Vance wins debate but struggles to sway public perception

In recent weeks, most commentators agreed: Kamala Harris chose her vice-presidential candidate much better than Donald Trump. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz performed excellently in the media and direct contact with voters, perfectly complementing Harris's candidacy— a Black lawyer from one of the most liberal states— with his image of a friendly middle-aged white man from the Midwest, someone we'd ask for help if we needed to shovel a driveway or fix a mower.

Meanwhile, Trump's candidate, Senator from Ohio J. D. Vance, fared poorly in polls, was portrayed by the media as an oddball with extreme views, and often behaved like an alien in interactions with voters, struggling even at rallies with the most convinced Trump supporters.

October 1st is likely to change these assessments. Vance indeed won Tuesday's debate— in a CNN poll, 51 percent indicated him as the winner, Walz 49 percent. It wasn't a knockout; Walz never hit the canvas, but Vance recorded a clear points victory.

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

Most importantly, Vance managed to achieve something that— until recently seemed— he was incapable of: he presented himself in the debate as the face of "Trumpism for the Normals," free of the biggest lunacies that the former president brought into American politics.

Vance avoided the most polarizing topics, conspiracy theories, and radical statements full of Trump's performances in both debates. He tried to stick to issues close to most Americans, such as rising living costs, the state of the economy, problems with access to housing and childcare, the economic situation, and the supply of stable, well-paying jobs, including those for Americans without a college diploma.

The Republican vice-presidential candidate tried, with some success, to present Trumpism as a well-understood economic populism: advocating for an economy where ordinary Americans also benefit from growth, capable of providing every person who follows the rules and works hard with decent pay, a roof over their head, warmth, and conditions for a good, fulfilling life.

Instead of attacking Harris as a "Marxist" and "a politician who ruined San Francisco," Vance discussed what doesn’t work in modern America, asking why Harris hasn't been able to solve all these problems in the nearly four years she has been vice president.

On issues where the Republicans' views most diverge from those of most Americans, Vance tried to move to the centre. This was most evident on the issue of abortion. Vance— previously known for simply misogynistic statements stigmatizing childless women— tried to present himself as a politician full of empathy for women, primarily concerned with ensuring that every pregnant woman receives all the support she needs as an expectant mother. The Ohio senator also said that he never supported a federal abortion ban— which is simply untrue, as in the past, he has repeatedly supported a similar ban and other regulations radically restricting women's reproductive rights.

The discussion on reproductive rights was one of the few moments when Walz did better in the debate. When Vance argued that this issue should be left to individual states, Walz responded very well by saying that human rights cannot be a matter of geography, citing dramatic stories of women who, due to regulations in their states, were exposed to situations that should not occur in a civilized country in the 21st century.

There were still two moments in the debate when Walz did better than the Republicans. The first concerned healthcare. Walz's experience paid off here. As a congressman and governor, he has been in politics much longer than Vance and was easily able to show how poorly prepared the Republicans' policy offer is in this area.

The second was related to Trump's behaviour after the 2020 elections. Vance tried to avoid the topic aggressively, arguing that the real threat to American democracy is not Trump and his allies' denial of the last election results but the attempts at "industrial scale censorship" that Democrats led by Harris are allegedly conducting with the help of big tech companies. In other words, the attack by a mob incited by Trump on the Capitol is less of a problem than Twitter— before Elon Musk turned it into X— reacting to misinformation spread from Trump's account and suspending his account. This was Vance's weakest moment in the debate; Walz got an easy shot and capitalized on it flawlessly. He asked Vance if Trump won the election four years ago, and when Vance responded that he was "focused on the future," the Democratic candidate sharply noted that this was not an answer. And for many undecided voters, this could be a problem.

At the same time, Walz too rarely controlled Vance, although many of the statements made by the Republican begged for a counter.

Vance's economic populism is hard to reconcile with the real economic policies of Trump's first term— both with the tax cuts that mostly benefited the wealthiest and the record trade deficit with China, which, contrary to the president's anti-China rhetoric, the U.S. reached during the Republican's presidency. Walz mentioned the deficit but didn't emphasize strongly 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 back well-paying manufacturing jobs to America, and to reduce the U.S. economy's dependence on China, especially in strategic areas for the 21st century.

Vance focused on immigration as the key problem of the United States on Tuesday. Listening to him, one might understand that immigration is the main, if not the only, barrier blocking the American working class's potential for a good life. While it is understandable why Walz didn't want to talk about the positive effects of immigration on the American economy, he should have more clearly raised the argument that if poorer Americans are to start participating in the "American dream" again, America needs more redistribution and investment in public services— solutions that Republicans are traditionally hostile to and will continue to be with Trump at the helm.

The debate lacked one topic: the war in Ukraine. Journalists simply didn't ask about it; the only topic from the foreign policy area concerned the current situation in the Middle East. It's a pity that Walz didn't raise this topic because Vance's views here are even more pro-Russian than Trump's, and voters should be aware of them.

What will Vance's slight victory mean for the outcome? Everything suggests that also very little. The Republicans, whose campaign since Harris replaced Biden has had clear difficulties setting a new course, will celebrate for a few days. It is already evident that their message of the day after the debate is: Walz showed he's playing in a different league, Trump made a good choice, Harris can't be trusted who— by making the first choice for her future cabinet— was so wrong.

However, Walz did not lose badly enough for this argument to resonate widely among voters who are not yet convinced to vote for the Trump-Vance duo. The mentioned CNN poll showed that although respondents narrowly awarded victory to Vance, their overall opinion of Walz and his presidential competence increased after the debate.

In elections, people choose a president, not a vice president. Their choice will primarily be influenced by how they evaluate Trump and Harris. Vance may have helped dispel some of the doubts about himself on Tuesday, and his performance will certainly aid Trump's campaign, but it is doubtful that it will be decisive for the outcome in November.