Vance edges Walz in debate, but impact on election unclear

In recent weeks, most commentators have agreed: Kamala Harris made a much better choice for her vice-presidential candidate than Donald Trump. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz handled himself excellently in the media and direct contact with voters, perfectly complementing Harris's candidature - a black lawyer from one of the most liberal states - with his image as a friendly, older white man from the Midwest, someone you'd turn to for help if you needed your driveway cleared of snow or your lawnmower fixed.

Meanwhile, Trump’s candidate, Senator from Ohio J.D. Vance, performed terribly in the polls, with the media portraying him as an extremist weirdo. In his interactions with voters, he often came across as an alien, struggling even during rallies with the most ardent Trump supporters.

1 October is likely to change these evaluations. Vance won Tuesday's debate—in a CNN poll, 51 per cent identified him as the winner, Walz—49 per cent. It was certainly not a knockout; Walz was never down, but Vance noted a clear victory on points.

The Republican candidate achieved all his main goals and presented himself as a politician capable of defending his views effectively and decisively and with respect for his opponent and the part of America he represents. Unlike the two involving Trump, the vice-presidential debate was very substantive, free from below-the-belt personal attacks - something not seen as a standard in American politics at least since 2016.

Most importantly, Vance managed something he seemed incapable of until recently: he presented himself in the debate as the face of "Trumpism for the normals", free from the wildest behaviours the former president introduced to American politics.

Vance avoided the most polarising topics, conspiracy theories, and radical statements, all part of Trump's performance in both debates. He tried to stick to issues close to most Americans, such as the rising cost of living, the state of the economy, problems with housing and childcare access, economic issues, and the supply of stable, well-paid jobs, including those for Americans without a college degree.

The Republican vice-presidential candidate endeavoured, not without success, to present Trumpism as a well-understood economic populism movement: advocating for an economy in which ordinary Americans also benefit from growth, capable of providing everyone who follows the rules and works hard with decent wages, a roof over their heads, warmth, and the conditions for a good, fulfilling life.

Instead of attacking Harris as a "Marxist" and a "politician who destroyed San Francisco" like Trump, Vance spoke of what wasn’t working in contemporary America, asking why Harris was unable to solve all these problems during her nearly four years as vice president.

In matters where Republicans' views differ most from those of most Americans, Vance tried to move towards the center. This was most evident on the issue of abortion. Vance - previously known for simply misogynistic comments, stigmatizing childless women - tried to present himself as a politician full of empathy for women, concerned primarily with ensuring every pregnant woman receives all necessary support as a future mother. The Senator from Ohio also said he never supported a federal abortion ban - which is simply untrue because, in the past, he repeatedly advocated for such a ban and other laws radically limiting women's reproductive rights.

The discussion on reproductive rights was one of the few moments when Walz performed better in the debate. When Vance argued that this issue should be left to individual states, Walz responded very well, stating that human rights cannot be a matter of geography, quoting dramatic stories of women exposed to situations that shouldn’t occur in a civilised country in the 21st century because of the laws in their states.

There were also two moments when Walz performed better than the Republican candidate. The first was on the topic of healthcare. Here, Walz's experience as a congressman and governor who has been in politics much longer than Vance shone through, and he showed how poorly prepared the Republicans' offer is in this field.

The second was related to Trump's behaviour after the 2020 election. Vance tried to evade the topic aggressively, arguing that the real threat to American democracy isn't Trump's and his allies' denial of the last election results but attempts at "industrial-scale censorship", which the Democrats, led by Harris, are supposedly undertaking with the help of big tech firms. In other words, the smaller problem compared to the Trump-incited mob attack on the Capitol is that Twitter - before Elon Musk turned it into X - responded to the disinformation spread from Trump's account and suspended it. This was Vance's weakest moment in the debate; Walz got an easy shot and used it flawlessly. He asked Vance whether Trump won the election four years ago, and when Vance replied that he was "focused on the future," the Democratic candidate smartly noted that this wasn't an answer. And for many undecided voters, this could be a problem.

At the same time, Walz too rarely challenged Vance, even though many of the Republican's statements needed countering.

Vance's economic populism is hard to reconcile with Trump's actual economic policies during his first term - both with tax cuts mainly benefiting the wealthiest and with the record trade deficit with China, which the US achieved during the Republican president’s tenure, contrary to the president's anti-China rhetoric. Walz mentioned the deficit but didn't emphasise enough that many of the economic policy proposals raised by Vance were implemented during Biden's presidency and that the administration, of which Harris was a part, did much more than Trump to bring well-paying industrial jobs back to America and to reduce the US economy's dependency on China, especially in strategic areas for the 21st century.

On Tuesday, Vance focused on migration as the key problem of the United States. Listening to him, one could get the impression that migration is the main, if not the only, barrier blocking the good life for the American working class. While it’s understandable why Walz wouldn't want to talk about the positive effects of migration on the US economy, he should have more clearly raised the argument that if poorer Americans are to start participating in the "American dream" again, then America needs more redistribution and investment in public services – solutions that Republicans traditionally oppose and will continue to with Trump at the helm.

One topic missing from the debate was the war in Ukraine. Journalists simply didn't ask about it. The only foreign policy topic addressed was the current situation in the Middle East. It's a shame that Walz didn't raise this issue because Vance's views are even more pro-Russian than Trump's, and voters should be made aware of them.

What impact will Vance's narrow victory have on the result? All indications are that it will be minimal. Republicans, whose campaign has faced clear difficulties in realigning since Harris replaced Biden, will celebrate for a few days. It is already evident that their post-debate message is: Walz showed he's in a different league, Trump made a good choice, Harris, who - in making her first choice for her future cabinet - made such a mistake, cannot be trusted.

However, Walz didn't lose so badly that this argument will resonate widely among voters who aren't convinced to vote for the Trump-Vance duo. The aforementioned CNN poll showed that although respondents by a narrow majority gave the victory to Vance, their overall assessment of Walz and his presidential competence increased after the debate.

In elections, people choose the president, not the vice president. Their choice will largely depend on how they evaluate Trump and Harris. Vance might have helped dispel some doubts about himself on Tuesday; his performance will certainly aid Trump’s campaign, but it is doubtful that it will be decisive for the result in November.