Times Opinion asked 13 of our columnists and contributors to watch the vice-presidential debate on Tuesday night and assess who won and who lost. We also asked them to weigh in on the quality of the debate. Were the candidates inspiring, or was their face-off a depressing sign of everything that’s wrong with American politics?
Here’s what our columnists and contributors thought of the event. In a new feature, readers can score the debate, too, by dropping a pin on the scorecard to see how they stack up against other readers, as well as our contributors.
Who won and why
Binyamin Appelbaum, member of the editorial board JD Vance was more effective in presenting a version of his party’s ticket that might broaden its appeal. He made Trumpism sound polite, calm and coherent. The question is whether voters will credit a performance so strikingly at odds with the behavior and views of the man he was purporting to represent.
Josh Barro, author of the newsletter Very Serious Vance was far nimbler than the nervous Tim Walz, especially in the first half of the debate. But as the debate went on, Vance stumbled on two issues — abortion and the 2020 election — where his rhetorical skill could not salvage the very unappealing material he was working with.
Charles M. Blow, Times columnist Walz won. You could tell that he was a teacher, because he clearly did his homework. Anyone afraid that Vance would roll over him could breathe easily. Vance seemed to have been told not to come across as a condescending valedictorian. But he might have heeded that advice too well. Vance’s performance was anemic. Also, he had to contort himself to dodge Donald Trump’s statements and his own past statements.
Jamelle Bouie, Times columnist It’s a pretty straightforward verdict: Vance won this debate. It’s not hard to see why. He has spent most of his adult life selling himself to the wealthy, the powerful and the influential. He is as smooth and practiced as they come. He has no regard for the truth. He lies as easily as he breathes. We saw this throughout the debate. He told Americans that there are 20 million to 25 million “illegal aliens” — a lie. He told Americans that Mexico is responsible for the nation’s illegal gun problem — a lie. He told Americans that Trump actually tried to save the Affordable Care Act — a lie. If Vance had to sell the benefits of asbestos to win office, he would do it well and do it with a smile.
Jane Coaston, contributing Opinion writer Vance seemed smoother and more practiced, but “won” is a very strong term here.
Gail Collins, Times columnist Calling it a draw just because Walz was so bad in much of his delivery. Vance was a much more forceful speaker while spewing lies on everything from abortion to Biden’s foreign policy.
Ross Douthat, Times columnist For Vance, it was a commanding performance. For Walz, it was a nervous ramble. For the audience, it was the most civil and substantive debate of the Trump era.
Matt Labash, author of the newsletter Slack Tide Nobody truly dominated. But I’m giving the slight edge to Walz, since Vance embarrassingly soft-pedaled Jan. 6 and Trump posted this to Truth Social during the debate: “More Notes! Why Can’t Walz just remember what he has to say? Low IQ!” Reminding us that Vance’s boss should watch more Hallmark Channel, less Newsmax.
Katherine Mangu-Ward, editor of Reason Vance won. Compared with the candidates in the presidential debates, both vice-presidential candidates performed admirably. But if you watch enough “Love Is Blind,” you can forget that Jane Austen exists. Vance was facile and light on his feet, but this debate will not go down in the annals of great political rhetoric.
Daniel McCarthy, editor of the periodical Modern Age Vance won with a stronger start, then Walz lost with a closing statement boasting of a Harris coalition “from Bernie Sanders to Dick Cheney to Taylor Swift.” Socialism, endless war and manufactured teen feelings are the last things voters want or need in November.
Megan Stack, contributing Opinion writer Vance nimbly reframed questions to his advantage, sounded deeply concerned about ordinary Americans and managed to appear forthright even when sidestepping or dissembling. Vance ran circles around Walz. Until the very end, when the question of Jan. 6 and democracy shook Walz awake, he often looked woolly and discombobulated, widened eyes suggesting panic.
Farah Stockman, member of the editorial board I’d call it a tie. Vance did an excellent job of impersonating a decent man. Walz flubbed a number of answers — and dodged a question about whether he lied about being in China during the Tiananmen protests in 1989. But he recovered.
Peter Wehner, contributing Opinion writer Vance. He was sharp and in command and proved he’s an excellent debater. At times he tried too hard to appear likable; I came away more convinced that he’s a hollow man, radioactive and incendiary one day, conciliatory and agreeable the next. But the “good Vance” did a lot to repair his tattered image.
Most pivotal moment
Appelbaum The exchange on immigration. Vance played on fears of immigrants and deftly deflected a question about the dangers of such language by insisting he was focused on the welfare of “American citizens.” Meanwhile, instead of folksy Walz, the audience got a lecture on legislative procedure.
Barro Asked whether Trump lost the 2020 election, Vance replied “Tim, I’m focused on the future,” then pivoted to talk about the past: about pressure government officials put on social media platforms in 2021 to censor posts related to Covid. While some of Vance’s redirections in the debate were effective, this one just highlighted how he sold his soul to get on the ticket.
Blow Walz kept invoking his policies as governor and how national policies affected his state. Vance had no corresponding examples. It was a subtle but effective way of underscoring Walz’s executive governing experience, which marked him as more of a leader.
