The VP debate, unstacked
How Substackers reacted to last night’s debate between Senator Vance and Governor Walz
Last night, Senator JD Vance and Governor Tim Walz met for the first (and only) vice presidential debate of the 2024 election cycle.
Here’s how Substackers reacted across posts, notes, comments, and chats.
Vance’s image problems … got a makeover
Jessica Reed Kraus: I wasn’t planning to watch the debate tonight. I’ve had enough of politics this week, and frankly didn’t care to learn more about JD Vance. I had long written him off as Trump’s worst “mistake,” frustrated that he chose such a risky VP with so many other solid options to choose from.
Chris Cillizza: Vance came into the debate as a figure, nationally, of mockery. The caricature painted of him—which he had a hand in creating—was of a buffoonish goof who Donald Trump would love to get rid of.
Ben Domenech: For Vance, the real challenge was to connect with the audience and make the case for Trump without getting too wonky or seeming too distant from commonly held concerns. He needed to be the hillbilly made good, not an intellectual policy tech bro. He absolutely achieved this for most of the night, and visually projected a confidence and ease with the facts that Walz, who spent most of his time bent over scribbling during answers, obviously lacked.
Dana Loesch: The commentariat often say Vance is not a completely popular VP nominee because of past polling in Ohio, but I think he’s better qualified.
Dash Dobrofsky: I’ll hand it to JD Vance—he’s a smooth talker and came across as much less unhinged than Trump.
Jessica Reed Kraus: JD is no longer Trump’s questionable VP; he’s America’s newest crush, the blue-eyed October surprise no one saw coming.
Gabe Fleisher: In some ways, I think Vance benefited from the fact that he entered the debate with the “weird” attack hanging around his neck: not only did it lower the bar he had to clear, but it also gave him an obvious mandate to go out of his way at every turn to sound as not-weird as possible and to come off like a regular, middle-of-the-road guy, not a raging partisan (a task he accomplished).
Andrew Sullivan: If Vance were the nominee, I wouldn’t hesitate to vote for him against Harris. Not even close.
Coach had a shaky night
Ben Domenech: Tim Walz was nervous and unsteady from the opening question and didn’t seem to find his footing until more than an hour into the debate.
Jessica Reed Kraus: Walz came across stiff, with shifty eyes, fumbling through rehearsed lines. Looking ancient next to Vance.
Gabe Fleisher: Tim Walz got somewhat better as the night went on (one of the final exchanges of the night, on January 6th, was his best), but he started out visibly nervous, and spoke quickly and unsteadily throughout.
Nate Silver: If he was rusty, he may have suffered from the Harris campaign’s weird phobia of having their candidates do media appearances… Harris and Walz are perfectly fine communicators, and if they’re going to run the country for the next four years, they can go on a few more podcasts.
Moderators and a muted mic
Ben Domenech: The moderators made very odd choices throughout the night. There were no questions about Ukraine, about China policy, about lessons learned from Covid, about school choice, about the longshoremen strike—and their decision to mute Vance’s mic early on in the midst of a healthy, polite debate about immigration seemed aggressive and disruptive.
Wajahat Ali: I would love it if the moderators actually moderated the debate. That would be nice.
Joyce Vance: Perhaps the awkward, painful minute where Vance tried to mansplain the moderators, repeatedly talking over them as they tried to limit him to the time he was allotted by the rules, might have some impact.
Daniel Drezner: Given Tim Walz’s fuzziness on his personal biography and JD Vance’s outrageous lies about the residents of Springfield, Ohio, some anticipatory real-time fact-checking by the moderators would have been a good idea!
Reed Galen: The questions seemed oblique, as if they didn’t want to ask about hard issues directly. Given these men are vying for the second-highest office in the land, sacrificing a little decorum for clarity would have made sense.
“Midwest nice”
Oliver Wiseman: On even some of the most contentious issues in American politics—including abortion and immigration—Vance and Walz clashed in ways that were serious, detailed, policy-focused, and even polite. (You did the Midwest proud, fellas!) I’m pretty sure I heard the words “I agree with. . . ” or “I actually agree with. . . ” multiple times.
Richard Owens: I’m actually shocked at the level of civility between these two candidates.
Gabe Fleisher: The clear message, from both candidates: Sure, the guy on stage with me sounds reasonable. But don’t believe that their running mate is anywhere [near] as moderate.
Zaid Jilani: At least we got one debate this season that was for adults. Vance and Walz offered voters policy details, coherent political philosophies, and few personal attacks. Is it too late for a switcheroo on their presidential tickets?
Striking moments
Kyle Wilson: “I became friends with school shooters.” Babe you what?
Reed Galen: Vance casually remarked that he’d build additional housing maybe on federal land or national parks. Delivered smoothly, yes, but weird. Really weird. Welcome to Yellowstone Estates, please mind the wildlife!
