Vice presidential candidates JD Vance and Tim Walz faced off in a debate on Tuesday, and it was surprisingly decent. They greeted each other with handshakes—twice before and once after the debate—and maintained a civil tone throughout.
While the candidates found common ground on some issues, they also disagreed on many points, staying mostly on topic. Vance effectively targeted Kamala Harris with some sharp remarks, while Walz took aim at Donald Trump. Commentators noted Vance’s strong performance in the first half and Walz’s in the latter half, meaning both sides will likely claim victory.
So, who really won the debate? I’d give the slight edge to the moderators, Margaret Brennan and Norah O’Donnell from CBS News, who fulfilled their roles well.
Some viewers may critique the moderators for not rigorously fact-checking the candidates. Instead, they prompted the candidates to hold each other accountable. There were, however, moments of fact-checking; Brennan called Vance out on a climate change claim, leading to a tense exchange when she noted that Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, were in the U.S. legally. This sparked a lengthy explanation from Vance, which was abruptly cut off when Brennan informed the candidates that their microphones were muted.
MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace remarked, “The moderators did a great job, and they also used their mic muting power. If you’re a woman, that might be the worst moment JD Vance had, because he was going to mansplain right over that mute button.”
Despite a lack of extensive on-air fact-checking, the moderators covered key topics like immigration, healthcare, women’s rights, child care, climate (including Hurricane Helene), guns, the economy, and democracy, addressing Vance’s past comments on Trump and Walz’s military background. An unexpected omission was the lack of questions about Ukraine, which was surprising given its current relevance.
Overall, it was a strong night for Margaret Brennan and O’Donnell. When the candidates dominate the discussion and the moderators take a backseat, it typically signifies a successful performance on their part.
Following the debate, networks offered mixed analyses, with some declaring Vance the winner while others leaned toward Walz. There were also the usual interviews with purported undecided voters, raising eyebrows about whether anyone could still be swayed by a vice presidential debate.
However, this raises an important question: Did the debate even matter?
In a pre-debate discussion featuring four New York Times opinion columnists, David Brooks expressed skepticism about the electoral significance of debate performances. He noted, “As for debate performances, I genuinely don’t think it matters electorally. V.P.s scarcely matter even in the most volatile of campaigns. This year, voters are locked in. The election is being shaped by basic demographic and economic realities, not the day-to-day doings of the candidates. Harris did a total beat-down on Trump in the debate, and it helped her in the national polling a bit, but not by much. I’m struck by how few people I meet who want to talk about the campaign.”
Tressie McMillan Cottom echoed this sentiment, stating, “I agree that this debate will not matter electorally. No one chooses a president based on a vice-president debate.”
CNN’s David Axelrod summed up the night by saying, “I don’t think it changes the race at all. It was an interesting night, but I don’t think it changes the race at all.”
