Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz had a parallel in Kentucky’s upset of Ole Miss last weekend.
By playing four nonconference “cupcakes” to start the season, the Rebels were not prepared for the rugged defense of a Southeastern Conference team. Similarly, because of the Harris-Walz campaign’s calculated decision to avoid press conferences and other potentially feisty exchanges with the news media, the Democratic running mate was unprepared for the type of questioning he got from the debate’s moderators.
The Minnesota governor appeared rattled at times, jumbled his words on a couple of occasions and was surprisingly unprepared for the toughest question he fielded: how to explain his claim, recently refuted in the press, of having been in Hong Kong during the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. After trying to talk around the question, Walz eventually acknowledged that he misspoke — yet another in a series of embellishments or misleading claims which have been exposed since Kamala Harris selected Walz to join her on the Democratic ticket.
He also let Vance get away without challenge for the preposterous claim that Donald Trump saved Obamacare from collapse. While in office, the Republican first tried to repeal the law, more formally known as the Affordable Care Act. When that didn’t work, he did his best — unsuccessfully we might add — to keep enrollments down in the federally subsidized insurance exchanges.
Vance, meanwhile, was composed and prepared with his answers, providing a softer, more empathetic side than he has shown on the campaign trail. The Ohio senator was effective in trying to tie Harris to the unpopular policies of the Biden administration, particularly as it pertains to the economy and immigration. And he parried most of the tough questions, except for one, and it came from Walz in the Democrat’s strongest moment of the night.
When the debate turned to the topic of the 2020 election and Trump’s efforts to overturn the result and his continuing lies about the outcome, Walz pressed Vance on whether he believed Trump won the election four years ago.
“I’m focused on the future,” Vance responded.
“That is a damning non-answer,” Walz aptly pointed out and suggested that Vance, should Trump win the White House, would be more likely to stand with his boss than stand up for democracy.
It was a departure — but a necessary one — from what was generally a civil, issue-oriented exchange between the two running mates. Both went out of their way to emphasize areas they share in common, including an unfortunate tendency to get their facts wrong.
All in all, though, Vance outpointed his Democratic opponent. He also seemed fresher at the end than Walz, 20 years his senior, and appeared to enjoy the pressure-filled encounter more.
Not that any of this will matter all that much in determining the outcome of the presidential race.
Voters make their choices based on who is at the top of the ticket. A vice presidential nominee can hurt the presidential candidate but is unlikely to sway many voters.
Vance did what he needed to do, and Walz did as well for the most part. Should circumstance cause either to wind up as president, either seems capable enough of handling the awesome responsibility.
