In the wake of the VP debate, the spinmeisters are working overtime crafting their take-away posts. In all likelihood, however, most impressions of the debate will be faded or forgotten in a month, if not sooner. Such is the power of myriad distractions in modern America. “Interesting Veep debate last night. Oh look, there’s a squirrel.”
Here’s one take from “Consider This” at npr.org:
In a race where so much of the polling is within the margin of error — it seems as though any one thing could affect the outcome of the 2024 Presidential election.
But have Vice Presidential Debates made a difference in past races?
NPR’s senior White House Correspondent Tamara Keith dug into that existential… and political question.
Keith says that vice presidential debates are often forgettable, but the one in 1988 is seared in American popular culture.
Judy Woodruff of PBS did the introductions for Senator Dan Quayle, the Republican nominee, and Senator Lloyd Bentsen, the Democratic nominee.
Benson was in his late sixties while Quayle was only 41, and that dynamic led to one of the most iconic lines in debate history, as Quayle compared himself to John F. Kennedy, and Lloyd Bentsen replied:
“I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”
It was a huge moment in the debate. But it ultimately had no real impact on the outcome of the race. Smackdown notwithstanding, Bentsen and his running mate, Michael Dukakis, lost in a wipe out.
One could could argue that, after all, both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris served as Vice President, as did Presidents Truman, LBJ, Bush (I) and Nixon during the last century. It’s a training school for future presidents. And the voting public undoubtedly likes to be reassured that the back-up is not crazy or lacking in basic intelligence.
The one call I got about the Walz-Vance debate applauded the civility of both candidates. That’s a subtextual knock on Trump, who is all about insults and threats, while Harris has kept a more dignified tone front and center. But my hunch is that Vance’s Cat Lady and other pre-debate gaffes will have more shelf-life than his debate performance, which included his refusal to admit the Jan. 6th riot was Trumps’ doing or that Biden won the 2020 election. His transparently-evasive comments on abortion probably offset any benefit he may have scored from his pre-packaged zingers blaming Harris for all of America’s immigration problems.
All in all, no one should be surprised that the veep debate will not be a game-changer. One revealing way to evaluate the importance of the veep debate is to ponder and answer the question, “Do I know of anyone who has changed their vote because of a vice presidential nominee’s debate performance?”
Kamala’s team has apparently chosen a “don’t rock the boat” strategy overall. So it is betting it is already going to win.
Walz’ performance was mostly about not alienating voters who may switch back to Trump.
The only red line at the debate was therefore the peaceful transfer of power.
Walz performed moderately on most other issues.
The problem is this strategy relies on voters caring enough about a lot of less salient issues and be willing to give Kamala a chance regarding the two highest salience issues.
Democrats are playing a weak hand on the economy and immigration. They have a contradictory record on tariffs, borders and energy.
Trump and Vance have been able to tie Kamala to Biden’s record without being able to argue that Trump was also in office in an aggressive way).
Vance was better able than Trump to exploit Democrats’ weaknesses. He clearly did a better SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats). Democrats are extremely vulnerable going into the future against non-Trump candidates given their past records.
Democrats are unable to articulate narratives about the Republican party as a whole. This is how Democrats end up paying the price for neoliberal globalization even though they are a left wing party.
Democrats are fearful of claiming their actual legacy as their (exclusive) own. Even on healthcare, they insist on calling it the Affordable Care Act even after Obamacare became popular.
Attacks against Republicans would have to target the party as an ideology, be thorough, aggressive and repetitive. They could target infrastructure spending, fiscal deficits, trade deficits and the legislative and judicial record on healthcare, childrearing, abortion and immigration.
Democrats could hang the “do nothing” sign around the Republican Congress (if it wasn’t for people like Manchin/Sinema).
Vance exemplifies even better than Trump the Republican strategy of trying to appear like a party that cares about the economic wellbeing of people, even while blocking almost all actual legislation (either in Congress or thru the courts). Democrats’ strategy in Congress lets the GOP get away with this too.
The debate format clearly favours the lying side.
On this occasion the absence of introductory statements hurt Walz. He was caught off guard by the Iran question, was hurt by having to answer first right off the bat and failed to bring up Republican’s isolationist strategy (exemplified by Vance even more than Trump).
The 2 minute format lets Republican candidates get away with a litany of lies. The format should be reduced to 1 minute or preferably 30 seconds, with multiple follow up questions from moderators and rivals.
The question choices by moderators were very often disgraceful. From the choice of beginning with a foreign affairs question to the framing of questions with very negative leads (specially those regarding Kamala’s plans), the moderators’ interventions actually subtracted at almost every turn.
Trying to appear impartial is a tough job when you have an insurrectionist party. So it was disappointing to see Walz’ not better prepared or able to pivot foreseeable questions towards Democrats’ strengths and Republicans’ weakness.