JD Vance Dominated the VP Debate — But Not Without a Twist at the Finish

The vice presidential debate’s opening question asked if he would endorse a preemptive strike on Iran. His response started with, “I was raised in a working-class family.”

For a fleeting second, one might think Vance was mimicking Vice President Kamala Harris’ frequent claim of coming from a middle-class family. Yet, his point had a wider scope. Throughout the debate, Vance — despite having some of the lowest approval ratings for a vice presidential candidate — sought to present himself as a reasonable individual in pursuit of compromise.

Vance recognized a difference of views with Tim Walz but consistently emphasized their mutual goal of finding solutions. He was careful to suggest that some of Walz’s stances, like those concerning housing, could be reasonable. Expressing empathy when he learned about Walz’s son being at a shooting, Vance refrained from launching sharp critiques, even avoiding criticism of Walz’s purported exaggerations regarding his military background. Regarding abortion, despite previously supporting stringent restrictions including a national ban, Vance pointed to Ohio’s more liberal stance as a matter of contention, which he believed was the right way to address the issue.

This approach required careful planning, recognizing the evident lesson from former President Donald Trump’s previous campaign; the public was not on board with the initial portrayal of the candidate, marked by his disdain for certain demographics and his inclination to incite ill-feelings towards immigrants. However, Vance’s approach had another element that contrasted with Walz throughout the debate: Leading up to this, Vance had been undergoing a number of interviews, often in less than welcoming settings. By debate night, he was adept at responding to, deflecting, and occasionally evading significant campaign issues.

The Democratic campaign adopted a different strategy for Walz and his running mate, essentially steering clear of challenging environments, which became evident. At times, Walz seemed ill-prepared to defend his record or to deliver effective criticisms of Vance or Trump. For instance, he briefly mentioned that the Republican governor of Ohio had condemned Trump and Vance for their remarks about Haitian immigrants, but this point seemed almost incidental, neglecting to highlight the outrageous unfounded claims made by the GOP ticket regarding pets being consumed. This muddled presentation weakly addressed a crucial point about the state’s GOP governor warning that his candidates were putting lives at risk.

Moreover, a significant indictment against Trump and Vance — the numerous endorsements from conservatives, Republicans, and former Trump officials in favor of Harris, viewing Trump as a serious threat to the nation — was mentioned only briefly and then disregarded.

Walz effectively confronted Vance directly, asking whether he believed Trump lost the 2020 election, to which Vance sidestepped. Walz correctly labeled it as “a damning non-answer,” and that moment has already gained traction. Ideally, it could have occurred earlier in the debate, but the Harris campaign will certainly capitalize on it.

Walz’s most compelling arguments stemmed from his legislative and gubernatorial experience, which equipped him to articulate well-known points regarding gun control and health policy. Vance’s claim that Trump saved the Affordable Care Act — an absurd statement one might expect from SNL’s infamous character Tommy Flanagan — allowed Walz to recall John McCain’s defense of Obamacare against Trump’s attempts to dismantle it. He also effectively highlighted the risks of Trump potentially dismantling protections for individuals with preexisting conditions. (Vance did make a valid point regarding health care: When Walz explained the necessity for broad insurance pools, Vance questioned if Harris planned to revive the individual mandate, a warning sign for younger voters.)

I believe there has been an ongoing discussion on whether Harris and Walz should engage in more confrontational interviews; this is less about an obligation to the voters — as candidates can choose their approach — and more about a tactical oversight. Greater exposure to challenging questions increases the likelihood that candidates will hone a more convincing argument. (I continue to await Harris’s thorough rationale for her numerous shifts in position, beyond “I grew up in a middle-class family” and “my values haven’t changed.”)

The debate served to reinforce this argument. It will probably not alter the dynamics of the race — as vice presidential debates seldom do — and it clearly did not change the underlying truth that Trump is an unfit candidate for the presidency.

The fact that Harris will be featuring in a “60 Minutes” interview while Trump will not may also decisively impact the excessive caution that was demonstrated — at least in this debate — suggesting that a campaign can indeed be overly cautious.