Grab Your Popcorn: Here’s What to Expect in the Walz-Vance VP Debate
In a razor-close race, Tuesday’s matchup likely won’t sway many undecided voters, but that doesn’t mean it’s low-stakes, say two BU experts
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (left) and US Senator J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) will take the stage in their first, and likely only, debate on Tuesday at 9 pm ET. Photo via AP
Grab Your Popcorn: Here’s What to Expect in the Walz-Vance VP Debate
In a razor-close race, Tuesday’s matchup likely won’t sway many undecided voters, but that doesn’t mean it’s low-stakes, say two BU experts
There’s a good old-fashioned midwestern showdown brewing for Tuesday’s vice presidential debate between Democrat Tim Walz, governor of Minnesota, and US Senator J.D. Vance (R-Ohio). But if the campaigns thus far are any indication, it’s safe to bet that nothing about the first—and likely only—face-to-face debate between Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate and former president Donald Trump’s will be traditional.
In what has so far been a razor-thin race, it’s unlikely that the debate, which starts at 9 pm ET, will sway voters’ decisions, especially since most voters have already made up their minds about who they’ll vote for. But as both vice presidential candidates seek to appease their party’s base and solidify their own image (as well as those of Harris and Trump), there’s still plenty to watch for.
BU Today spoke to Lauren Mattioli, a College of Arts & Sciences assistant professor of political science, and Andrew David (CAS’05, GRS’18), a College of General Studies lecturer in social science and a historian, about their predictions for the vice presidential face-off.
Q&A
with Lauren Mattioli and Andrew David
BU Today: This is a super-close race. Realistically, how much might this VP debate move the needle?
Lauren Mattioli: We shouldn’t expect the VP debate to move opinion enough to influence the election outcome on its own, but we can consider debates alongside broader campaign phenomena, which can have small but distinguishable effects on voters’ preferences and turnout.
Andrew David: VP debates rarely have the impact that presidential debates do. Even the memorable ones (such as the Lloyd Bentsen–Dan Quayle debate in 1988) didn’t always work out in favor of the “winner.” The major exception to this would perhaps be Admiral James Stockdale’s performance in 1992. It’s hard to imagine Ross Perot winning that election, but Admiral Stockdale’s poor showing did further damage to Perot’s efforts.
Still, the Harris and Trump campaigns will take any advantage they can get. At the very least, this is an important opportunity for each campaign to restate its case to further bolster and excite its base. In a race this tight, getting decided voters out matters, too.
BU Today: Tim Walz has been credited with starting the Democrats’ strategy of calling Trump and Vance “weird.” Do you expect he’ll use the same framing in this matchup?
Mattioli: The “weird” frame has been used a lot by Democrats recently, though I’ll point out that it’s been used for years by left-leaning comedian Seth Meyers, and I expect Walz will revive it for the debate—and why shouldn’t he? It seems to rattle both Vance and Trump and puts them in the awkward position of having to defend their own normality, which is self-defeating, and forces them to waste time defending their images rather than their policies.
David: I absolutely do. Harris was roundly seen as winning her debate by getting under Trump’s skin. I think Walz is going to try to put Vance in a similar position. Like Trump, Vance has a reputation for being a bit thin-skinned. When criticized in this campaign, he seems to double down, a tactic which might backfire for him in a debate. He probably won’t get the same type of pass that some are giving Trump for his last performance. But I do think there’s a real question about whether Vance will feel compelled not just to defend himself, but to really engage in that argument so much that it dominates his debate performance.
The presidential debate had reasonably high stakes for each side: Harris was going in with the idea that she would do well against Trump. That seems to have been the case, but I think reviews would have been scathing if the “conventional wisdom” proved wrong. I would say that Walz perhaps is in a similar situation. He’s done well in his role so far, but a debate stage is a far less forgiving environment. For Walz, a self-confessed “bad debater,” the downsides of a poor debate are significant when many expect him to do well. It might dampen enthusiasm on the Democratic side.
BU Today: What might J.D. Vance’s strategy be for the debate, touching on the concerns of his and Trump’s base?
Mattioli: J.D. Vance has an opportunity to pivot and start discussing the policy that he and Trump might win on: the economy. It would be smart for him to drill down on what he and Trump can do to make the lives of average citizens materially better—that’s what people want to hear about. Do I think that’s what he’ll actually do? No, because he’s had the same opportunity at every speaking engagement for weeks and hasn’t capitalized on it. I’m expecting he’ll use the same strategy he’s deployed while on the campaign trail: demonizing people who are less powerful than he is.
David: A lot of this depends on what the Trump campaign thinks they could get out of this debate. If exciting their base means more of Vance’s claims, then repeating those could be a “winning” tactic in the eyes of Trump and his team. If they’re aiming for undecided voters or want to present a less partisan tone, Vance could speak more to his background, personal experiences, and show that, far from a caricature, he can empathize with the concerns and struggles of many Americans. Sarah Palin, in something of a similar situation before her debate in 2008, tried to do this. It seemed to work for her, though it didn’t save that campaign. I think it would be hard for Vance, however, to balance those two approaches.
BU Today: Overall, what do you think each candidate will have to do to “win” this debate?
Mattioli: Both of these candidates are being evaluated on their personalities and Vance is suffering from a major likability deficit. So, Vance can “win” if he doesn’t come off as a power-hungry bigot you wouldn’t want to share an elevator with. Walz wins by not committing a major faux pas that would detract from Harris’ momentum and staying consistent with his brand: midwestern affability.
David: Part of this is a question of what winning means. If it’s just solidifying their respective bases, they just have to do well and not be seen as messing up too much. To win undecided voters, it’s a bit more complex. For Vance to win I think he has to stick to his talking points and reclaim that Hillbilly Elegy image: someone who can speak for the “average” American and is not defined by Project 2025, “childless cat ladies,” etc. For Walz, I think he has to show that his folksy persona can work in a more hardball, national, political setting. He has to push the message that the Harris ticket has plans to help all Americans. If he can throw Vance off his game, and cast doubt on the leadership abilities of the GOP ticket, that’ll be a positive performance for him.
CBS News anchors Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan will moderate Tuesday’s debate, starting at 9 pm ET. The 90-minute debate will air live on all major networks.
Comments & Discussion
Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.