On the night of October first, VP candidates JD Vance and Tim Walz faced off on CBS. The Debate had a significantly different tone than the earlier debate between VP Harris and former president Trump and by my calculations, was a win for Vance. Though there were a few contentious moments, overall both VP candidates kept their blows above the belt. According to Gallup, in the lead up to the debate, views from registered voters on both VP candidates slightly favored Walz, with intense divisions based on partisan lines. Gallup’s polling indicated that around 70% of Democrats viewed Vance as a poor choice for VP and vice versa with the relationship between Republicans and Walz. However, in the post debate polling, CBS found that among 1,630 likely voters who watched the debate found Walz’s favorability increased from 52% to 60% after the debate, and Vance’s increased from 40% to 49%. Additionally, CBS’ post debate polling found Both candidates unfavorability also decreased, with Walz’s falling from 41% to 35% and Vance’s dropping from 54% to 47%.

Why was this debate so different than the Harris/Trump Debate?

Going into the Harris/Trump debate, VP Harris’ campaign was still seen as the underdog. Though the poor taste in the mouth of many voters from the previous debate between Biden/Trump had mostly been washed away from Biden dropping out of the race, Harris still sought to go on the offensive. As a result, throughout the debate, Harris carefully executed a variety of different traps and attacks that former president Trump struggled to not fall for. Overall, this plan payed large dividends for VP Harris and resulted in a disastrous performance from former president Trump. However, it also resulted in the average voter seeing the debate as a contentious affair. To many, their perception of Trump was only reinforced and they were still left with questions on Harris’ policy positions. On the other hand, going into the VP debate, the Harris campaign no longer felt themselves to be the underdogs as recent polling had indicated both campaigns to be neck and neck. Therefore, Vance and Walz were both careful to not have any major slip ups or negatively viral moments that could potentially tip the balance of power in the election one way or another. Furthermore, both candidates had their own personal reasons to be mellow in the debate. Walz, a self proclaimed ‘poor debater’, had been facing attacks from the right on his ‘radical’ record. As a result, he opted to try and be very balanced in the debate and often times, in accordance with recent moves by the Harris campaign, drift towards the center with many of his answers. On the other hand, Vance was deeply unpopular going into the debate with his views being labeled by many as ‘radical’ as well. While he struggles in the public setting, in a socratic setting he often is strongest, so he viewed the deabte as an excellent opportunity for himself. Additionally, Vance, from a policy perspective, needed to clean up the mess left by former president Trump after the last debate. Therefore, he also opted to take a more calm approach in order to revive his own favorability ratings as well to attempt to change the minds of many that he is a ‘radical’.

Why is this result a win for JD Vance?

A tame debate that seemingly humanized both candidates is a win for Vance. This is because going into the debate, Vance’s favorability was very low among voters, clocking in at just 40%. While Walz has also seen his favorability go up in post-debate polling, dragging his approval rating out of the gutter was a critical priority for Vance. Previously, Vance’s poor ratings had been hurting the Trump ticket; however, for the time being, that hurt is largely remedied. Walz, on the other hand, though his ratings have gone up, was never a threat to the Harris ticket. The hope for Democrats had been to portray Vance as such a poor VP pick that his unpopularity could keep potential Trump voters away from the polls as well as be the deciding factor for some swing voters. However, the debate has left that strategy in shambles due to Vance appearing to be calm, measured, and ‘presidential’ throughout the debate. Walz failed to challenge Vance on a variety of policy positions and often stated that he ‘agreed’ with the premises presented by Vance. Additionally, the candidates shared moments of empathy with one another, which served to further humanize Vance and make him more palatable to the average voter. While Walz can take solace in the fact that he is now even more popular than before, he should definitely be unhappy that his performance gave the Trump campaign an, albeit small, boost. Many swing voters recognize that Trump is a selfish and unstable character; however, they often search for a permission structure to vote for him. Beliefs such as Trump’s strength on immigration and the economy usually provide this structure, and an acceptable VP candidate also contributes to it. Therefore, it was in the best interest of the Harris campaign to try to revoke Trump’s credibility on immigration and the economy, as well as continue to weigh down the already unpopular Vance. However, in both debates, they have failed to do so. The Harris campaign should be kicking themselves for failing to successfully dismantle the Trump campaign’s policy proposals on the national stage, and they will not get another opportunity to do so with the election about a month away.