FOR FREE PEOPLE

Watch: The Free Press Live!

FOR FREE PEOPLE

When Kamala Harris was picking her running mate this summer, Tim Walz’s characterization of J.D. Vance and Donald Trump as “weird” in a series of TV interviews helped earn him his spot on the ticket
“Like the previous two debates, this one had a clear winner: J.D. Vance,” writes Oliver Wiseman. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images)

Vance Wins a Weirdly Normal VP Debate

Watching Walz on the debate stage, it was hard to see how, exactly, he will boost Harris’s chances of victory in November.

When Kamala Harris was picking her running mate this summer, Tim Walz’s characterization of J.D. Vance and Donald Trump as “weird” in a series of TV interviews helped earn him his spot on the ticket. In the weeks that followed, Republicans turned the insult on the Minnesota governor, accusing him of being a bit of a weirdo himself. (Their pretty flimsy case is based on Walz’s sometimes exuberant body language.)    

But last night’s debate between Vance and Walz was surprisingly, almost disconcertingly, normal. 

What was the third and, almost surely, the final debate of this presidential race was a far cry from the previous two. The first ended Joe Biden’s career. The second was a bizarre, bad-tempered spectacle in which Trump lost his cool—and then just lost. Last night was a return to something more familiar. 

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. “I’ve enjoyed this debate,” said Walz toward the end of proceedings. “There’s been a lot of commonality.” Okay, maybe it was getting a little too normal. 

Like the previous two debates, this one had a clear winner: J.D. Vance. The 40-year-old Ohio senator arrived at the CBS studio with a clear plan: to tie Kamala Harris to the status quo and contrast the Biden-Harris years with the Trump years, especially on the economy and foreign policy. That has always been Trump’s best pitch to voters, albeit one the former president has been unable to stick to. Last night, Vance showed the discipline and clarity his boss lacks—and he reminded those watching of the political talent that got him to that stage. 

As for Walz, he and his party had managed expectations ahead of the debate by admitting that the Minnesota governor was “nervous.” And that wasn’t spin. Walz seemed unsure both of himself and the message he wanted to communicate to voters. But if Walz seemed muddled, then so does the Harris campaign. Does she want to capitalize on the purported success of the Biden administration, or be the change candidate? She doesn’t seem to know, so it’s no surprise Walz doesn’t either. 

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. 

When Harris interviewed Walz for the spot on the ticket, he reportedly warned her that he was a “bad debater.” Based on last night’s performance, that was not false modesty. 

This is the point in the analysis where I am duty-bound to inform you that VP debates don’t matter very much. They’re the equivalent of the bonus material on the second DVD that only superfans watch. And most of those superfans have probably made up their minds by now. 

But in an abbreviated and close contest, Harris’s one big decision was her running mate. Watching Walz on the debate stage last night, it was hard to see how, exactly, Harris’s choice has boosted her chances of victory in November. And if anyone in the Pennsylvania governor’s residence was watching, they were probably wondering the same thing.

Oliver Wiseman is a writer and editor for The Free Press. Follow him on X @ollywiseman

This piece was first published in our news digest, The Front Page. To get our latest scoops, investigations, and columns in your inbox every morning, Monday through Thursday, become a Free Press subscriber today:

Subscribe now

our Comments

Use common sense here: disagree, debate, but don't be a .

the fp logo
comment bg

Welcome to The FP Community!

Our comments are an editorial product for our readers to have smart, thoughtful conversations and debates — the sort we need more of in America today. The sort of debate we love.   

We have standards in our comments section just as we do in our journalism. If you’re being a jerk, we might delete that one. And if you’re being a jerk for a long time, we might remove you from the comments section. 

Common Sense was our original name, so please use some when posting. Here are some guidelines:

  • We have a simple rule for all Free Press staff: act online the way you act in real life. We think that’s a good rule for everyone.
  • We drop an occasional F-bomb ourselves, but try to keep your profanities in check. We’re proud to have Free Press readers of every age, and we want to model good behavior for them. (Hello to Intern Julia!)
  • Speaking of obscenities, don’t hurl them at each other. Harassment, threats, and derogatory comments that derail productive conversation are a hard no.
  • Criticizing and wrestling with what you read here is great. Our rule of thumb is that smart people debate ideas, dumb people debate identity. So keep it classy. 
  • Don’t spam, solicit, or advertise here. Submit your recommendations to tips@thefp.com if you really think our audience needs to hear about it.
Close Guidelines

Latest