Tuesday night’s debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz was surprising, given the ugly nature of America’s politics. It was substantive, respectful and marked by numerous notes of agreement and bipartisanship. It ended with visible cordiality as both men smiled, shook hands and introduced their wives as they came onto the stage.
Mr. Vance won the night by coming across as a much different person from the one we’ve seen campaigning. Rather than a combative culture warrior, he was warm, upbeat, empathetic and agreeable. He was a happy campaigner—the anti-Trump.
Mr. Vance continually returned to the strongest ground for the Trump campaign: substantive policy on the economy, inflation and the border. He undercut Kamala Harris by asking why she hasn’t already implemented the ideas she’s now touting. He summed up the evening in his closing by attacking her for “broken leadership.”
While Mr. Vance confidently looked into the camera or at his opponent, an anxious Mr. Walz often peered down at his podium while scribbling endless notes. He talked too fast, at times was defensive, sometimes looked bewildered and mangled sentences (like saying he was “friends with school shooters”). Mr. Walz found his footing in the debate’s second half, scoring points on abortion, ObamaCare and Jan. 6. Though Mr. Vance refused to answer when asked if Mr. Trump lost in 2020, the senator clearly won the debate.
Will Tuesday’s debate bend the contest in one direction or the other? Probably not. Vice presidential debates hardly ever do, and this year the electorate is so polarized, opinions so locked in, it’s hard to imagine that the debate changes perceptions or how anyone votes. Three post-debate flash polls called it a draw. If there is an effect from the debate, it might be that Mr. Vance improves his rather low standing with the public: In a Sept. 16 Fox poll his numbers were 38% favorable, 50% unfavorable.
Still, there’s no shortage of potential race-shaking events in the news. Since Ms. Harris secured the Democratic nomination, the presidential contest has been remarkably stable. On Sept. 1, the FiveThirtyEight average of national polls had it at 47.8% Harris, 44.7% Trump. On Wednesday, just over a month later, it was 48.5% Harris, 45.9% Trump. In a contest this tight, small events can have big consequences, as long as they directly affect voters. Even shifts limited to pockets of voters in battlegrounds could alter the whole election.
For example, what happens in North Carolina and Georgia if voters conclude that the Biden-Harris administration is mishandling the Hurricane Helene recovery?
The hurricane may have an effect no matter what the administration’s response. The storm hit hard three North Carolina congressional districts in the far west of that state and five of the northernmost Georgia districts, which are among the most Republican areas of these battlegrounds. Many voters there have been displaced, their homes and communities shattered. How many will be unable to return home before Election Day?
The East Coast longshoreman’s strike could be a problem for Ms. Harris. What if residents of Savannah and Philadelphia conclude their local economies are being battered because Mr. Biden won’t order strikers back to work while the union negotiates?
Will North Carolina Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson’s porn scandal depress GOP turnout in the Tar Heel State? Will Republican Senate hopeful Kari Lake’s faltering campaign drag down Mr. Trump in Arizona, which he narrowly lost in 2020?
How will the roughly 200,000 Arab-American voters in Michigan react to the Biden-Harris administration’s handling of the growing Middle East crisis? Mostly nominal Democrats, these voters are unlikely to back Mr. Trump: He’s more pro-Israel than Ms. Harris. But they could stay home. And what if other battleground voters, including those who are pro-Israel, decide the administration is bungling the issue?
