Conventional wisdom holds that vice presidential debates don’t move the needle much. But JD Vance’s dominating performance over Tim Walz Tuesday night, and in particular his ability to turn the debate into a referendum on Kamala Harris’s record, means we may have seen the impossible – a VP debate that mattered.
The real impact of the only scheduled showdown between Vance and Walz isn’t in the post-debate polls showing a clear Vance victory or in the commentary from various liberal pundits begrudgingly acknowledging that Vance romped. Instead, the lasting effect on the race will be in the viral moments that Vance produced which take on a life of their own on social media and in the public consciousness. It will also be in how Vance’s evisceration of the Biden-Harris record will serve as a blueprint for prosecuting the case for Trump over the next month.
A few exchanges in particular stand out as moments that could linger on in the minds of the American people and alter the shape of the race over the final month.
The first was Vance dismantling a bogus fact check from the CBS moderators on immigration – after CBS said going into the debate that it would not be doing any fact checks. Vance correctly pointed out that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are engaged in rampant abuse of the asylum and parole systems, allowing towns like Springfield, Ohio, to be flooded with tens of thousands of migrants who are raising the cost of housing and driving down American wages. His response was so effective, in fact, that CBS cut his microphone halfway through it.
Democrats and the journalist class will, of course, be quick to say that Vance was lying and the moderators were right to fact-check him. But for many everyday Americans watching – among whom trust in the media is already at historic lows – CBS breaking its own stated policy and then literally silencing Vance when he called it out could further undermine trust in the corporate press.
Vance’s tongue-in-cheek sympathy for Walz on the “tough job” he had on the debate stage could likewise become a moment that lives on past the immediate aftermath of Tuesday night. “Honestly Tim, I think you’ve got a tough job here,” Vance said. “Because you’ve gotta play whack-a-mole. You’ve gotta pretend Donald Trump didn’t deliver rising take-home pay, which of course he did. You’ve gotta pretend Donald Trump didn’t deliver lower inflation, which of course he did. And then you’ve simultaneously gotta defend Kamala Harris’s atrocious economic record which has made gas, groceries, and housing unaffordable.”
In just a few seconds, Vance entirely undermined the entire narrative of the Harris campaign on the economy, consistently rated as the top issue by voters. Anyone watching – and anyone who sees that viral clip on social media in the coming days – will see a common-sense framework for approaching the election as a question of which candidate performed better on the economy (and, for that matter, the border, foreign policy, and a host of other issues). That is a question the Harris campaign desperately doesn’t want voters asking themselves because the clear answer is Donald Trump.
Vance’s closing statement, which echoed the strong closing statement from Trump in his debate with Harris, likewise served as a simple distillation of the question before the American people this November. He pointed out that so many things once taken for granted as part of the American Dream – being able to heat your home in the winter, put food on the table, live in safe communities, and have a secure border – are now more difficult under the Biden-Harris administration. “She’s been the vice president for three and a half years,” Vance said. “Day one was 1,400 days ago, and her policies have made these problems worse.”
It’s easy to envision many Trump supporters sharing this clip with friends and family members who are on the fence as a simple, well-reasoned analysis of why Harris can’t be trusted and why Trump deserves another term.
What ultimately made Vance’s performance so memorable and effective was not only his message of discipline and command of the facts but also his ability to blow up the media’s absurd caricatures of him and by extension the entire Republican Party. The media and the Democrat Party, who know they will lose an election that is about issues, desperately want to make it a personality contest. But Vance won on both personality and issues Tuesday night.
Walz, meanwhile, proved himself completely not up to the task. At times he seemed to be running for vice president of Minnesota, referring constantly to his work in the state – without seeming to understand how disastrous his tenure has been. One of the few missed opportunities for Vance was a mention of how Walz bears a uniquely large degree of responsibility for the riots that swept the country in the summer of 2020 because he failed to put down violence on the streets of Minneapolis – doing nothing as rioters burned a police precinct to the ground.
At several other moments, Walz stumbled over his words and misspoke – mistakes that were magnified because of how articulate Vance was throughout the debate. One of Walz’s remarks in particular, that he has “become friends with school shooters” (presumably he meant to say “school shooting victims”) became easy fodder on social media, producing countless memes mocking Walz.
Walz also somewhat bizarrely referred to himself as a “knucklehead,” a comment that may come back to bite both him and Harris. With so many pressing issues facing the country, from war abroad to an illegal immigration crisis, do Americans really want a “knucklehead” to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? Walz’s “folksy” demeanor may play well on the campaign trail, but when it comes time to head to the ballot box, Americans want candidates who take the job and themselves seriously.
Veteran political observers and media figures watching this moment on Tuesday could undoubtedly not help but think of another definitive moment from the 1988 contest between Democrat Lloyd Bentsen and Republican Dan Quayle. After Quayle compared himself to John F. Kennedy, Bensten quickly retorted, “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” The remark has now become an established part of the American political lexicon, a treatment that could also be in store for Walz’s “knucklehead” comment.
For some, this moment in the debate might have been reminiscent of Dan Quale comparing himself to John F. Kennedy, and responding “Senator, I knew Jack Kennedy, and you are no Jack
But perhaps nothing sums up the debate better than this side-by-side of Vance and Walz that has been posted and reposted tens of thousands of times:
Vance never interrupted Walz on Tuesday night, but his occasional skeptical glances at the camera like the one captured here (which many favorably compared to Jim Halpert’s habit of breaking the fourth wall in The Office) seemed to send a clear message to the American people: you can’t trust a word this guy is saying. Walz, meanwhile, often appeared frazzled and confused, like someone who knows he’s already lost on the substance of the race.
Perhaps Tuesday’s debate won’t move the needle much. But to the extent that it will move the needle at all, it will move it in Trump’s direction. The outcome in November could be an easy victory for Harris or Trump. But if the race comes down to a photo finish, Tuesday’s debate could make all the difference.
Shane Harris is a writer and political consultant from Southwest Ohio. You can follow him on X @shaneharris513.
