The Alternate Reality Veep Debate

The Debate Had Substance, but It Went to Strange Places

Questions! Do you like them answered? Then this vice-presidential debate is not the place for you! Filibustering is part of the campaign debate game – both Harris and Trump did it – and candidates naturally want to cover their talking points and dodge the weaknesses in their ticket. 

But, at times, last night’s filibustering felt justifiable or even necessary because some of the CBS moderators’ questions were a bit confounding. The debate opened with a bit of scene-setting on the current crises the U.S. and the world faces, particularly the dangerously escalatory situation in the Middle East, as Israel prepares for a ground invasion into southern Lebanon and promises to retaliate against an Iranian missile strike. For the first question, CBS correspondent Margaret Brennan asked: “Iran is weakened, but the U.S. still considers it the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and it has drastically reduced the time it would take to develop a nuclear weapon. It is down now to one or two weeks’ time. Governor Walz, if you are the final voice in the Situation Room, would you support or oppose a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran?”

I’m sorry, what? No politician would answer that question, and it’s a pretty provocative one without any context or real intelligence. Walz stumbled in his response, fumbling Iran and Israel, but recovered in his closing by criticizing Trump’s unfitness for office and fickleness with allies, in contrast to the Biden-Harris administration’s ability to rally around allies. Vance, meanwhile, just went off into his Hillbilly Elegy biography, though he did end his answer by saying that it was “up to Israel what they think they need to do to keep their country safe, and we should support our allies wherever they are when they’re fighting the bad guys.”

That was the only question on the Middle East – a hyper-specific question that suggested an intensification of the conflict, instead of testing the candidates’ vision on how to de-escalate or what each ticket sees as a solution or good outcome for the turmoil in the Middle East. 

Being a debate moderator is a thankless job – you’re biased no matter what you do, you have to try to keep everything moving. Brennan and her co-moderator, Norah O’Donnell, did really try to hit on all the big and small things – the economy, abortion, gun control, January 6th. 

And yet, in limited time, some of the questions felt like tangents, rather than the big-picture policies or plans. On the housing crisis, the moderators asked Walz and Vance “where” they would build new homes, rather than how their respective housing plans would work. On paid parental leave, the moderator’s question was: “How long should employers be required to pay workers while they are home taking care of their newborns?” To which Walz correctly responded, “Well, that’s negotiable.” 

On gun control, the moderator’s question was: “The parents of a school shooter were convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Do you think holding parents responsible curb mass shootings?” To which Vance correctly responded, “I don’t know the full details, but I certainly trust local law enforcement and local authorities to make those decisions.” Vance pivoted to talk about illegal migration and being worried about the safety of kids in school, though he didn’t offer a policy solution to gun violence. 

Yet, Vance’s filibuster of the question was still more revealing than the actual question. For undecided voters, who are presumably the audience here, the questions sometimes felt too specific and kind of beside the point, especially for the guys who are going to be second-in-command.

Vindication for Debate Clubs

In the lead-up to the debate, the Democrats tried to do some expectation-setting by saying Vance was a Yale Law guy, and Walz was a public school teacher. This is pretty much how it went down. Vance is the guy who joins the debate club and says he is going to be president one day, and he proved that the dream maybe really could come true. For Republicans who have been nervous about Trump’s selection of Vance, his performance likely reassured them on his capabilities and future potential in the party. For those already skeptical of Vance, he probably confirmed the priors that he is that insufferable guy on the debate team. Either way, Vance’s skill at this made it hard for Walz or the moderators to pin him down on the issues, and he can be persuasive, even when he’s talking nonsense, such as claiming that Trump somehow saved the Affordable Care Act when that is patently untrue. 

There Was Actual Policy Talk

Okay, if you told me Finland’s gun policy was going to come up in a political debate, I’d assume it would be because we were watching a political debate in Finland! It really contrasted with the Trump-Harris debate, where Harris delivered her talking points and needled Trump, and Trump just went off. There could have been more digging in on the candidates’ records and past statements and maybe more time spent on certain topics – foreign policy, and January 6th – but it was substantive. But also, we could have used a meme or two. Bring back the fly.

The Debate’s Unsettling, Old-School Feel

This debate felt like two politicians with political disagreements using their allotted 90-minutes. They avoided personal attacks, and both did the civility thing. Whether it was a performance, or whether it was genuine, it did feel a little like a relief: remember the time when elections did not feel so existential? Which is something both Democrats and Republicans share. 

But maybe there is something appealing in Trump’s over-the-top-ness, because it makes it easier to see what it is. Vance repackages and resells that approach, sanding down the edges. The Vance and Walz debate was a reminder that, whether or not Trump wins, the MAGA platform is now American politics as usual.