Walz's Insecurities and Vance's Kind Version as Standard Conservative

It is very possible that the best definition of the vice-presidential debate held this Tuesday (early Wednesday morning in Spain) in New York was given by the 'Boston Globe'. Tim Walz and JD Vance are two "good soldiers". This American media wonders if the face-to-face left a "mark" on the millions of viewers who tuned in to CBS and highlights: "It was not really about them, it was about their potential bosses and the marked differences in their visions for the country."

The governor of Minnesota said at one point during the night that both he and his Republican opponent were maintaining a "healthy" dialogue. Practically almost all US columnists agree that, unlike the previous debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, tonight's debate was "respectful" and even had moments of mutual recognition between the two candidates. "In this bitter and unpleasant political environment, those brief moments of agreement may have been disconcerting" for the audience, who saw two politicians discussing without getting agitated less than five weeks before the elections.

However, for that same reason, some are asking for more fire. "The debate, largely civilized and possibly quite informative, underscored one thing: we need another presidential debate," says Doug Schoen, an analyst for the conservative channel Fox News. The veteran journalist believes that the two aspirants "did not innovate at all" nor did they "introduce radical changes in traditional policies," but he assures that their meeting was of great importance because "it was civil, it was informative, and it included a surprisingly high degree of bipartisanship that has been notably absent in the 2024 presidential race."

Who did better? Generally speaking, the media agree that JD Vance was a surprise because he "seemed to take the trouble to present himself as a relatively standard conservative Republican." A view also recognized from abroad by the British 'Times', which admitted that the Republican candidate offered a "kind" profile that engaged in topics where his opponent could take control, such as abortion rights and immigration.

In that intervention far from a record that registers grim opinions about women who choose not to have children or Haitian migrants, David Firestone of the progressive 'The New York Times' states that it has influenced the conservative senator's ability to "turn extravagance on and off, to sound reasonable, to disguise a bitter and hollow core with chatter learned at Yale. That was the version of himself that Vance presented to CBS's audience," which was "very far from how he sounds when campaigning in front of MAGA-supporting crowds."

Regarding Vance, there is general agreement that he has been able to leverage his experience in front of cameras or in his participations in right-wing and far-right podcasts and political events. Tim Walz, on the other hand, has been perceived as more insecure. It also did not help him that shortly before arriving at the CBS News studio rumors were leaked that some advisors on the Democratic team doubted his debating or interview skills. Walz is a veteran teacher and coach used to detailed explanations and answers rather than short, visceral, and superficial messages of contemporary politics.

"Walz did not have the impressive performance his supporters had hoped for. The astute Midwest charm that has been so effective in his speeches and campaign ads was absent, replaced by a nervous intensity that led to confusing answers and missed opportunities to remind viewers that Trump is unfit for office," considers Firestone. 'The Washington Post' also argues that the Democrat "seemed nervous, especially at first," and often did not "explain what he was talking about in a way understandable to casual viewers." Still, it praises one of Kamala Harris's running mate's "most interesting strategies" which was not so much about attacking Vance but presenting him as someone who could actually be reasonable, in contrast with Trump.

Ross Douthat, an opinion leader for 'The New York Times', says he understands after watching the face-to-face why Donald Trump chose JD Vance as his vice president. The Ohio senator "is offering one of the best performances in a debate by a Republican candidate for president or vice president in recent memory and is defending Trump's record much more effectively than Trump has ever been able to do."

Douthat believes Tim Walz gave the impression of being "out of place" at several points while "Vance's performance included a conscious dose of humanization, an attempt to reintroduce his working-class past and surprising personal biography after weeks of effective Democratic attacks on his right-wing comments. But above all it was simply an effective defense against the Biden-Harris administration."

The governor of Minnesota ended the night at a pizzeria in New York with his wife. Between bites of pepperoni Walz responded to journalists who accompanied him to Justino's Pizza and followed the first assessments of the debate. Beyond insecurities, the general view on the Democratic vice-presidential candidate is that he is likeable relative everyone wants. A trustworthy Midwesterner given to humanizing stories with morals like when he shared his son's experience witnessing a shooting on a sports field. It was one of the night's most impactful revelations.

'The Washington Post' popular poll gives Walz better scores on his proposals on how to reduce school massacre tragedies, almost turned into an epidemic in America or improving healthcare. Conversely prefers Vance when offering his views on migration and climate change or defending state-level abortion regulation. The 'Financial Times' found it beneficial both candidates spent time debating national economy improvement ways. Other commentators claim differences between Democrats Republicans became clear at end when Vance denied Trump lost 2020 election.