oiip

J.D. Vance’s Vice-Presidential Debate Performance: From Controversial to Civil

Commentary by Tobias Gerber
4 October 2024

J.D. Vance’s Vice-Presidential Debate Performance: From Controversial to Civil

After Donald Trump’s unhinged performance in the last presidential debate, claiming that illegal immigrants were "eating the dogs", the anticipation for the vice-presidential debate between Tim Walz and J.D. Vance was palpable. The difference in style and substance between the former American football coach and the Yale graduate made for a tough, uncivil debate. But the opposite occurred. J.D. Vance played the role of the polished statesman and moderate Republican – and in doing so, he accomplished exactly what he needed to prove: That he could be the next vice president and, ultimately, the next Republican nominee for president of the United States.

Vice-presidential debates rarely affect the outcome of U.S. presidential elections. But with the race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump so close, it certainly felt different this time. Seven states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and perhaps most importantly, Pennsylvania – will decide who sits in the Oval Office in late January 2025. And the polls suggest that it is really close. To win in these swing states, both tickets need the support of white, non-college-educated, middle-class workers from rural and suburban America. Tim Walz and J.D. Vance, both with credible rural middle-class backgrounds, are trying to do just that.

However, the Republican senator from Ohio has gotten off to a rough start in this regard. Vance has attracted a lot of media attention in recent months for his controversial, some might say extreme, comments. From accusing female leaders of being "childless cat ladies", to calling for parents to have more votes than non-parents, to claiming that childless people have no "physical commitment" to the country, to "making up stories" about dogs and cats being eaten by illegal immigrants in Springfield, Ohio – J.D. Vance was not your typical choice for vice president. Not to mention his past comments about Donald Trump being "an idiot" and possibly the next "American Hitler".

Given this history, it was surprising how civil and respectful J.D. Vance was on the debate stage. He came across as well-prepared, articulate and presidential. And he actually talked about Republican policies, something Donald Trump consistently fails to do. This is exactly what Republican strategists have been waiting for, as Harris’s campaign is primarily based on her personal qualities, but vague on policy. Vance’s attacks on Kamala Harris focused on key Republican talking points such as inflation and illegal immigration – both issues of great concern to many Americans. Instead of name-calling or interrupting his opponent, he laid out what is true for many Americans: they were better off economically under Trump than they are now. Unfortunately, this is especially true for the demographic that both J.D. Vance and Tim Walz are trying to secure.

Tim Walz, the former football coach and high school teacher, matched Vance’s respectfulness. Considering that he is not known for being the best debater, he did very well. His strongest moments came when defending abortion rights, telling the stories of women affected by the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, gun legislation and health care, although his delivery sometimes seemed over-rehearsed and shaky. When J.D. Vance claimed that Trump had left office peacefully, Walz deftly reminded him of the January 6 riot at the Capitol and the fact that Trump has yet to concede the last election. He tried to convey optimism, and a belief in a better future, the “American Dream” – no easy task when housing and food prices have risen to the point that many Americans are struggling to make ends meet.

Despite Walz’s strong performance, it was a better night for J.D. Vance. Not only did he make the case that life was better for many Americans under Trump, but for a candidate once labeled a radical, he showed he could appeal to moderate Republicans and independents by downplaying his hardline stances on abortion and other issues. Instead, he emphasized what people really care about: the rising cost of living and the United States' broken immigration system. His strategy was clear: appeal to those moderate Republicans who don’t like Donald Trump but are unhappy with the Biden-Harris administration. He succeeded.

Walz did well, but he missed an opportunity. The goal should have been to show the American public that Vance is a controversial, highly conservative Republican with extreme views – an addition rather than a stabilizing factor in a possible next Trump administration. Walz failed to make this point and let Vance off too easily.

In the end, this debate will not fundamentally change the prospects of either the Democrats or the Republicans. According to the New York Times, snap surveys suggest that voters do not believe that either candidate has won a decisive victory. However, J.D. Vance seems more "normal", more "acceptable" as a vice president after this debate. Whether he can maintain this persona and ultimately become the young, sophisticated face of Trumpism remains to be seen.