Why the Recent Vice-Presidential Debate Matters — By Nicole Kiprilov
In the days following last week’s vice-presidential debate, there has been a barrage of polling and commentary focused on how the debate does not matter. While it is true that, historically and statistically, vice-presidential debates do little to shift public opinion, this particular debate between Vance and Walz is different in three important ways.
First, the debate showed that Vance complements Trump in a way that expands the ticket’s vision for America. This is important because Americans ultimately vote for a vision. Second, the debate is taking place in the context of unprecedented political times, which puts more emphasis on every public forum the candidates engage in, including last week’s debate. Third, both Harris and Walz, since becoming a ticket, have given the fewest number of interviews and press conferences out of any presidential duo in history. This fact increases the significance of the debate as one of the few significant ways Americans can learn about the little-known Walz.
On the first point, Trump and Vance are complementary in a way that is unusual for a Republican ticket. Since 1984, which is when the first vice-presidential debate took place, there have been few tickets in which the vice-presidential pick has contributed positively to the presidential candidate’s vision. For example, in 2008, John McCain’s pick, Sarah Palin, ended up hurting McCain in the polls due to uncertainty about her qualifications and competence. McCain even acknowledged later on that he regretted picking Palin. In 2016, Mike Pence, Trump’s pick, was a standard, run-of-the-mill conservative who neither brought a fresh perspective on Trump’s vision nor was particularly engaging or charismatic to voters.
The debate last week showed that Vance is a unique pick in that he supplements Trump’s America-First vision. Trump’s vision, fundamentally, is about common sense, strength, and competence. Vance not only possesses common sense, strength, and competence, but also complements this vision with the additions of humaneness, empathy, relatability, and intellect. Unlike Pence, Vance is a force to be reckoned with. Taken as a collective, the comprehensive vision that the Trump-Vance ticket is putting forth is not just about Making America Great Again, which is the root of the vision; it is also a people-first, rather than party-first or elite-first. It is vision that focuses on fixing a country that has never been so broken in our lifetime. Even before Vance became the vice-presidential nominee, his relatability was evident through the popular appeal of his book, Hillbilly Elegy. The debate last week allowed the American people to see that crucial aspect come through in a direct way as Vance answered each question with strength, intellect, and poise, and also treated Walz with respect. On the immigration issue, Trump brought an unmistakable urgency and call to action to the issue during his debate with Kamala Harris. During the vice-presidential debate, Vance supplemented that urgency with specific facts and stories.
In 2008, Americans voted for Barack Obama based on a very clear vision:“Change we can believe in.” Even those voters who predominantly support Trump because of his direct, no-nonsense personality are ultimately voting for the vision that his personality conveys: a vision that asserts, “We will get the job done.” For many voters, Vance is the critical intermediator between them and Trump because he provides a more detailed explanation of what “getting the job done” means.
Beyond the complementarity of Trump and Vance, there is also the reality that the debate took place during unique political times, defined by two assassination attempts of a former president and (current Republican nominee), a coup against the Democratic nominee, and far-reaching uncertainty at home and abroad.
Last week’s debate follows an unprecedented political move from the Left, namely, switching out their nominee with someone who received zero votes from the American people. The first presidential debate was the most salient tool the Left used to throw out a weaker Joe Biden and prop-up a much more radical Kamala Harris (a more coachable and superficially competent puppet in the Left’s well-oiled political machine). After the whole country witnessed the power of the first presidential debate, it becomes more difficult to make the case that a debate following all of this does not matter.
The timing of the vice-presidential debate within the context of two unprecedented assassination attempts on Donald Trump is also significant. The first assassination attempt was on July 13th, a little less than two months before the presidential debate between Trump and Harris on September 10th. The news cycle in those two months leading up to the debate was significantly impacted by scrutiny regarding an unprecedented failure of the Secret Service. Following the presidential debate, there was yet another attempt on Donald Trump’s life only five days after the debate. Two weeks later, the vice-presidential debate coincided with Iran’s ballistic missile attack on Israel, caused by the Biden-Harris administration’s disastrous foreign policy, and one of the deadliest hurricanes of the modern era, mishandled in part thanks to the Biden-Harris administration’s allocation of over $1 billion in FEMA disaster funding for illegal immigrant housing.
The timing of the vice-presidential debate here is important because it is nestled within some of the worst controversies, corruption, and policy disasters of our lifetime. There is unlikely to be another debate before Election Day, which leaves the vice-presidential debate as the last major confrontation between both camps before voters hit the polls on November 5th. Couple that with earlier access to ballots in some key swing states, and what we have is a unique political climate where more voters than ever are paying attention.
Lastly, the debate last week was one of the only ways Americans can learn more about the Democratic ticket, especially considering Harris and Walz have provided virtually zero coherent answers to questions the American people are asking. Not only has Harris flip-flopped on key issues, but she has also failed to provide specific policy solutions to issues she caused in the first place. Polling has shown that undecided voters especially want more answers from Harris before going to the polls.
At this point in time, Harris has gone more than 80 days as the Democratic nominee for president, and she has yet to hold an official press conference. She has continuously dodged the press, and is well on track to give the fewest number of interviews and press conferences out of any presidential nominee in history. This inaccessibility and failure to be held accountable makes the Walz-Vance debate, again, that much more significant. Voters still feel like they do not know Harris, and the debate was one of the only ways these voters could attempt to get at least some answers and clarification.
As we get closer to Election Day, more people are paying attention to what Harris and Walz are saying, and reports so far show that both the presidential and vice-presidential debates have received unusually heightened scrutiny. When the American people have virtually nothing else to go on in the last two and a half months of Harris’s candidacy, this scrutiny makes sense.
The “vibes” of the DNC may have lasted for some time after the convention, but they quickly started to wear off and the truth began to set in. The public started to ask more questions, and the sparse, pre-recorded interviews have not been cutting it. Therefore, the vice-presidential debate remains an important source of information, especially for undecided voters.
Comments are closed.
