For the partisans, last night’s vice-presidential debate was no contest.
There was some agreement: Democratic nominee Tim Walz seemed a little out of sorts at the beginning, while Republican JD Vance, a podcaster and frequent talk show guest, appeared comfortable with the format.
Otherwise, there was more agreement between the candidates than among the pundits paid to analyze them.
“A smooth lie is still a lie. JD Vance is incredibly smooth,” said MSNBC’s Joy Reid of the Republican nominee for vice president. “But he said number one, nothing. They were just all smooth, bland lies. He got outdone by Tim Walz.”
Walz, the Democratic nominee, “may be awkward. It may have taken him a while to get warmed up,” Reid said Tuesday. “But he won the debate because he actually had substance. He showed himself to be reasonable … bipartisan … practical.”
But to most right-wing commentators, Vance easily won the faceoff. On Fox, conservative bullhorn Sean Hannity said Donald Trump’s would-be veep was “measured; he was prepared, he was compassionate … intelligent, bright,” Hannity said. “The country really got to meet JD Vance tonight.”
Walz, on the other hand, “didn’t look very comfortable,” he said. “He was very nervous. He also lied over and over again.”
The public, meanwhile, appeared to view the only vice presidential debate scheduled as a draw. A flash poll of viewers conducted by CBS News and YouGov showed that 42 percent of those who watched the debate felt Vance came out on top as opposed to 41 percent favoring Walz. Seventeen percent viewed it as a draw.
A CNN poll of registered voters who watched the debate found a similar result: 51 percent said they thought Vance won; 49 percent favored Walz. A Politico/Focaldata snap poll also found likely voters evenly split on who won.
One poll gave Vance the advantage. Fifty percent of likely voters in a Daily Mail/J.L Partners survey said Vance won compared to 43 percent who said Walz came out ahead.
In stark contrast to the two most recent presidential debates, viewers seemed to appreciate the tone struck by Vance and Walz, with 88 percent of those surveyed in the CBS poll calling it “generally positive.” Twelve percent found it “generally negative.”
Media outlets also highlighted the issues-oriented debate. Forbes called it a “mostly polite yet policy-heavy vice-presidential debate that was described by some as ‘midwestern nice.'” The BBC described it as a “civil and relatively restrained conversation about the issues at the top of American voters’ minds.”
But were any minds changed?
Probably not. A New York magazine analysis surmised, “With the debate being so closely contested, the best guess is that it, like nearly every other vice-presidential debate in history, won’t have a tangible effect on the presidential race.”
But the Politico poll found some hopeful news for the Democrats. It showed 58 percent of independent voters surveyed gave Walz the victory compared to 42 percent who said Vance prevailed.
As for who was the most honest with voters, fact-checkers found misrepresentations on both sides.
Vance’s claim that “We’ve got 20-25 million illegal aliens who are here in the country” greatly overcalculated the actual number.
The Department of Homeland Security earlier this year estimated the number of immigrants living in the U.S. without permission at 11 million. That number was in line with findings by the Pew Research Center and the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. A conservative think tank, the Center for Immigration Studies, estimated there were approximately 12 million undocumented residents as of May 2023.
Meanwhile, Walz’s claim that the Trump administration is planning to register pregnancies was deemed false by the BBC.
Walz attempted to link the Republican ticket to Project 2025, an ultra-conservative policy wish list by the Heritage Foundation think tank. However, according to the BBC, Project 2025 does not call for the creation of a new federal agency to register pregnancies.
“Trump has repeatedly distanced himself from Project 2025 – though dozens of former Trump administration officials have contributed to the think tank’s proposals,” the BBC noted.
The debate did take a dramatic turn at one point, when CBS moderator Margaret Brennan’s live fact-checking spiraled into an argument with Vance, temporarily muting his microphone.
Fox Host Greg Gutfeld criticized the two female moderators, calling them “chicks” and claiming they were “nagging” the vice presidential hopeful in response to claims that Vance’s behavior was sexist.
“But you know you’re wrong when you have to trudge out the ‘this is sexist.’ Like,
Oh, my god, they are mansplaining these delightful hosts,” Gutfeld said. “They cut the mic not because––the whole point of cutting the mic was for crosstalk. They cut the mic because he was right. It was so obvious. It was like, ‘Shut him up, shut him up.'”
“By the way, I’ve come to the conclusion that mansplaining is the female version of how men consider nagging. It’s like they were nagging him, and he was mansplaining them.”
