v/02vpdebate-jpgv-facebookJumbo.jpg
If a presidential election is a TV series — and partly it is, like it or not — then the vice-presidential debate is usually a departure episode: an installment that briefly shifts focus to a couple of side characters. It might be memorable or forgettable, but it is generally skippable.
Tuesday’s debate between Senator JD Vance of Ohio and Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota was a bit different. With only Kamala Harris having committed to an Oct. 23 debate proffered by CNN and Donald J. Trump having thus far declined, it may well have been the last big prime-time moment until election night.
It was not, however, a bombshell-packed season-ender. The change in cast produced a change in style, in a spirited but often surprisingly collegial debate whose attacks were largely aimed offstage, at the leaders of the ticket.
This was not the debate one might have expected from these candidates, each chosen in part for his media presence. Mr. Vance has been combative in TV interviews, embodying the trolling spirit of Mr. Trump’s most extremely online surrogates. Mr. Walz shot to fame on the strength of his cable news appearances and quirky viral videos, playing the down-to-earth happy warrior who mocked opponents as “weird.”
Neither performed to type on the CBS stage. Mr. Vance, who can be cutting and snide in TV interviews (and has been notorious for insults like “childless cat ladies”), answered smoothly and kept mainly cordial to his opponent. Mr. Walz, while peppering his answers with folksy touches — “My pro tip of the day is this” — spoke in a nervous rush, with fewer flashes of “Coach Walz” pep.
A decade of Trump has conditioned us to think of debates as rounds of Mortal Kombat, with dire rhetoric and imagery to match. Here, there was a lot of “I agree” and “I think this is a healthy conversation” amid the factual disputes and prepared critiques of the top of the ticket. You might briefly have forgotten this was America in the year 2024.
Unlike at the two earlier presidential debates, the network rarely muted the candidates’ microphones, allowing the possibility of cross-talk. But the talk, with a few exceptions, refused to get cross.
CBS had also said before the debate that its moderators, Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan, would focus on facilitating exchanges rather than on fact-checking.
Fact-check: Not entirely. In a section on immigration, Ms. Brennan corrected Mr. Vance for implying that Haitian immigrants in Ohio were “illegal,” pointing out that “a large number” have legal status. This started a flare-up; Mr. Vance complained that there had been a “rule” against fact-checking (fact check: the debate ground rules did not state that), and both candidates’ microphones were muted amid the ensuing argument.
Conservative media, which has tended to see fact-checking as pro-Democrat at least since Candy Crowley’s correction of Mitt Romney in 2012, did not approve. On Fox News, Laura Ingraham condemned the moderators’ “smug and arrogant bias.” On X, Megyn Kelly simply posted, “F you CBS.”
The fact-checks were still fairly rare, however, as Mr. Vance spun a history in which Mr. Trump saved Obamacare (which he tried to repeal) and graciously left office in 2021. (CBS outsourced much of the work to its website, which it invited viewers to visit using an onscreen QR code.)
And while Mr. Vance has made a trade of attacking the media, he kept calm, coming across as the more assured, nimble and polished debater. Mr. Walz, who seemed stuffed to the gills with prepared responses, often tripped on his syntax and fumbled his lines. (“I’ve become friends with school shooters,” he said, referring to having met with the families of victims.)
Late in the debate, however, Mr. Walz took advantage of the opportunity for cross-talk to create one of the debate’s more replayable exchanges. Modern debates, after all, are often fought through internet and cable-news clips as much as they are fought on the stage. Turning to Mr. Vance amid a discussion of the Jan. 6 attack and democracy, Mr. Walz asked whether Mr. Trump had lost the 2020 election.
“Tim, I’m focused on the future,” was the response. Mr. Walz called it a “damning non-answer” but it may have been more pleasing to Mr. Trump, the audience of one who was live-reviewing his running mate’s performance on Truth Social.
Still, after one debate that ended a president’s candidacy and another in which Ms. Harris baited Mr. Trump to go on tilt, there was not much in the way of memeable, remixable moments. No one ranted about pet-eating; no one finally beat Medicare.
In fact, it seems hard to believe that this could be the final big TV event of an election that has been piling on the plot twists since summer. It feels anticlimactic, like an Oscars ceremony ending with the award for best supporting actor.
But this is, for the moment, our finale of record — at least until the next surprise episode drops.
The post Vance and Walz’s Battle of the Network Co-Stars appeared first on New York Times.