Bouie Vance won overall, but if there was one pivotal moment, it came at the end, when he refused to admit that Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election. Vance might have undermined his entire performance by indulging Trump’s election denialism.
Coaston Vance’s complete nonanswer to the Jan. 6 question.
Collins Maybe just when the Democratic vice-presidential candidate walked in, appearing super-nervous. That charming grin he’s so famous for was more of a desperate stare.
Douthat Vance set the tone during the initial foreign policy questions, when he offered a variation on the famous “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” question for world affairs and Walz could barely muster a response. That was the pattern of the whole night: Vance reliably gave the strongest version of the Trumpian case (including in areas where the Trumpian case is weak); Walz only intermittently offered anything like an effective counter and hardly ever turned the tables.
Labash There really weren’t any. Even though I just watched the debate, I’ve already forgotten it. So many factlets recited from memory, without anyone saying anything memorable. Maybe the Trump years have ruined vanilla politics forever.
Mangu-Ward In the final minutes, Walz landed confident hits on the facts and implications of Jan. 6. The debate didn’t go his way, but he finished robustly with the point that Trump’s behavior that day is the strongest case against a Trump-Vance ticket.
McCarthy Vance had a tougher second half than Walz but ended on a decisive point in favor of the Trump ticket: Harris has been in office for nearly four years and can’t credibly promise change, or as Vance put it, “Day 1 was 1,400 days ago, and her policies have made these problems worse.”
Stack Addressing Jan. 6, Walz finally found his voice and clarity. Suddenly the dynamic flipped, with Vance waffling and then pivoting to censorship rather than engaging with Trump’s efforts to subvert the results of the last election. But this moment came so late in the evening, it felt more like an epilogue than the main event.
Stockman When Vance portrayed Trump as the savior of Obamacare. The people I was watching with laughed out loud. They also laughed when Walz asked Vance whether Trump lost the 2020 election and Vance replied, “I’m focused on the future.”
Wehner There wasn’t one. A vice-presidential debate wouldn’t have mattered under any circumstances, but this one won’t move the needle at all. The debaters were at times respectful and agreed with each other, but the debate itself will be forgotten by the end of the week.
Something small but revealing …
Appelbaum For 90 minutes, this debate felt almost like a throwback to a more innocent time when all that was at stake in a presidential election was peace and prosperity. Then in the final few minutes, anyone still watching was reminded that Vance, like his running mate, doesn’t regard himself as bound by the results of democratic elections. It was a strange thing to save for the end.
Barro While a lot of predebate coverage focused on the idea that Walz and Vance have an unusual level of animus, the debate was remarkably civil, policy-focused and normal. It’s a preview of what politics might look like someday when we again have an election not involving Trump.
Blow Vance’s cerise tie was … a choice.
Bouie Vance’s quip that many Americans don’t agree with him on abortion really underplayed the fact that his position — that there’s little to nothing that would entitle a woman to terminate a pregnancy — is toxic to a vast majority of Americans.
Coaston Vance saying that Republicans needed to “earn” back the trust of the American people on abortion. I wonder why. Once again, Dobbs remains the single greatest “dog that caught the car” moment in political history.
Collins When Walz pointed out that, despite his claims to the contrary, Trump did lose the election in 2020 and Vance replied, “I’m focused on the future.”
Douthat On almost every policy issue that came up, Vance was armed with much more detail than Walz; on many of those policy issues, he staked out a position that could be framed as more moderate or centrist than his party’s orthodoxy. That’s a very Bill Clintonian combination, one that wins debates — and elections.
Labash Interesting that Vance — normally so preoccupied with masculinity issues — wore a hot pink tie. Is he showing us his softer side?
Mangu-Ward In an exchange about censorship, the candidates squabbled over what constitutes “shouting fire in a crowded theater.” That phrase turns up, like a bad penny, anytime someone is struggling to justify unconstitutional censorship. It originates in the context of Schenck v. United States, a 1919 Supreme Court case about anti-draft pamphleting, and it is one of the most misunderstood and misused phrases in legal history.
McCarthy Walz often talked about farms, whereas Vance emphasized manufacturing. Walz’s agricultural focus might have helped him in Minnesota, but it’s a gamble when the industrial work force is likely to be decisive in Pennsylvania and other battleground states this year.
Stack The candidates were each asked about embarrassing or dishonest statements. Walz rambled and fumbled and called himself a “knucklehead” but never explained, even when pressed by the moderator. Vance, on the other hand, simply said that he’d been wrong and wanted to be honest about having been wrong.
Stockman Vance admitted several times that his party had lost trust on abortion.
Wehner Vance — because he was quite good and Trump was so awful — must have had MAGA Republicans all over the country admit, if only to themselves, that Trump is not just flawed but deranged. For them, it must have been 90 minutes of enormous relief. Oh, and Vance’s excellent reviews will enrage Trump. So will the fact that Vance seemed more interested in repairing his own image than being Trump’s attack dog.
The post ‘He Made Trumpism Sound Polite, Calm and Coherent’: 13 Writers on JD Vance’s Debate Performance appeared first on New York Times.
