

Vance said that he was wrong about Trump in 2016 because he had partly ingested the mass media’s “opium of the masses,” and that he simply didn’t think what Trump had promised was deliverable.

In the end, both men admitted their past faults, but Vance took it on the chin more confidently, while Walz almost seemed uncomfortable owning up to a mistake.

We will dock Vance one point: he didn’t handle the January 6 question from Walz very well. However, his concise response was probably the high road Walz should have taken two or three times over the course of the ninety minutes. Vance quietly walked away from the question on his views of election fraud in 2020. Vance probably didn’t look that great in that moment, but the cost-benefit analysis of engaging in that question was likely done beforehand. He likely would have looked worse had he doubled down or taken obvious bait.

We give both gentlemen big points for a civil debate that only resulted in one instance of eminent domain by the moderators in muting the mics and for making it more about policy instead of personality, about substance over spark. The moderators receive points from us as well for asking tough questions of both candidates, and we’ll only issue them demerits for each instance of live fact-checking in between questions. We implore the networks to not make this a reality of any debate going forward. It’s counterproductive, only adds to more unnecessary back-and-forth, and interferes with the moderators’ jobs of simply moderating the debate.

Was it exciting? Not particularly. Is that a problem? Not at all.

Is it likely to change minds significantly?

Most likely not.