Chris Cillizza: Vance’s answer on abortion—he admitted that Republicans had to work to regain the trust of the public on the issue—was the best I have heard from a GOP candidate in a long while.
Oliver Wiseman: Walz’s worst moment came when he was asked about a lie he was recently caught in over his trips to China and Hong Kong. (Walz said he was in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square massacre. He was actually in Nebraska.) “I’m a knucklehead at times,” he said during a long, rambling answer.
So, who won?
Nate Silver: In CNN’s survey of debate watchers, JD Vance won 51-49—but that’s well within the margin of error.
Josh Tatter: JD Vance absolutely bodied Tim Walz in this VP debate. I think that was the most dominant performance I have ever seen in a political debate in my entire life. Just pure, uncut ownage.
Mark H. Jones: Vance won on style and polish (except for one truly notable moment); Walz won on integrity and relatability.
Dash Dobrofsky: Tonight’s debate was a victory for Walz. He won on policy and did a better job at selling Harris’s agenda and successful record as VP.
Chris Cillizza: I think Vance did himself a world of good as a future leader of the GOP—whether or not Trump wins in November—and Walz made it through what he has admitted is not his strong suit.
Greg Hearn: This wasn’t lopsided enough to have an effect either way. If Vance and Walz were on the top of their tickets, it might slightly help Vance just because it probably mildly improved his public image.
Joyce Vance: The kind of folks who self-selected to watch it are largely already decided.
Gabe Fleisher: Both VP candidates shot up in favorability after the level-headed, civil debate. But it’s not clear that either delivered much of a boost to the top of the ticket.
Chris Cillizza: I still think this race is a choice between Harris and Trump—and it’s a coin flip.
This was the last of the officially sanctioned debates, but the conversation on Substack is just getting started. Next up: the Substack Election Dialogues, a series in which influential political figures, writers, and commentators will join in conversation with one another to confront the most consequential questions of the political moment.
They’ll use Substack’s new Live Video feature, which means you can tune in from anywhere using the Substack app. Stay tuned! We’ll share additional details soon.
Who else had great coverage of the debate? Let us know what we missed, in the comments.
Substack Reads is designed to showcase the remarkable work and fascinatingly varied perspectives that have found a home on the platform. We welcome thoughtful criticism and conversation, but comments that are off-topic, rude, disparaging, or derogatory will be removed. In other words: If you can’t say something kind, at least say something interesting.
I don’t understand why my own takeaways differ so much from
so many above.
Senator Vance’s entire performance was frustrating for me in its lack of evidence for his first premise that VP Harris has been responsible for the leadership of both Biden and Congress and for his second premise that the economy flourished more under Trump & a Repub Congress than under Biden & a Repub Congress or might flourish under Harris & a Dem Congress. He waffled & muddled his positions whenever his team’s policies & proposals undeniably trampled basic human compassion. I found his religious dog whistles & “family man” talk horribly tasteless because they felt gratuitous in this context, especially after his harmful false witness against his own hometown and his bigoted commentary on women. After all of Vance’s brazen insults on the campaign trail, too, and his continuing disregard for truth concerning the 2020 election & Jan 6 ‘21, his emphatically effusive “civility” in the debate came across to me as a silly, even cynical act. Also, he disrespected the rules of the debate. An artful dodger of most questions asked, he sometimes seemed also to imitate Harris’s debate strategy or Walz’s own demeanor; Vance showed great dramatic ability to perform big character-switches. That can be a wondrous talent to have, but in this context? His play exploited the ignorance of the inattentive & uninformed & the partisan loyalists. Therefore, I found him painful to watch & hear!! I expect the sanewashing news-spinners about his performance will be painful to hear as well.
Governor Walz addressed the people as his audience and made clear he knew & cared something about who we are & how diverse in ideology, culture, economic resources, and social situations. He made clear his record of skill as a bipartisan leader and his close familiarity as governor & congressman with grassroots challenges, and he was especially clever about calling out Senator Vance’s avoidance of Congressional power in the democratic policy-making mix. Walz showed his devotion to getting facts right & correcting his own mistakes (all minor) while reasoning clearly, to doing extensive homework, and to thinking in terms of consequences for people. I found him especially strong on reproductive rights, guns, housing, immigration, and sustaining constitutional democracy. His demeanor was consistent with his conduct throughout his career and on the campaign trail, so I found it credible. Also, an educator & National Guardsman to his core, he respected the rules of the debate without accepting harmful BS. He gently but cleverly cornered Vance into some major self-contradictions on favorite MAGA issues and got off some really good zinger lines—and did nothing to contradict my previous perception of him.
The biggest world tragedy here is that NOBODY seems to have any wisdom regarding the Middle East, apparently today ever more hellbent on igniting WWIII rather than making peace & justice. This is not likely a VP project unless a president falls ill or dies—more likely in one case than the other, though admittedly possible for either one. Many reasons for deep grief here, even despair.