Vance wins vice-presidential debate, impact on election remains minimal

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 in 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 you'd ask for help if you 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 appeared out of touch in interactions with voters, struggling even at rallies with the most ardent Trump supporters.

October 1st is likely to change these assessments. Vance indeed won Tuesday's debate—with a CNN poll showing 51 percent favoring him as the winner over Walz's 49 percent. It wasn't a knockout; Walz never hit the canvas. Nevertheless, 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 and decisively, but also with respect for his opponent and the part of America he represents. The vice-presidential debate, unlike the two involving Trump, was very substantive and free of below-the-belt personal attacks—a standard that has not been seen in American politics at least since 2016.

Most importantly, Vance accomplished something that previously seemed beyond his reach: 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 that filled Trump's performances in both debates. He tried to focus on issues close to most Americans: 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 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 isn't working in modern America, questioning why Harris hasn't solved 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 clearly tried to move to the center. This was most evident on the issue of abortion. Vance—previously known for 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 claimed he never supported a federal ban on abortion, which contradicts his past statements and actions supporting similar bans and regulations restricting women's reproductive rights.

The discussion on reproductive rights was one of the few moments when Walz shined in the debate. When Vance argued that this issue should be left to individual states, Walz responded effectively, stating that human rights cannot be a matter of geography and cited dramatic stories of women who, due to regulations in their states, faced unacceptable situations in a civilized country in the 21st century.

There were still two moments in the debate when Walz outperformed the Republican. The first involved the topic of healthcare. Walz's experience as a congressman and governor paid off here, as he easily demonstrated how poorly prepared the Republicans' policy was in this area.

The second moment concerned Trump's behavior after the 2020 elections. Vance tried to avoid the topic aggressively, arguing that the real threat to American democracy isn't Trump and his allies' election denial but rather the alleged "industrial scale censorship" led by Democrats and big tech companies. In other words, Vance suggested that the attack on the Capitol incited by Trump was less problematic than Twitter—before Elon Musk turned it into X—reacting to misinformation from Trump's account. This was Vance's weakest moment, and Walz capitalized on it flawlessly. He asked Vance if Trump had won the election four years ago. When Vance responded that he is "focused on the future," the Democratic candidate sharply noted that this was not an answer. For many undecided voters, this could be a problem.

At the same time, Walz too rarely challenged 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 the U.S. reached contrary to Trump's anti-China rhetoric. 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 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 get the impression 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 discuss the positive effects of immigration on the American economy, he should have more clearly argued 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 foreign policy topic concerned the current situation in the Middle East. It's a pity that Walz didn't bring up 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 the answer is very little. The Republicans, whose campaign has had clear difficulties setting a new course since Harris replaced Biden, will celebrate for a few days. It is already evident that their message the day after the debate is: Walz showed he's playing in a different league, Trump made a good choice, and Harris can't be trusted, having made the wrong first choice for her future cabinet.

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 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.

Jakub Majmurek