US Vice-Presidential Debates: Vance vs. Walz
The recent vice-presidential debate between Tim Walz and JD Vance has left Democrats hoping that the outcome will not significantly impact the election. Prior to the debate, political betting site Polymarket gave Walz a 70% chance of winning, but by the end of the event, his chances had dropped to just 33%. It is worth noting that viewership numbers for this debate are expected to be much lower than those for Kamala Harris’s encounter with Donald Trump last month, which drew an audience of nearly 70 million.
This may have been the final presidential campaign debate of 2024 as Trump has shown no interest in agreeing to a second encounter with Harris. This decision is understandable given how contentious their first meeting was. In terms of influencing America’s voting decisions on November 5th, Tuesday’s vice-presidential debate may not even rank as the second-most impactful event of that day.
The first significant event was Iran’s missile attack on Israel and the potential threat it poses for a wider conflict in the Middle East. If sustained, this attack could lead to higher crude oil prices and subsequently impact US fuel prices and consumer sentiment, potentially harming Harris’s chances. Additionally, any perception of chaos in the Middle East could play into Trump’s favor.
The second most important event on Tuesday was arguably Trump pulling out of CBS’s widely watched ”60 Minutes” show next week while Harris confirmed her participation. How she presents herself during that interview and Trump’s absence are likely to have more influence on undecided American voters than the Vance-Walz debate.
Despite its potential limited impact on voters’ decisions, there were several noteworthy aspects from this vice-presidential encounter that shed light on this election season. Firstly, Vance displayed confidence and fluency throughout but also made some false claims regarding his support for a federal abortion ban and Trump strengthening Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act). Secondly, Walz appeared nervous and stumbled frequently during his responses.
It is worth mentioning that Walz has largely avoided mainstream media interviews or press conferences while Vance has been actively engaging with Sunday morning shows regularly. This difference in exposure may come back to haunt them as undecided voters express their desire for more information about Harris’s policies.
Lastly, considering their age differences compared to their running mates’, Vance’s performance holds greater significance as he is only 40 years old compared to Trump who is much older. The possibility of a second term under President Trump leading to a Vance administration seems more likely than Harris giving way to Walz due to age considerations alone.
Vance effectively conveyed elements of Trumpism while maintaining a tempered and reasonable demeanor during this debate. His performance suggests he has potential regardless of what happens next month; liberals should not dismiss him lightly.
