Ashley Elizabeth Miller

It was pretty hard to watch — that was the sentiment from most political reporters covering the vice presidential debate between Tim Walz and JD Vance on CBS last night.

Going in, Walz had a friendly Midwestern image — America’s dad, backed by none other than Taylor Swift. Vance, on the other hand, was known as the hillbilly election denier with disdain for “childless cat ladies.”

But Vance proved himself. He skillfully evaded questions while spinning Trump’s agenda into a more moderate light — what analysts call “sane washing.” Meanwhile, Walz struggled to defend the Harris team’s positions and expressed an odd congeniality toward Vance in moments when he should’ve pushed back.

Despite Vance’s performance — answering the questions he wanted, not the ones asked — his victory was downplayed in the press. Still, the PBS News panel agreed he came out on top. And they expressed disappointment in Walz.

“He was not as strong as he could be,” Ameisha Cross said. “It was actually pretty hard to watch.”

PBS Republican strategist Kevin Madden said: “This was not the debate we were expecting.” Amy Walter noted Vance’s skill at glossing over Trump’s radical policies, calling him “the opposite of Trump.”

Though, all of them agreed: the debate won’t have much effect on polling.

Where Walz Went Wrong

Maybe Walz was too confident going into the night. His popularity among Americans was exponentially higher than Vance, who has been dragged through the mud this summer for old clips of him spewing hate against single women on national television. Recently, he spread racist lies about Haitian immigrants in Ohio eating pets and admitted on CNN to spinning stories for the GOP agenda. Just yesterday, The Economist compared Vance to Sarah Palin, calling him “the textbook example of a bad pick.”

Walz could’ve picked up on the momentum, but he struggled from the start, stumbling when the CBS moderator hit him with a hardball in the beginning about how the U.S. should respond to Iran’s retaliation against Israel. Should we put conditions on the resources supplied?

Vance, on the other hand, came out swinging with a smile. He reframed his image as a confident family man, spun tales of “illegal aliens” smuggling fentanyl over U.S. borders, and blamed Harris for the many crises facing Americans. He even made Walz nod in agreement–a misstep by most accounts.

At least Walz managed to land a hit on the Jan. 6th question–though that came at the very end of the night.

Walz Looked Scared, Vance Looked Aggressive

Despite the thick black eyeliner and fuschia tie, Vance looked strong on stage and made Walz appear scared. His strategy? He kept his eyes glued to Walz the whole night, while Walz looked down, scribbling notes, and at times, appeared physically strained.

Vance, meanwhile, intermittently flashed a smile at the camera. His stage confidence was an asset, though it bordered on intimidation, similar to Trump stalking Hilary Clinton onstage during the 2016 debate.

Content And Style

Candidates are largely judged on content and style. Do they seem smart? How about confident? Do they have a smooth tongue?

While neither Vance nor Walz offered any substantive policy plans, Vance certainly took the cake when it came to style. It helps that his whole act is inspired by Donald Trump.

MAGA politicians tend to exploit their constituents’ lack of understanding about how the legislative process works. For example, Vance kept saying Harris hasn’t accomplished anything in office, though most of the people he’d call “elites” know her role is largely ceremonial. She can’t just snap her fingers and solve the border crisis.

Moderators Should Have Fact Checked

Maybe the moderators should have done more fact-checking and stood by their rules, like cutting off candidates’ microphones when they started talking over one another.

It seemed they tried to over-correct from the last presidential debate between Trump and Harris, where moderators were accused of showing bias toward Harris (and Trump threatened to sue ABC moderator David Muir).

This time, CBS moderators hit Walz with tough questions and harped on some of his past mistakes. For instance, they brought up how he misspoke about being in Tiananmen Square, which made Walz visibly flustered.

Walz Should Have Studied Freud Before The Debate

Before the debate, Slate magazine’s Steven Reiner, a psychologist, published an analysis comparing Vance and Walz through a mythological lens. He likened Trump to Hydra — every time Trump told a lie, two more grew in its place. Reiner argued that Walz should’ve leaned into what the Democrats call “Joy,” echoing Plato’s “Eros” to defeat Vance, in the same way Harris did to Trump.

---

Or perhaps Walz just needed a bit more prep work to iron out his nerves.