The first rule of vice presidential debates is “do no harm.” And in that regard, the one and only debate between vice presidential candidates JD Vance and Tim Walz delivered.
Most pundits and analysts felt Vance was the more polished debater and that Walz may have had too many facts ready to go, but the onus was on Vance, whose VP rollout had been rocky.
“He came across as knowledgeable and likable, which is a trick in our politics today, to do both,” said Republican strategist Chris Russell. “I think he came into the debate with the worst image of the two guys, but I thought he did himself a favor last night.”
Micah Rasmussen, director of the Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University, called it a draw, more or less.
“People thought neither side really screwed up, neither side did anything to hurt their running mate,” he said. “Vance had to reintroduce himself, so in a sense he did that.”
The day after, some said Vance was guilty of “man-splaining” to the female moderators, and others said Walz was unable to explain his travel to China decades ago. But if past VP debates are any indication, the event is unlikely to move the needle much before November.
“I have long thought that for many many months, this is not a persuasion election,” said Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky. “And it has not been, because Donald Trump’s existence is so powerful in people’s minds that you either love him or hate him, but you know how you’re voting.
“This is a turnout election,” she said. “This is an election where both sides need to make sure that their sides come out to the polls. If I were in their shoes, I would stop persuading them on issues and start persuading them on turnout.”
