For the first, and only, time this 2024 election cycle, the vice presidential debate on Oct. 1 offered many voters a chance to hear from the running mates of both former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. Both vice president hopefuls finally had the chance to show the United States public how they are suited for the job. Trump picked his running mate, Senator J. D. Vance from Ohio, on July 15. Meanwhile, Harris didn’t pick her running mate, Governor Tim Walz of Michigan, until Aug. 6. Before the debate, my perception of both was considerably limited compared to what I knew about Trump and Harris. Would Vance or Walz come across as relatable? Would either walk away from the debate having left a good impression on me? It was with that curiosity that I opened my laptop, threw on my headphones and settled in to assess how Walz and Vance would perform debating each other for the first time.
One of the initial features I picked up on in the debate was how each man presented himself. Both tried to relate to the large middle class of America. Walz eagerly tried to sell himself as a good ole, everyday middle-class man. He said, “Kamala Harris and I do believe in the middle class because that’s where we come from. We both grew up in that. We understand.” Later, he said, “Look, I grew up in small, rural Nebraska, town of 400. Town that you rode your bike with your buddies till the streetlights come on.” Personally, the repetition and directness felt like he was trying too hard to make me see him from the middle class. Unfortunately, other voters probably bought it. While on average Vance won the debate based on multiple polls, it was also a close competition. Walz must have won some people over with his persona. Meanwhile, Vance portrayed himself as a parent who unquestionably loves his children, describing himself “as the father of three beautiful children.” He only mentioned this a few times in the debate; it never felt like too much repetition. In addition, he did a few shout-outs including one to his kids at home. Doing the occasional shout-out made the connection he had to these people seem more real, and it provided Vance with a more relatable personality compared to Walz. Even though a general internet search shows that Vance has a higher net worth than Walz (largely because of his sales from his book “Hillbilly Elegy”), Vance came off as more relatable to the hard-working middle class than Walz did, despite his opponent’s overzealous attempt.
While Walz looked surprised or indignant or unprepared for most of the debate, Vance remained calm and collected. Each point he crafted, he did so articulately. He did not ramble, and the argument he made was generally clear. He was also very polite, but some commentators I listened to after the debate suggested that maybe he was a little too nice. It is true, Vance could have been more aggressive. He allowed Walz to present false information without confronting him, and the moderators asked biased questions that Vance never challenged. However, it was also a little refreshing to hear a debate where the participants were more cordial (even if I did miss Trump’s one-liners and comebacks). Plus, I came away with a good impression of Vance. Walz seemed to pick up on Vance’s strategy, but he could not compete, with his indignant facial expressions and the interjections he tried (and often failed) to hold back while Vance was talking. All the while, Vance continued to initiate the cordiality. Walz also could not contend with Vance’s articulation. Walz spat out policies, information and some statistics, running in oratorical circles that I often had a hard time following. To me, most of his answers were not satisfying. Vance said it best when he told Walz, “I asked a specific question, Governor. And you gave me a slogan as a response.” Many times, I found myself lost in Walz’s words, and I had no idea where he was going with it. He left me confused and unimpressed.
Vance – composed and coherent the entire time – won the debate, leaving Walz in the dust, awkward and bewildered and spitting out statistics. Vance was overall more relatable and likable compared to Walz. I came away impressed more by Vance, and I wish I could see him debate again. Vance proved to voters that Trump made a wise choice when picking him and that Harris could, and should, have done better with her decision-making. I am excited to see what the near future holds for Trump and Vance as the election looms frighteningly close, but whatever the outcome ends up being, the successful performance that Vance carried out during the vice president debate will continue to help him even after this election. It is an accomplishment in his political career that will be remembered far into the future.
The candidate who won the vice president debate
For the first, and only, time this 2024 election cycle, the vice presidential debate on Oct. 1 offered many voters a chance to hear from the running mates of both former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. Both vice president hopefuls finally had the chance to show the United States public how they are suited for the job. Trump picked his running mate, Senator J. D. Vance from Ohio, on July 15. Meanwhile, Harris didn’t pick her running mate, Governor Tim Walz of Michigan, until Aug. 6. Before the debate, my perception of both was considerably limited compared to what I knew about Trump and Harris. Would Vance or Walz come across as relatable? Would either walk away from the debate having left a good impression on me? It was with that curiosity that I opened my laptop, threw on my headphones and settled in to assess how Walz and Vance would perform debating each other for the first time.
One of the initial features I picked up on in the debate was how each man presented himself. Both tried to relate to the large middle class of America. Walz eagerly tried to sell himself as a good ole, everyday middle-class man. He said, “Kamala Harris and I do believe in the middle class because that’s where we come from. We both grew up in that. We understand.” Later, he said, “Look, I grew up in small, rural Nebraska, town of 400. Town that you rode your bike with your buddies till the streetlights come on.” Personally, the repetition and directness felt like he was trying too hard to make me see him from the middle class. Unfortunately, other voters probably bought it. While on average Vance won the debate based on multiple polls, it was also a close competition. Walz must have won some people over with his persona. Meanwhile, Vance portrayed himself as a parent who unquestionably loves his children, describing himself “as the father of three beautiful children.” He only mentioned this a few times in the debate; it never felt like too much repetition. In addition, he did a few shout-outs including one to his kids at home. Doing the occasional shout-out made the connection he had to these people seem more real, and it provided Vance with a more relatable personality compared to Walz. Even though a general internet search shows that Vance has a higher net worth than Walz (largely because of his sales from his book “Hillbilly Elegy”), Vance came off as more relatable to the hard-working middle class than Walz did, despite his opponent’s overzealous attempt.
While Walz looked surprised or indignant or unprepared for most of the debate, Vance remained calm and collected. Each point he crafted, he did so articulately. He did not ramble, and the argument he made was generally clear. He was also very polite, but some commentators I listened to after the debate suggested that maybe he was a little too nice. It is true, Vance could have been more aggressive. He allowed Walz to present false information without confronting him, and the moderators asked biased questions that Vance never challenged. However, it was also a little refreshing to hear a debate where the participants were more cordial (even if I did miss Trump’s one-liners and comebacks). Plus, I came away with a good impression of Vance. Walz seemed to pick up on Vance’s strategy, but he could not compete, with his indignant facial expressions and the interjections he tried (and often failed) to hold back while Vance was talking. All the while, Vance continued to initiate the cordiality. Walz also could not contend with Vance’s articulation. Walz spat out policies, information and some statistics, running in oratorical circles that I often had a hard time following. To me, most of his answers were not satisfying. Vance said it best when he told Walz, “I asked a specific question, Governor. And you gave me a slogan as a response.” Many times, I found myself lost in Walz’s words, and I had no idea where he was going with it. He left me confused and unimpressed.
Some LGBT students fear the Title IX exemption
Vance – composed and coherent the entire time – won the debate, leaving Walz in the dust, awkward and bewildered and spitting out statistics. Vance was overall more relatable and likable compared to Walz. I came away impressed more by Vance, and I wish I could see him debate again. Vance proved to voters that Trump made a wise choice when picking him and that Harris could, and should, have done better with her decision-making. I am excited to see what the near future holds for Trump and Vance as the election looms frighteningly close, but whatever the outcome ends up being, the successful performance that Vance carried out during the vice president debate will continue to help him even after this election. It is an accomplishment in his political career that will be remembered far into the future.