The Moderators, The Candidates & Reaction to the VP Debate – Top 3 Takeaways – October 2nd, 2024
“I’ve become friends with school shooters” Tim Walz.
- The moderators. One of the biggest storylines ahead of debates is the role that moderators play in a debate. Moderators are like referees and umpires. If we come out of debate talking about them...there’s a problem. And following the Trump-Harris presidential debate...we had a big problem. One of the questions heading into the VP debate was whether it would be more of the same of what we saw with the ABC News hosted and moderated presidential debate? CBS News was the venue. Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan were the moderators. According to the Media Research Center’s study, CBS’s coverage had been 84% positive for Kamala Harris and her campaign compared to 79% negative for Donald Trump and his campaign. There was the potential for the VP debate to take on a similar feel to what we saw during the most recent presidential debate. The four questions pertaining to the moderators that I was monitoring were these... 1) How would the questions be framed? The answer was occasionally objective but frequently aimed at putting Vance and Trump on the defensive. This was highlighted by a moment once again featuring Springfield, Ohio where Margret Brennan made a blatant mischaracterization, falsely cited Vance and let Walz run away with it. There also was a comical moment early on with the climate change question where Norah O’Donnell, apparently expecting a different answer by JD Vance than what he provided, awkwardly ended the line of questioning with both candidates by stating that experts agree climate change is real. 2) Will the focus of the questions be on the issues that matter to us or to the moderators (January 6th, threat to democracy, etc.)? They mostly stayed with the issues we care about...until the end when they decided to make it all about January 6th. 3) Will Tim Walz be properly pressed on his lack of public access since becoming Kamala Harris’ running mate (no solo interviews), his ticket’s failure to provide comprehensive policy plans so that Americans may better understand what it is that the ticket stands for, and for Kamala’s stated flips flops on key issues? Complete free pass for Walz on lack of access. Vance made a veiled reference to it through his accessibility. Ironically Vance was made to account for his change in positions more than Walz was for his ticket. 4) Will the moderators let the candidates speak during their allocated time or would they intervene and/or cut off mics during a candidate’s time? Save for the one time that Brennan, who was clearly the least objective of the two, attempted to falsely fact check Vance regarding the abuse of the asylum system – which Vance expertly called out...
- The candidates. The questions I outlined that I was monitoring for the candidates were these... Can the younger and less experienced politician JD Vance stand tall on the debate stage in comparison to the veteran politician and current Minnesota Governor Tim Walz? Yes, and then some and he shined as the best debater out of the mix of Biden, Harris, Walz and Trump in this cycle. Will JD Vance be able to effectively redefine himself to a country of people who’ve been conditioned to think that he’s a weirdo, who has a particular bug up his butt about cat ladies? That’s each person’s particular opinion but I would certainly think so. Will Vance be able to effectively turn the tables and paint Tim Walz as the weirdo? Vance was the only candidate evoking the word “weird” – he did it twice – though not directly aiming it at Walz. Will Walz be able to credibly come across as the “every man” he portrays himself to be, or will he potentially come across as an insincere politician trying to fake it? When Walz was comfortable he was able to generally present himself as being on the level (although there was the forced and clearly rehearsed pandering to Christians when he stated that he doesn’t often do it, but he’d quote a Bible verse...). When became uncomfortable however, like when he was caught in a lie about having been in China during Tiananmen Square (leading to him calling himself a “knucklehead”, he would become flustered and blush – with his face turning red. His physical presentation often told the story. Will Vance be able to effectively paint Harris and Walz as the leftist radicals that their voting records and rhetoric preceding the presidential and vice-presidential run suggest? Yes. Would Walz be able to effectively paint Vance as an out-of-the-mainstream conservative extremist the way that he has often suggested is the case (people already have their opinion of Trump – nothing Walz has to say about him will have any impact)? Unlikely. The effort was made on abortion specifically, but Vance was ready by saying his position was rejected by voters in his home state and that the party needed to regain credibility on the issue with voters. Will Vance be able to effectively combat the questions about his previous criticisms about Donald Trump as a one-time “Never-Trumper” (that’s an easy way for the moderators to say negative things about Trump without making it sound like it’s about them – it will happen)? Yes, and they traveled down this road twice with Vance, as did Walz. Vance was ready and successfully swatting away the attempted attack on both of them by saying that he was wrong about Trump, the media was wrong about Trump and that Congress often failed Trump while president as they were more focused on trying to impeach him than pass policy that would have been helpful to Americans. Will Vance, a Millennial, be able to come across in way that connects with younger voters, a traditional Trump weakness? The generational difference was clear in a positive way for Vance.
- The reaction. “That was good. I thought Vance was good. He finished strong”. That was the reaction of my wonderful wife Ashley. “I’d vote for Vance for president”. That was the consensus from a larger group of conservative friends and family via text messages. Many people who watched this debate will come out of it wishing that these were the two presidential candidates. But also this... This just might have been the first vice presidential debate in American history that mattered. And that’s for one very specific reason. Everything that Donald Trump isn’t, that makes many Americans in the middle uncomfortable with him... JD Vance is and last night he proved it. Young, precise, humble and clearly capable. For many voters in the middle there’s a good chance that’d prefer JD Vance to be at the top of the ticket. And for Donald Trump that’s ok. In fact, it’s better than ok. In a close election it might have won him a few votes last night. Enough that might make a difference. Immediately following the first debate CNN’s flash poll conducted by accredited pollster SSRS, found that by a margin of 67% to 33% viewers of the debate thought Trump outperformed Biden. In the debate between Trump and Harris...CNN/SSRS found...that by a margin of 63% to 37% viewers of the debate thought Harris outperformed Trump. In last night’s poll CNN found a more balanced reaction with Vance having come out on top by a 51%-49% margin among debate viewers – however with CNN pointing out that there sample was over weighted by 5-points to Democrats which was noted that it should be taken into consideration in the results – meaning Vance’s perception of having won the debate was likely closer to a double-digit result. Similarly, CBS News which ran its own flash poll showed Vance narrowly coming out on top.