Vance makes a comeback in VP debate with Walz, but refuses to accept 2020 verdict

Washington: After a bruising few months where his political shifts and public statements eroded his approval ratings, Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance made a comeback in the debate with Democratic VP nominee Tim Walz as the two candidates sparred over the economy, immigration, foreign policy, gun violence, abortion and the state of American democracy.
Hosted by CBS News’s Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan on Tuesday night eastern time, most snap polls billed the debate as a tie. But from the start of the debate, in what was clearly a conscious attempt to project himself as open and reasonable, Vance articulated his positions in a relatively non-confrontational and smooth manner. In contrast, Walz appeared nervous initially, even as he warmed up and offered an effective critique of the Republican ticket on issues such as abortion and January 6 later in the debate.
VP debates have traditionally had almost no impact on the elections, with candidates operating on the principle of “do no harm” to the ticket and voters making their choices based on who is on the top of the ticket. But given how close the current race is, even marginal shifts in swing states can end up making a difference. An instant CNN poll found that 51% voters saw Vance as the winner, while 49% saw Walz as the winner. A flash CBS poll found 42% backing Vance, while 41% backed Walz.
The debate began with a question on Iranian strikes on Israel on Tuesday and whether the candidates would support Israeli pre-emptive strikes on Iran.
While supporting Israel broadly, Walz turned it into a question of leadership. The Minesota governor cast Donald Trump as a candidate obsessed with “crowd sizes”, whose closest former aides have declared him as unfit for office, and claimed his running mate, Kamala Harris, was capable of “steady leadership”. “We have seen a calmness that is able to draw on the coalitions, to bring them together, understanding that our allies matter. When our allies see Donald Trump turn towards Vladimir Putin, turn towards North Korea, when we start to see that type of fickleness around holding the coalitions together, we will stay committed.”
For his part, Vance used the first answer to introduce himself, drawing on his roots and upbringing in difficult circumstances in the Midwest, and then pivoted to framing Trump as the leader who could offer stability in a chaotic world. “As much as Governor Walz just accused Donald Trump of being an agent of chaos, Donald Trump actually delivered stability in the world, and he did it by establishing effective deterrence. People were afraid of stepping out of line.. Trump recognised that for people to fear the United States, you needed peace through strength. They needed to recognise that if they got out of line, the United States’ global leadership would put stability and peace back in the world.”
This then served as a recurring theme of the debate. Walz converted questions to point to Trump’s inconsistencies, extremism, erratic leadership, pro-rich policies and promised better child care, more support for home owners and small businesses under a Harris administration. Vance projected Trump’s record as one where prices were low, illegal immigration was low, manufacturing jobs were returning, and the world was at peace, and questioned why Harris, despite being an incumbent, hadn’t implemented policies that Democrats are now promising they will.
In the more controversial moments of the debate, Vance continued to toe Trump’s line and refused to accept the legitimacy of the 2020 election. He doubled down on his false claims about the illegal immigrants in Ohio’s Springfield. And he tried to soften the party and his own position seeking abortion bans and restrictions that are the biggest weakness of Republicans. For his part, Walz was defensive and unclear when asked about his past comments suggesting that he was in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen square massacre and fumbled in places including when he said he was friends with school shooters, while meaning — according to a subsequent campaign clarification — that he was friends with victims of school shooting.
The debate was, however, marked by a degree of civility and willingness to find common ground that has become rare in American politics. Both candidates were clearly aiming to appear moderate and reach out to undecided voters, in what is likely to be the final debate of this presidential election season.