Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?

Last night's "showdown" between vice-presidential candidates Tim Walz and JD Vance may have been the last significant campaign event before the US election, said Politico. 

Polls currently put Kamala Harris and Donald Trump in a "neck-and-neck race" for the White House in November. With no other debates scheduled, this was the last chance for "both men to pitch themselves and their party's vision for the next four years". The Republicans' Vance, in particular, needed to shake off a month of bad headlines and "make up for Trump's poor performance" debating Vice-President Harris last month. 

The stakes in vice-presidential debates are "typically low", said the BBC. But in a race that could be decided by "tens of thousands of votes", any opportunity for "positive attention and political momentum is precious".

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

What did the commentators say?

If there was "any conventional wisdom" beforehand, it was that both candidates would be "fiery and combative", said Ed Kilgore for New York Magazine's Intelligencer. But the debate was "strangely civil", filled with "small gestures of courtesy and agreement". In Walz's words, "I think there was a lot of commonality here." "Me too, man," agreed Vance.

Walz "wasn't as slick", but bested Vance on several topics – most notably reproductive rights, a crucial weakness for the GOP. But Vance was not "the base-pleasing demagogue" we've come to expect. You do have to wonder if the "temperamental difference" between this newly civil Vance and Trump will "reflect poorly on the latter" among undecided voters. 

Indeed, Walz and Vance spent most of the night "defending their running mates' records", said Politico's Myah Ward and Adam Cancryn. "They were less successful promoting their bosses' plans for the future", which afforded "little opportunity to make a fresh and forceful case to undecided voters".

The "leitmotif " was essentially "two diametrically opposed candidates" that agree on a lot, wrote The Guardian US columnist Moustafa Bayoumi. But the debate "will be forgotten by next week, if only because the world is currently a powder keg". 

It's already been forgotten, "obscured" by the "far more dramatic news" of Iran's strikes on Israel, said The Spectator's deputy editor Freddy Gray. Walz "fumbled" on the big story, saying "Iran" when he meant "Israel", twice, "which hardly suggested a mastery of international affairs". Vance sounded "authoritative, composed, more professional", with a "tight grasp of details".

But Walz also performed "entirely adequately, reinforcing his steady, nice-guy image", said Emma Shortis on The Conversation. The "standout moment", near the end, came when Walz asked Vance whether Trump lost the 2020 election. Vance "refused" to offer the "clear right answer", said Vox senior correspondent Zack Beauchamp. "Tim, I'm focussed on the future," he fudged. It was, as Walz said, "a damning non-answer". 

This was "the only truly important moment of the night" and the fact that there was "no clear winner" likely won't move the dial. 

What next?

The vice-presidential debate might not shift the needle, but the role of vice-president very much does. Soon either Vance or Walz will preside over the Senate and be "empowered to break ties, as Harris has done a record 33 times", said The Associated Press. It's also the VP's job to preside over the certification of electoral results and to take over if something happens to the president. 

If Trump wins, he will be the oldest president in history, and the two recent assassination attempts against him also raise "the saliency of succession", said vice presidential historian Joel K. Goldstein. Voters may not typically see vice-presidential candidates as potential presidents – but "this year could be different".

The debate could also affect the next election, too, said Freddie Hayward in The New Statesman. Political parties "remember past debates when choosing candidates". Vance got the space he needed to "push back against the perception that he's an angry, online poster who talks about women like a creepy anthropologist". His superior performance will "shore up his position" within the GOP, and even makes the prospect of him running for the party's nomination in 2028 more likely.