Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer; Photos: Getty Images
Since it’s unlikely Donald Trump and Kamala Harris will debate again before Election Day, the October 1 encounter in New York between running mates J.D. Vance and Tim Walz may be the last direct exchange of words between the presidential tickets in 2024. And because the contest is persistently very close, the vice-presidential debate, sponsored by CBS, will get a lot of attention. Here’s what each VP candidate needs to do tonight, aside from avoiding major gaffes or abject defeat.
Vance needs to make a coherent case against Harris and Walz.
Vance’s running mate has obviously thrown a lot of charges, insults, and innuendos at both Harris and Walz (he keeps calling the former “Comrade Kamala” and the latter “Tampon Tim”). Trump’s endless jabs cheer the committed supporters who just can’t get enough of his act. But there are undoubtedly swing voters who need to hear a coherent case for the kind of change a restoration to power of the 45th president would offer as opposed to the obvious risks.
Unfortunately, Vance brought to the ticket an extraordinary number of provocative statements of his own (particularly involving childless women and pregnant women) that have interfered with his potential as a conservative “populist” able to utter the kind of complete thoughts that don’t require a MAGA decoder ring to understand. Vance needs to address his own logorrhea succinctly and pivot to a clear case that he and Trump represent the best option for those with a sour view of the status quo and the direction of the country. If he can reinforce already strong perceptions that current levels of inflation and immigration are intolerable and that life was indeed better from 2017 until the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, he may be able to sway some of the undecided voters (particularly Trump-skeptic Republicans) still up for grabs. Trump himself seems to alternate constantly between asserting that Harris offers nothing more than a continuation of the Biden administration and proposing a dangerously radical new departure. Vance would be well advised to stick to one main line of attack and drive it home.
Walz needs to make the case that Harris offers safe change.
Walz’s own upbeat demeanor and midwestern “good dad” vibes have become an important asset in Harris’s efforts to present the Democratic ticket as both fresh and interesting, yet not especially radical, offering “safe change” from a strongly unpopular state of affairs. He needs to keep it up during the debate, particularly if Vance goes dark and vicious. He is not a particularly experienced debater, but he should stick to his talking points as much as possible. Without question, he’ll need to amplify the case Harris has made that Trump is a threat to both personal liberties (especially reproductive rights) and to democracy while reassuring viewers that the Harris-Walz administration will be focused on improvements in living standards for middle-class Americans and will pay attention to public opinion.
Vance needs to raise doubts about Walz without further damaging his own likability.
Since Walz, unlike Harris, can hardly be held accountable for the performance of the Biden administration, it may make sense for Vance to focus his “too radical” arguments on his actual opponent. Best we can tell, the remaining 2024 swing voters are a bit more worried about progressive than reactionary extremism, and Walz’s recent record as governor of Minnesota offers some good targets in terms of “woke”-sounding policies, alleged sympathy for lawbreakers (particularly during the protests following the death of George Floyd), and excessive taxing and spending. But Vance needs to be careful; even if he scores debating points against Walz, he dare not reinforce his image as an unlikable ideologue with “weird” views. This could be a tough assignment, since his party base loves “owning the libs” in unpleasant ways, and Trump himself is going to be live-tweeting the debate on Truth Social and is not beyond criticizing his own running mate if he’s insufficiently pugilistic.
Another implication of the Boss watching closely is that Vance must very briskly dispatch any questions he gets about his 2016-era criticisms of Trump without getting bogged down in them or offering Walz a witty pile-on.
Walz needs to call Vance weird without using the word.
With any luck, debate moderators Margaret Brennan and Norah O’Donnell will bring up enough of Vance’s controversial remarks past and present that Walz doesn’t have to go particularly negative. But he really needs to leave viewers with the impression that he is closer to the mainstream in both values and policy preferences than his rival, who likely owes his selection by Trump to some of the former president’s most dangerous advisers and acolytes (e.g., Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, and Donald Trump Jr.). Vance’s erratic history as a “hillbilly” turned elite novelist turned venture capitalist turned politician might be a good object for some good-natured ribbing from Walz. But the Ohioan’s strong past commitment to the far fringes of the anti-abortion movement is Walz’s best bet for scoring big points that stick.
Just as Vance needs to make short work of any questions about his fidelity to Trump, Walz needs to be prepared to briskly address questions about his National Guard service (and especially his attitude toward a possible deployment to Iraq, where Vance served in a noncombat position) and exactly what he did and didn’t do when racial-justice protests in Minneapolis turned destructive in 2020.
Is the debate format significant?
The CBS debate will differ from the Harris-Trump encounter in two interrelated respects: The mics will not automatically be muted when the other candidate is speaking, and the moderators have indicated they will not be fact-checking what the debaters say. This will create both an opportunity and an incentive for Vance and Walz to “correct” assertions made by their opponents in real time. Doing that while maintaining equanimity and not playing the bully will be a constant balancing act. It’s probably a better idea to come across as likable and reasonable rather than as a debate wizard.
Will the debate matter?
There will be a strong temptation among political observers to make this debate a game changer simply because the Harris-Trump race is so very close; USA Today predicts it will be “one of the most consequential vice presidential debates in U.S. history, one that could make or break their respective tickets in the final five weeks of the fight for the White House.”
On the other hand, it’s notable that the debate between Harris and Trump, which was both dramatic and (according to a solid majority of viewers) decisive, does not appear to have affected the presidential contest in any enduring way. Short of a terrible gaffe-fest by either Walz or Vance, it’s hard to imagine a veep debate mattering more than the main event. And there’s really no evidence of vice-presidential debates (which have been held regularly since 1976) having a big effect on the election results. By most accounts, the closest thing we’ve ever had to a complete rout in a vice-presidential debate, Lloyd Bentsen’s humiliation of Dan Quayle in 1988, didn’t keep George H.W. Bush from wiping the floor with Mike Dukakis that November.
As strange and tense as this presidential cycle has been, the tilt in New York bears close watching in case it somehow triggers a reevaluation of the landscape by swing voters or an explosion of enthusiasm in one party or the other. More likely, Vance and Walz will simply drive home the contrasts their running mates have already abundantly offered.
