JD Vance entered the debate as the most unpopular VP candidate in history.
So unless he crawled onstage in a cat costume, the Republican senator was likely to exceed expectations. According to the cable pundits, he did. When the debate ended Tuesday, the verdict was unanimous: Vance “beat” Tim Walz.
The snap polls were not as clear. In a CBS poll, 42 per cent of voters said Vance won, 41 per cent gave the W to Walz and 17 per cent declared a tie. In a CNN poll, Vance edged Walz, 51 to 49 per cent. It was a 50-50 wash in a Politico/Focaldata poll.
The consensus view that Vance “dominated” is dubious. Yes, the Yale grad was as slick as a dolphin’s blowhole. He is articulate, even if his perfect sentences do not jibe with truth or reality.
Vance will say anything depending on the crowd. If he was addressing vegans, he’d extol the virtues of kale without mentioning he had a T-bone for dinner.
By contrast, the pundits were fixated on Walz’s jittery delivery. He was nervous at the start. He mangled a word here and there. His biggest error, in my opinion, was manically taking notes, which reduced his ability to focus and refute as Vance engaged in wild revisionist history.
By the end, Walz’s notepad probably had more words than “War and Peace.”
He was also criticized by some liberals for not “going on the attack.” But post-debate focus groups were impressed by the civility and mutual respect. The late-night comics dismissed the debate as “dull” and “boring.” Voters called it “refreshing.” Strangely, the two men agreed so much, it almost seemed like they should be on the same team. I kept waiting for them to hug it out.
Still, if you strip out the style, delivery and courtesy, it’s not clear Vance “won.”
He is a shape-shifter who has changed his name three times. In the past, he referred to Donald Trump as “America’s Hitler” and “cultural heroin.” What Vance says now can’t scrub that away. Data suggests young voters continue to see through his ever-morphing façade.
Vance was praised for being reasonable. But he is the same candidate who recently pushed a fake story about Haitian immigrants eating pets. He has alienated female voters with “childless cat lady” smears and an undeniable obsession with controlling their bodies.
Vance tried to free the albatross around his neck: reproductive rights. Again, too late. Anyone who believes abortion is health care is voting for Kamala Harris even if Vance spends the next month in a Planned Parenthood T-shirt.
The only thing Vance accomplished Tuesday was to anger pro-lifers.
Meanwhile, Walz was lauded by older voters, the most reliable demo on election day. Both candidates improved their favourable ratings. According to CNN, Vance was at 30 per cent before the debate. He jumped to 41 per cent.
But 44 per cent still view him unfavourably, leaving him underwater.
Walz moved both numbers in the right direction, boosting his favourable rating from 46 to 59 per cent, while dropping his unfavourable to 22 from 32.
It seems his “uneven” performance only made him more likeable.
Vance also did himself no favours with undecideds when he constantly changed the subject. No matter the question, Vance shoehorned a prefab attack on Kamala Harris. If a moderator had asked him to state his birthday, he would have replied: “Look, we are focused on the future. The date I entered this world makes no difference now that Kamala Harris is letting millions of illegal immigrants into our country to steal our jobs and buy our houses. What is a birthday candle worth when the American dream is blown out?”
For Vance, this debate was basically an invasion of the body snatchers. He did a good job impersonating a sensible human. I’m surprised he didn’t show up dressed like Mr. Rogers.
But this kinder, gentler illusion won’t last because that’s not who he is.
Upon returning to the campaign trail as a shouty ideologue with all the warmth of a frozen TV dinner, independents will be reminded how Vance refused to say Trump lost in 2020. And refused to accept the results next month.
So I must part ways with the pundits and give the debate win to Walz.
He did a masterful job weaving conservative touchstones (gun ownership, his Christian faith, individual freedoms) into liberal imperatives (reproductive rights, humane immigration policy, economic opportunity) while doing nothing to lessen his bipartisan appeal.
Walz could be your neighbour. Vance is the door-to-door salesman.
Voters without college degrees are assumed to be red hats. But I’m willing to bet some of them were turned off by the fast-talking Ivy League grad. They would find the avuncular plain-talker who goes hunting and coaches football to be far more relatable. Deep down, they know Vance is one of the elites they despise.
The election is a month away.
Tim Walz should ignore the doubters and keep on trucking.
