Veep Faceoff
Notes and thoughts on the Vance-Walz debate
So we had another debate last night. J.D. Vance versus Tim Walz. Vice presidential debates, of course, rarely move the needle in a presidential election. And if Kamala Harris’ demolition of Donald Trump in the last debate barely registered in the polls then it would be most unlikely for this one to have much impact.
As Politico put it:
If two conventions, two assassination attempts and a consensus presidential-debate rout aren’t going to impact the fundamentals of the race, don’t count on this to, either.
But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t interesting. The two candidates did, after all, actually debate issues. And were mostly civil to each other. Someone even dubbed it the Midwest Nice debate. Which, in today’s political environment, counts as a plus, right?
Anyway, a few debate notes and thoughts …
Was the debate a draw?
Viewers sure seemed to think so.
A CBS poll about the debate winner had Vance at 42% to 41% for Walz and 17% for a tie.
A CNN poll was 51-49% for Vance.
And a Politico poll had it at an even 50-50%.
Can’t get much closer than that.
Quick-hit reactions
1. Vance was by far the most polished and confident of the two. And Walz certainly missed opportunities to call out Vance for some of his statements ... Which is why numerous media pundits declared Vance the clear winner.
2. But polish isn’t everything. While pundits appeared to be scoring it on points, as if it were a debate tournament, many viewers were looking at the event differently … Which is why they called it a draw.
3. If Vance was the better debater, though, why was the end result a tie? Simply, I think Walz came across as more relatable.
In the same CBS poll noted above, viewers gave Walz a lead in sounding reasonable and in spending more time explaining his own views rather than being critical. Similarly, in the CNN poll, viewers gave Walz an advantage in being more in touch with the needs and problems of Americans, and in more closely sharing their vision for the country.
So Vance’s polish and Walz’ relatability sort of canceled each other out.
Two moments that mattered
Don’t discount another factor, either. Vance had the more polished answers, but Walz seemed to have the more memorable moments. In focus groups, the positive responses for Walz were noticeable at two moments in particular.
One was Walz’ answer on abortion, when he said Democrats weren’t pro-abortion but rather “pro-women.”
And when Vance said the issue was best left to the decisions of each state, Walz responded: “How can we as a nation say that your life and your rights, as basic as the right to control your own body, is determined on geography?”
Notably, according to the CNN poll, “Walz boosted his favorability far more among women” during the debate.
Another moment that resonated was at the end of the faceoff when Vance wouldn’t answer a question about whether Trump lost the 2020 election and Walz responded by saying it was a “damning non-answer.”
Vance’s non-answer, in fact, may turn out to be the most shown clip of the debate. And the Harris team wasted little time in turning it into an ad.
Vance’s whoppers I: Abortion and immigration
Yes, Walz misspoke too. He was wrong about how many years Donald Trump didn’t pay taxes. He wasn’t accurate when stating how Project 2025 planned to track abortions. Still, the majority of the negative fact checks for Walz were labeled as “needs context” or “partially true.”
Vance was a different story. He actually told some whoppers.
It’s understood that politicians make the best case for themselves by cherry picking statistics, or exaggerating their record or their opponent’s lack of a record, or whatever. But is it necessary to outright lie? It’s not like these things are difficult to fact check. Heck, if I can do it with just a search engine, what about a media organization or a political campaign with actual resources? I don’t get it.
So, simply because I can’t let some of these fabrications pass without setting the record straight, here is a sample platter of four untrue hits from last night …
Abortion: Vance said he’d never supported a national abortion ban. Yet he’s on tape just two years ago saying he “certainly would like abortion to be illegal nationally.” And saying he’s sympathetic to the idea that a national ban might be needed to stop women from getting abortions in other states.
Immigration: Vance had a lot to say about immigration during the debate, including that immigrants are responsible for rising amounts of fentanyl coming into the country, that they’ve caused a “massive influx in the number of illegal guns,” and that they’re driving up the cost of homes for Americans.
By the end of the debate even I was starting to think that immigrants are stumbling through the desert thirsty from a lack of water but with fentanyl and AR-15s in their backpacks, which they plan to sell on the black market and then use the cash to outbid Americans for choice homes in the suburbs.
But fact checks are a funny thing. The reality?
About 90% of the fentanyl coming into the country is smuggled in passenger vehicles at legal ports of entry. And more than half is brought in by Americans, not by illegal immigrants.
More guns are flowing from the U.S. into Mexico, not the other way around.
And immigration has only a minimal effect on housing prices. In fact, if mass deportations are carried out as promised by Trump, the effect will likely be to raise housing prices because of the loss of migrant construction workers who are now doing jobs that many Americans don’t want to do.
Now, this doesn’t mean there aren’t issues with illegal border crossings, fentanyl, guns, and housing prices. Of course there are! And we need solutions. But the problems aren’t being caused by immigrants in quite the way that Trump and Vance want you to believe.
Vance’s whoppers II: Obamacare and clean energy
Obamacare: Vance also inexplicably declared that Trump, as president, had worked on a bipartisan basis to “save” Obamacare from collapse.
Sure, I suppose that’s what you could call it.
First, Trump tried to repeal Obamacare in 2017 and only barely failed because three GOP Senators (John McCain, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski) wouldn’t go along. Then his administration refused to defend the Affordable Care Act in front of the Supreme Court when Republican states tried to invalidate it. Then Trump shortened the enrollment period, reduced funding aimed at getting people to sign up for insurance, and cut subsidies meant to allow insurance companies to lower people’s costs.
The end result was that health insurance enrollment declined for most of Trump’s presidency. So if there’s an explanation for how this means that Trump saved Obamacare I’m happy to hear it.
Climate change and green energy: In response to a question about climate change, Vance said this:
“If we actually care about getting cleaner air and cleaner water, the best thing to do is to double down and invest in American workers and the American people. And unfortunately, Kamala Harris has done exactly the opposite."
This is an upside down answer. The Biden-Harris administration, in fact, already put $370 billion towards climate policy through the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest investment in clean energy in the nation’s history. One study counted more than 170,000 new clean energy jobs as a result of the legislation, with the vast majority of investments funding projects in GOP Congressional districts.
If you want more, well, the transcript is available. Fact checking can be done.
Suffice it to say that Vance is intelligent. He is articulate. He’s a good debater. But he is also not entirely honest.
Five more weeks
Meanwhile, the election is just five weeks away. And the polls are about as close to being tied as is possible.
Buckle up.