With Donald Trump refusing to debate Kamala Harris again, we will likely not have another presidential debate to watch. Luckily for election fans, the Vice Presidential debate is on Oct. 1, between Senator JD Vance and Governor Tim Walz. What role do they play in shaping the outcome of the race? Why were they chosen? And what could this debate mean for the polling numbers?
I spoke with Richard Born, a professor in the Political Science department well known for his knowledge of American elections. I was particularly curious about the candidacy of JD Vance. According to MSNBC, the candidate is very socially conservative, disparaging Democrats as “childless cat ladies,” and suggesting that childless people have no stake in the country, even proposing that parents should get extra votes. It is believed that these statements were one of the things that prompted Tim Walz to famously call Republicans “weird” and rebrand the Democratic Party’s messaging along the lines of individual freedoms. From what I can see, Vance appears to have emphasized the less palatable parts of the current Republican platform.
“When you pick a running mate, the choice obviously comes down to who you think will improve your campaign chances the most,” Born said. “Donald Trump had a strong choice in [Senator] Marco Rubio (R-FL), who would’ve been loyal and would’ve even brought in Hispanic voters, who are already moving toward Republican candidates. But his choice of JD Vance has been a way to strengthen his current base rather than bring in new voters.”
Vance has not been in politics for long, winning his first election to the Ohio Senate in early November 2022. This lack of experience appears to be a plus for many of Trump’s base, who distrust the Washington establishment. Born points out that his backstory has a lot of similarities to Trump’s. Both attained early success and then used that success to win high office despite a lack of prior experience in local or non-federal positions. “He’s the next generation of the MAGA movement in that way. He carries on Trump’s populism,” said Born. I understand Vance’s strengths as a legacy candidate, but like Born said, the running mate should first and foremost improve the candidate’s chances. Trying to replicate the mass appeal of Donald Trump seems risky, especially with a man who has established himself to be more radically socially conservative.
In spite of this, Vance seems to be doing well within his party. According to YouGov polls, he is popular among Republicans, especially those who identify with the MAGA movement. However, Born and I agree that Vance’s views on women and childless people are alienating to swing voters. It was around the time that these former views were publicized when Tim Walz first characterized Republicans as abnormal, contradictory, and “weird.” AP has stated that this line of attack bolstered the Democratic Party’s image as pragmatic and concerned with personal freedom. It also shifted Walz’s reputation into being a more moderate and sensible running mate, one that complimented Harris well and appealed to the working and middle class.
It looks as though Vance and his baggage have actually emboldened Democrat positions. In his rhetoric, as recorded on North Jersey, Walz emphasizes the difference between JD Vance and average, small-town Americans. In his first rally, he stated: “JD studied at Yale, had his career funded by Silicon Valley millionaires and then wrote a bestseller trashing that community. C’mon; that’s not what middle America is.”
Overall, Tim Walz seems to be challenging Vance’s claim that he represents middle-American communities. He presents himself as authentic, whereas Vance is esoteric and divorced from reality, a narrative we can expect to hear at the vice presidential debate. I think so far, Walz has been very effective in this message. I’ve also seen “weird” become a bit of a meme where the substantive parts of the argument are reduced in favor of the comedic potential of the statement. Per North Jersey, a few days after JD Vance became the running mate, a post on X made a false claim that Vance’s memoir Hillbilly Elegy features a scene where he has sex with a rubber glove in between two couch cushions. Later, in Walz’s first rally, he said, “I can’t wait to debate this guy. That is, if he’s willing to get off the couch and show up!” While I had a chuckle at this, I also worry that Walz may rely on trashing his opponent as a person, instead of making the Harris-Walz ticket look appealing to voters. The substance is important, and swing voters can tell if candidates are avoiding issues.
Born assesses that running mates and their media appearances (like the debates) are only marginal factors in the election outcome as a whole, noting, “Of course, this year’s election is going to depend on a very small margin.” He also points out that Vance will try to give a performance that will offset Trump’s performance from Sept. 10. “Vance is smart, he won’t fall for bait and say stupid things like Trump did.” (Born is referring to the times when Harris was able to divert Trump from answering the question. Vogue points out how she got him to brag about his rally sizes or make unsupported claims about abortions.)
In fact, there are legitimate criticisms of Harris’ campaign that were touched upon during the last debate, though Trump’s behavior overshadowed them. Kamala Harris’ harsh pivot from liberal to moderate stances may raise some eyebrows. According to The Hill, Harris herself dodged some questions surrounding Chinese tariffs, the border and the economy. It will come down to whether the candidates can focus on the issues. We have not seen either candidate in debate, so it is hard to tell whether they will stick with policy or resort to personal attacks. Per NPR, a piece of rhetoric against Walz from Republicans included accusing him of stolen valor, the act of lying about service in the U.S. military, during his speeches. Meanwhile, Walz may continue to highlight Vance’s history, or even find a new way to call him “weird” and revive that piece of rhetoric.
Especially after the last debate, there are few reasons for either candidate to resort to personal attacks. For Republicans, Trump’s focus on himself made him vulnerable to embarrassing responses to personal attacks. For Democrats, Vance will likely not have the same weak points as Trump. However, there is still room for mudslinging. For both candidates, focusing the debate on policy could make some inroads with swing voters who are concerned about these issues. If the debate turns out like the last one, and they put more personal attacks on display, that could end up energizing their voter bases but leave swing voters confused. In terms of short-term strategy, appealing to existing voters is not the best outcome for either party. With such a polarized landscape, swing voters often decide the race. Beyond the election, the practice of attacking or “owning” opponents in debates seems like it will continue to polarize Democrats and Republicans, as well as discourage the participation of undecided voters.