LAST UPDATE | 1 Oct
THERE MIGHT NOT be 67 million putative American voters tuned in – not to mention tens of millions more around the globe – as there were for the joust in Philadelphia between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump on 10 September.
That said, a massive audience will watch the clash between the Democratic and Republican nominees for vice president, Tim Walz and JD Vance, in Manhattan tonight at 9 PM (2 AM Irish time). And plenty here will sacrifice a night’s sleep.
Vice presidential debates have occasionally produced memorable lines. In 1988, for example, Michael Dukakis’s number two, Lloyd Bentsen, delivered this stinger to a manifestly outmatched Dan Quayle, who had compared his experience in Washington, DC to President John F Kennedy’s: “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”
It was a knock-out punch that will live forever in the annals of American politics. Perhaps underscoring the historical truth that these sparring sessions have meant precious little, Dukakis/Bentsen were annihilated later that year by Quayle and his boss, President George HW Bush.
In this extraordinary and in many ways unprecedented 2024 campaign, pundits are venturing that Vance v Walz could be pivotal. Before assessing what each man should do when the spotlight is shining in the Big Apple – and possibly more importantly, should not do – it is worth examining where they are now in the estimation of the electorate.
An AP/NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll shows that almost half of those asked have a negative perception of Vance, while merely a quarter have a favourable impression of him. Only 3 in 10 don’t care for Walz and circa 40% are fans of his, based on what they have seen thus far. There are lots who don’t know enough about either running mate to have a strong opinion.
Vance clearly has work to do. He has said things in the past and in the present that anger substantial segments of the electorate. His comment about “childless cat ladies” will haunt him eternally. But make no mistake: as Tim Ryan, the ex-congressman from Ohio he defeated to take a seat in the US Senate, observes, Vance is “very smart” and “able to somewhat articulate the intellectual underpinnings of Donald Trump’s rants.”
And that – in addition to being likeable, which evidently doesn’t come naturally to him – is the Hillbilly Elegy author’s job in the debate. He must hammer at Harris and her part in the failures of President Joe Biden’s administration to sort out the two biggest issues confounding America: inflation and immigration. And he needs to do so in a way that doesn’t just incite the crowds at Trump’s rallies. His task is to convert the tiny cohort of undecided women and men who will determine the victor on 5 November.
Vance is also ideally situated to draw attention to the leftist ideology Walz and Harris share. Whether it is gender identity, law and order or late-term abortion, the reality is that the Democratic ticket takes stances on cultural issues that are incongruous with the prevalent sentiments of the “gettable” voters in the key battlegrounds. And again, Vance has the capacity to illustrate the contrast in outlook, to convey it bluntly, in a sane fashion.
On the other hand, Walz, leaving aside the content of his inputs for a moment, must appear resolutely hopeful, optimistic and normal. His folksy Midwestern persona resonates, though he shouldn’t ham it up excessively. He is on to something when he labels his foes “weird” and points to how downcast they are about the country they profess to love. Walz and Harris project a distinct energy, a vibe of positivity. This is to their advantage.
Substantively, Walz has to acknowledge that millions of Americans are hurting financially and that there are strains on communities in places such as Texas and Arizona and beyond resulting from immigration. But unlike Trump/Vance, he and Kamala Harris have a plan and detailed policies devised to tackle the cost of living, which has already stabilised. The Republicans, he can assert, are so captive to the interests of the wealthy and powerful that actually fixing a problem afflicting lower income individuals and families is not a top priority for them.
Immigration is a tougher nut to crack for Walz. He should, however, argue that, at Trump’s behest, the GOP killed legislation that would have tightened border controls, thereby ensuring that it would remain a beneficial hot potato in the election. Repeating that Harris/Walz want to resolve crises, not simply create political hay out of them, is an efficacious means of simultaneously anticipating and responding to attacks. Further, Walz is unconnected to President Biden. Hence, he is less hampered than Harris in his messaging.
Lastly, Vance is certain to paint Walz as a radical liberal. Yet the Minnesota Governor can persuasively retort that Trump and Vance are the extremists, with Trump largely responsible for stripping away the constitutional right of women to choose and Vance, until recently, backing a national abortion ban. This is a winner for the Democrats, even if they have a tendency to overplay it and potentially alienate those whose views are grey, not black and white, on the subject.
On the stage, Vance must avoid making any ill-judged, offensive comments, as he is prone to. A “whopper” would dominate the media coverage and immediately be the story of the debate. On the flip side, Walz cannot afford to get into a war of wits with Vance. He may mock Vance’s elite, “non-Middle America” pedigree, but the Yale Law School graduate would make mincemeat of the former teacher and football coach.
In a broader sense, given how he has been received by the citizenry and the general trajectory of the race, Vance is probably the candidate with the most riding on this. A competent performance will do Walz just fine. Vance needs to beat him convincingly.
Will it make any genuine difference? The fact that Harris’s dismantling of Trump when they met hasn’t moved the needle discernibly suggests that it will not. But offering a definitive forecast about anything in this topsy-turvy, legitimately crazy campaign is a fool’s errand.
I do expect that this will be an animated encounter. I only wish that the news networks in the US had considered an afternoon starting time. Staying up into the wee hours isn’t good for us anoraks on this island.
Larry Donnelly is a Boston lawyer, a Law Lecturer at the University of Galway and a political columnist with TheJournal.ie.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say