A few weeks ago, in Philadelphia, Vice President Kamala Harris rattled Donald Trump on camera in their first televised face-off. After weeks of raising more money and improving in all polls to narrow the wide gap that the Republican had over Joe Biden, she prevailed in the heated debate by presenting herself to the American public as a solid, capable candidate, much more stable than her rival, who lost his nerves and showed his most irascible side.
This Monday, their second-in-commands, J.D. Vance and Tim Walz, faced off in a similar setting, this time on CBS, with an almost identical format, but with a different outcome, tone, and also consequences. A debate, not a war, much more civilized, polite, focused on specific policies, but also boring at times. Without major clashes or hardly any incidents, except for a small skirmish between Vance and the moderators, echoing what his boss experienced after receiving a live fact-check on one of his (false and incorrect) claims about immigrants and refugees from the town of Springfield, Ohio, accused of eating their neighbors' pets.
Vance performed better than Walz. Not overwhelmingly, but he showed throughout the night as a better speaker, more prepared, assertive but without stridency, relaxed, especially in the early stages and launching better attacks at the vice president. After the numerous criticisms he received since his appointment, and despite Trump's own doubts in recent months because Vance seemed to detract more than add, a much more 'presidential' side was seen, even moderate, with some acrobatics on abortion or climate change that he handled as best as he could. He can say what the Maga audience wants at rallies, demonizing immigrants or calling for mass deportations according to "Christian principles," but also what the undecided crave, sober speeches. If someone heard Vance for the first time yesterday, they wouldn't recognize what Harris and Walz have been saying about him for months.
The great success of the Republican vice-presidential candidate was that he did the debate that Trump should have done against Harris, for which he had been prepared, in fact. Insisting that she is not a "candidate for change" unaware of what is happening, but the vice president of the world's leading power for three and a half years. Demanding that she take responsibility for what she has done, and especially what she has not done, instead of boasting about what she will do if elected. Pointing to inflation, citizens' problems. Without insults, bad manners, or tantrums.
The Democrat, who has a much more extensive political career, with 12 years of experience in Congress and five more as governor of Minnesota, started incredibly nervous, erratic, even confusing Israel and Iran twice in his first intervention. International politics is not his strong suit, and as the topics shifted to what he masters, he calmed down, focused, and improved, but without causing damage. He could showcase his experience, his role in specific public policies (Vance has been in the Senate for less than two years). And he was much better speaking about Healthcare and the consequences of medical insurance prices or Trump's contradictions about easing the housing problem by building on the same public lands he wants to drill for oil.
But if the goal was to demonstrate that his rival was a radical, that he is dangerous, that his campaign is a threat to peaceful transition and to democracy with capital letters, he did not succeed. He came close when he urged Vance twice to say out loud that Trump lost the 2020 election, and reproached him for dodging the question. But even though the Republican did not do it, because that would unleash Trump's wrath, Walz let go of the bone and let him come out alive from the only situation where he was visibly cornered.
The three main differences between this clash and that of their bosses are that it will not sway many votes, and probably almost none among the undecided; it is clear that if Trump is not involved, there can be a normal debate; and that they do not despise each other, do not hate each other, and felt no need to exhibit personal differences in addition to political ones. They greeted each other warmly when they met, because they had not crossed paths before (Harris and Trump neither, but their greeting was clearly uncomfortable, forced), they treated each other with total respect and focused their criticisms on their leaders' policies, not on their personal views. Vance even showed his more empathetic side when Walz explained that his teenage son had witnessed a shooting in the past.
Just over 30 days until the elections
Walz's team assumed that Vance would stick to past statements that have been proven false, and that he would be aggressive, as he has been throughout the campaign, but that was not the case. He took on a discreet profile, also appealing to consensus with Walz and emphasizing the benefits of bipartisan agreements. Something that surprised analysts and strategists and changed the course.
The debate came at a critical moment, just over 30 days until the elections, with the polls showing an extremely close result, the country divided in two, and a cascade of national news, natural disasters, and maximum tension in the Middle East. The saying in the country is that a presidential debate does not make elections, but it can make them lose. There is nothing equivalent at the second level. Vice presidents have not had a leading, starring role for a long time, but ironically the face-off took place on the day Jimmy Carter, the man who gave the most power to his vice president (Walter Mondale) in contemporary politics, turned 100.
However, all media attention was on the CBS studio in New York, much more than on the campaign events of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris; and even more than on the devastated areas of Georgia and North Carolina, after the passage of Hurricane Helene, which has killed more than 160 people since the weekend, with 100 more missing.
Vance has extensive and valuable experience in communication (in the Marines or at Yale University) and in national live television. He spent years honing and building his political profile by regularly appearing on top-rated programs, in prime time on Fox News and on major weekend interview shows. Walz has had good performances on the same Fox this year, but always in opposition, to criticize Trump, not to defend Harris or himself. He lacked experience, hours under the spotlight with uncomfortable moments, learning to ignore criticism, control emotions. And that cost him, being unable to capitalize on the opportunities he had to counter, point fingers.
Curiously, both used the same techniques to avoid the most uncomfortable topics. When Vance was asked at the beginning if he supported an Israeli attack on the Iranian nuclear program, he did what he knew he had to do regardless of the question: tell his personal story, talking about a poor, dysfunctional family, with drug problems and military programs to go to college. When Walz was asked about a falsehood he repeated about being in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen massacre, he dodged the question by talking about his life as a teacher.