Despite expectations of the clash, the vice-presidential debate between Republican JD Vance and Democrat Tim Walz on CBS saw far fewer revolutions than the face-to-face between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris last September. The goals of both were not inside the New York framework, but outside, at the top of the electoral list. And in that regard, Vance seems more comfortable than Walz.
The Ohio senator attacked Harris just as Trump advisers wanted the former president to do in September, pointing out that the Democrat has been in the White House for more than three years despite calling her candidacy a game-changer . “If Kamala Harris has such good plans for solving the problems of the middle class, then she should implement them now, not by asking for a promotion, but in the position that the American people gave her three years ago and a half,” Vance said. launched during the economic bloc.
Vance’s strategy revolved around this axis and that of wrongly designating immigration as the mother of all the ills from which the country suffers. Unlike his superior, Vance did not resort to lies as graphic as the one Trump told in September, claiming that migrants are “eating pets” in Springfield, Ohio. In fact, even though Vance defended this lie on social media and gave it wings, when it came time to address the issue, he approached it from another position that, unlike Trump, conveyed an image much more moderate.
“[En Spriengfield] you have hospitals that are overflowing, you have housing that is completely unaffordable because we have brought in millions of illegal immigrants to compete with Americans for scarce housing. The people I care about most in Springfield, Ohio are the American citizens whose lives have been destroyed by Kamala Harris’ open borders policy,” Vance said. Regarding the counterattack, Walz said he believed “Vance wanted to solve this problem” but that the solution was not to “dehumanize and vilify other human beings.”
It is precisely this dynamic, that of recognizing the presumed good faith of the other despite the divergence, which characterized a debate with a much more sober and civilized tone, which clashed with the polarization of the campaign in the home stretch. Even if only in appearance, because deep down the positions on which the two candidates expressed themselves were still very far apart. Even if Vance allowed himself to congratulate Biden on the tariffs and instead criticized his own candidate.
Vance’s disagreement with Trump on certain issues was very calculated. With 35 days until the election, the vice president’s debate will likely be the last major election debate before Americans go to the polls – unless Trump ultimately agrees to a runoff against Harris – and the 90 minutes of Tuesday evening presented a great opportunity to grab a few. undecided voters. Vance, known to be more Trumpian than Trump, wanted to show himself as a counterweight to the former president. His restraint in his remarks and the use of less scandalous lies also pursued this objective.
The only tense moment Vance experienced was when moderators Nora O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan had to silence both candidates’ microphones after Vance criticized reporters for denying his assertion that immigrants without papers invaded Springfield. Unlike the presidential debate, this time the microphones were constantly open.
Even though vice-presidential debates tend to have less impact, many voters still wanted to finish forming their opinions on the candidates during this final face-to-face debate. Especially on Harris, the pressure on Walz was therefore even greater, since he had the challenge of finishing defining the vice president’s candidacy.
Walz’s performance, self-conscious most of the time, was one of the surprises of the evening. The directness and spontaneity that propelled him to Harris’ side of the electoral roll with his viral “weirdos», was absent for a good part of the night. Yes, he sometimes used his image as an ordinary man to attack Trump from the new side that the Democrats drew at the Chicago Convention: that of a self-centered billionaire. “And I ask you, teachers, nurses, truck drivers or whatever, how is it fair that you pay your taxes every year, and Donald Trump has paid no federal taxes in 10 of the last 15 years? ” he said. looking at the camera.
Walz, less accustomed to debates and television appearances, confirmed Democrats’ concerns about his abilities before the face-to-face meeting. The fact that the debate began with a question about the crisis that has erupted in recent hours in the Middle East took the Minnesota governor by surprise. On the other hand, Vance appeared much more uncomfortable when topics such as abortion or the assault on the Capitol were broached.
The Ohio senator twisted words to describe his anti-abortion stance as a desire to “make it easier for mothers to have babies.” Vance has been at the center of controversy precisely for attacking women who do not have children, saying that “they feel unhappy in their own lives and in the decisions they have made.” Beyond the misogyny that this comment exuded, it also ignored the reality of these women who do not have children because they cannot. Something he was harshly criticized for.
It is also in this bloc that Trump has also spoken out on the issue of a federal ban on abortion. The former president, who avoided answering that question during the ABC News debate, wrote in X that “he would in no way support a federal ban on abortion, and in fact, he would oppose it veto.” A new turn by the Republican on a thorny subject even for him, where the cooling of the position on the ban on abortion at the federal level has already earned him criticism from the most conservative wing of the party.
Walz’s moment didn’t come until the debate ended. If in a match, a last minute comeback can save the score, in a televised debate, it loses its effect. By the time Walz was able to denounce Vance with the blocking of the assault on the Capitol, it is highly likely that the majority of spectators had already tuned out. While Vance refused to acknowledge that Trump lost the election in 2020 and avoided answering the question, Walz managed to close the debate with his clearest and most forceful response of the evening: “When it’s over , we will have to shake hands. , and the winner must be the winner. “This has to stop.”
When Walz pressed Vance to acknowledge that Trump lost the last election, Vance ran away with: “Tim, I’m focused on the future. » Similarly, Vance recharacterized the assault on the Capitol as a “peaceful protest” and omitted Trump’s multiple efforts to overturn the election results.
