The vice-presidential debate between Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is far less heated than last month’s showdown between former President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. Maybe not, but as the last scheduled debate on the 2024 calendar, it could still change the race.
For both sides, the debate has largely become a proxy battle over who can better define and defend the top candidate’s vision and point out inconsistencies.
Mr. Walz, 60, and Mr. Vance, 40, have already been engaged in a war of words from afar, and the governor was chosen after he and Mr. Vance effectively touted the Republican ticket as “bizarre.” Both men are military veterans, and Mr. Vance questioned Mr. Walz’s military service shortly after his election, a predictable attack during a debate hosted by CBS News.
Both candidates will be standing, and unlike in a presidential showdown, microphones will not be muted, likely leading to a lively exchange of opinions and insults.
Here are five things to keep in mind:
Which persona will dominate, folky or innovative?
First, Mr. Vance and Mr. Walz have proven to be debaters and resourceful communicators.
One of the things that helped propel Mr. Walz onto the national ticket was his vulnerable speaking style, both on national cable TV appearances and in private interactions with Mr. Harris. Since then, the Harris campaign has pivoted to portraying Harris as a Midwestern father, with the vice president introducing him as “Coach Walts” and talking about his time as a football coach.
For Walz, this debate was more than a scripted moment on stage at the Democratic convention or a carefully edited campaign video like the one that took viewers under the hood of the 1979 International Harvester Scout. This will be the perfect opportunity to show off his side.
Mr. Vance gave more interviews than anyone on either ticket, happily colliding with mainstream news outlets on TV news programs and in person. He’s also breaking away from hyper-online, aggressively combative conservatism that can come across as harsh and offensive to a broader, more mainstream audience.
But he has been careful to appear more thoughtful and polite on TV, a skill he demonstrated during the 2022 Senate debate. Mr. Vance has also worked on this initiative, including recruiting Rep. Tom Emmer to stand in for Mr. Walz, a fellow Minnesotan, in mock debate exercises.
Which is most offensive: a “dangerously liberal” attack or a simply “weird” one?
Vice presidential debates are inherently difficult for participants, and most voters vote based on the top of the ticket. That means candidates must focus their attacks on their opponent’s vice president, rather than their opponent behind the other podium, while avoiding the stumbling blocks of harmful words.
Both players have so far attempted to accomplish this with a wide enough attack to cover the entire ticket.
For Walz, that meant calling the Trump-Vance team “bizarre.” “They’re weird people on the other side,” Walz said in July. “They want to take away the books. They want to go to your doctor’s office.”
It’s part of a broader Democratic effort to frame the Republican ticket as extreme, focused on bizarre and divisive issues rather than the needs of average Americans. Walz, who flipped a Republican-held House district in 2006, has a more progressive track record as governor but is particularly experienced in appealing to moderate voters at the debate stage.
Vance attacked Harris-Waltz’s ticket as “dangerously liberal,” targeted the vice president’s immigration policies, implied she was soft on crime and said, “This is the worst thing we’ve seen in this country.” All the problems that are happening are all her fault.” The past three and a half years. ”
The debate could become about which attempts to brand the other side are more effective.
Will Vance be able to reintroduce his fascinating life story?
The life story that first made Mr. Vance a national figure, told in his best-selling memoir “Hillbilly Elegy,” has been largely overshadowed by the back-and-forth of national races.
The debate was an emotional moment for Vance, who said he survived in a family with a drug-addicted mother and was raised in part by his grandmother, “Mamaw” (the name us hillbillies gave us). This is an opportunity to reintroduce this country to a compelling story. Grandmothers,” he explained in his convention speech.
His book became a must-read for many liberals after Trump was first elected in 2016, leading to Trump’s victory despite polls showing him trailing. It was treated as a guide to the disillusionment of the American center.
Polls to date have shown that Mr. Vance is generally not rated as highly as Mr. Walz. Mr. Vance’s favorable rating among the public is 11 points higher, compared to 4 points for Mr. Walz, who is viewed more favorably than unfavorably, according to an average from the polling website FiveThirtyEight. Vance will likely resume his role as a designated attack dog, but a few soft-focus reflexes could buffer his image.
Another part of Mr. Vance’s past is expected to surface: his old criticism of Mr. Trump, in which he called him “cultural heroin” in 2016 and personally compared him to Adolf Hitler. Mr. Vance has already answered these questions many times, but this time he will answer them in front of what he believes is the campaign’s largest audience.
Will their military service be a clap line or an attack line?
One of the two is the first military veteran to win a national election as vice presidential candidate since Army veteran Al Gore, who was Bill Clinton’s Democratic nominee in 1992 and 1996. becomes. Mr. Walz served as president for 24 years. A National Guard member, Mr. Vance spent four years in the Marine Corps.
Earlier in the race, Vance accused his opponent of “stolen courage,” pointing to old footage of Walz talking about supporting a ban on “the kinds of weapons I carried in war.” At that time, their service became an issue. ”
Like Vance, Walz has never been involved in a gunfight on the front lines of a battlefield. Mr. Vance was stationed in Iraq as part of a media relations team, and Mr. Walz was stationed in Italy during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.
Four veterans investigating claims of fraudulent military service told the New York Times that they do not believe Mr. Walz engaged in “stolen valor,” but that Mr. Walz sometimes lies about his record. He said he gave an explanation or made inaccurate statements.
Asked about his earlier remarks in an interview with CNN, Walz suggested he had made a mistake, but did not explain exactly what he meant. “My grammar isn’t always correct,” he told CNN.
Who wins in a conflict over cultural issues?
While topics such as the economy have always been top of mind for voters, and Mr. Trump has a clear advantage in that regard, a variety of cultural issues have come to dominate presidential campaigns.
Both sides see an opportunity.
Mr. Walz and his party have positioned the issue as one of privacy and personal freedom, and are working to leverage anger over widespread abortion restrictions to support Democrats.
“Mind your own business,” Waltz likes to say.
Vance finds the topic of abortion rights difficult to grasp. He has made comments about women and families in the past that have angered even his own party, such as mocking “childless cat ladies.” Taken together, Walz may have an opportunity to attack.
Vance, by contrast, has signaled a willingness to join the Harris-Waltz ticket on immigration and border security, accusing Democrats of being ill-equipped to deal with the immigration crisis hitting American cities.
Mr. Vance also promoted the wild and debunked claim that Haitian immigrants eat family pets. In a recent interview with CNN, he defended the baseless claims, saying he was trying to “create a narrative” by “getting the American media to pay attention to it.”
For Democrats, this was evidence that Vance was deliberately spreading false information. For conservatives, this was a great example of pushing back against the mainstream news media.
What could matter most on Tuesday is how these conflicts will be perceived by a small but important group of voters who have not yet decided who to vote for or whether to vote at all.
