Debate Expectations: One More Time
Another opportunity for contrasts
Vice presidential debates usually matter to presidential campaigns about as much as vice presidential nominees—which is to say not very much.
Arguably the most memorable exchange to come out of a vice presidential debate was this response by Michael Dukakis’ running mate Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen to a youthful Dan Quayle’s assertion that he had “as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency”:
Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.
Dukakis and Bentsen lost the 1988 election to George Bush and Dan Quayle.
Such is the traditional value of vice presidential debates. Bentsen’s prepared zinger was great news copy, but it didn’t salvage a sinking campaign.
Tomorrow evening on CBS, we will be treated to the lone vice presidential debate of the 2024 contest, which is also likely to be the last debate overall. Unless Donald Trump changes his mind and decides to face Kamala Harris one more time—and I’m not holding my breath—the face-off between Tim Walz and J.D. Vance will be the final time the public gets to see the campaign’s principals on the same stage.
This adds a degree of prominence to an event that is usually sandwiched between two presidential debates and forgotten as soon as it ends. In this unusual campaign, it’s possible that tomorrow’s debate will serve as a reminder of the stylistic and substantive differences between the tickets just as early voting is starting to ramp up.
Style
Tim Walz has added more than what the typical running mate offers a ticket, and his turn on the debate stage has the potential to give the campaign more than the usual fleeting boost.
The Harris/Walz ticket is greater than the sum of its parts. Walz has contributed to the overall sense of joy exuded by the campaign and has helped expand its reach into corners of white middle America. He can play on these advantages in the debate, using it as an opportunity to display a forward-looking optimism that contrasts starkly with the dark vision J.D. Vance is certain to peddle.
The nominee who revels in his coach persona can remind people why they like him. And they do like him. Of the four principals he is the most highly regarded and is above water on net favorability—something that’s almost impossible to accomplish in our divided times. (His running mate is in positive territory as well.)
J.D. Vance—well, that’s a different matter. Vance is the least well regarded of the four, with a dismal net favorability score of -11. Only about one-third of the country views him favorably. Almost half the country does not.
As you’ve heard me say before, debates reinforce impressions more than they change minds. This gives Walz an advantage because people are already inclined to like him, and it puts pressure on Vance to perform better than he has been doing in interviews and at campaign stops.
Substance
The debate will also draw attention to two starkly different agendas. Expect Walz to remind the public about Project 2025 every chance he gets and to tie it to his opponent, who reportedly prepped for the debate with one of its authors.
The list of topics they’re likely to cover is fairly predictable, mirroring the presidential debate. The economy. Abortion. Immigration (look for the Ohio senator to get a question about Springfield). Ukraine and the Middle East. And because this is a network television debate, expect a fair number of irrelevant horserace questions.
Again, keep an eye on contrasts. While the content of the candidates’ answers is important, the debate offers an opportunity for viewers to compare how the two campaigns view the world we are in and the world they would create.
The Rules
After the ABC moderators called out Donald Trump’s lies during the presidential debate, CBS has decided to avoid the heat that caused, abdicate their journalistic responsibility, and leave it to the candidates to fact check each other. If you want to know the truth, you’re going to have to turn to the CBS live blog or wait for post-debate analysis.
This awful decision will make it easier for Vance to lie about immigration, the economy, crime—about everything really—without being challenged. Walz will have to strike a balance between addressing his opponent’s false claims and saving time to make an affirmative case. That shouldn’t be his job.
Otherwise, the vice presidential debate will look like the presidential debates before it, with the exception that the microphones of the candidates will not be muted at any time unless the moderators need to maintain order.
This shouldn’t be a big issue because Donald Trump won’t be on stage, however it does open the possibility for interesting cross talk between two candidates with very different styles.
There won’t be a studio audience, so the candidates will be speaking directly to home viewers without being cheered on by their supporters or shouted down by the other side. Whether this adds an element of sobriety depends on how the two interact.
Bottom Line
The Harris/Walz ticket is on offense going into the debate, and their campaign’s goal should be to remain on offense when it’s over. That means Walz needs to avoid blunders which give the media an opening to put the campaign on defense. Otherwise, he should exude the Minnesota Nice energy that has made him instantly popular while drawing distinctions with Vance at every turn.
Vance was aggressive on the debate stage when he was running for his Senate seat two years ago (albeit against a pugilistic opponent quite unlike Tim Walz), and there is reason to expect he will be aggressive tomorrow. It will be interesting to see how Walz prepares for the inevitable attacks.
It will also be instructive to see how ferociously Vance attacks. If he is overly aggressive against the ebullient coach he faces the risk of diminishing himself. He also risks being trapped by his campaign’s penchant for hyperbole, with one report suggesting Vance’s goal would be to “expose Walz's radical record and policy positions.” That approach may work at a MAGA rally, but to the rest of the country Walz hardly looks dangerous.
As Trump’s running mate, Vance may ultimately have no choice but to go over the top to satisfy the top of the ticket. If the campaign were strategic, instead of leaning into the exceedingly dark view of the world that exists in Donald Trump’s head, Vance would be free to moderate his rhetoric and positions to reach non-base voters who haven’t fully committed to Harris.
That’s hard to do when you are performing for an audience of one.
Donald Trump is going to look for affirmation from his running mate. This should prevent Vance from softening the campaign’s dire message. It will keep him bound to the untenable MAGA position on January 6. Absent the ability to answer direct questions about the unpopular positions he holds on key matters like reproductive freedom, it will leave him to evade, deflect, and lie.
Unlike his running mate, Vance is bright and articulate. But he has been an awful candidate, whose talent for obfuscation is surpassed only by an off-putting personality. Next to Walz, he risks looking evasive and extreme.
You never want to lower expectations and people can surprise, but candidates bring their expectations with them.
It’s probably safe to say he’s no Jack Kennedy.
I’ll take a high school history teacher over a Yale-educated sycophant who is ignorant of history any day (and twice on Tuesday!)
Please, please, please, please: at least one throwaway line tomorrow night about Vance and sofa molesting!!