Trump supporters were noticeably thrilled by JD Vance’s stellar performance in the vice presidential debate Tuesday. Democrats were less impressed by Tim Walz, though they tried to find a silver lining where they could. Still, Walz’s performance was widely panned, even by the liberal media, for an uneven and unconvincing performance. The question is: will it matter? Historically speaking, vice presidential debates don’t move the needle at all, but this one could be different.
Which is why it's really good for former President Trump that Vance won it so easily.
“JD Vance not only was polished, but offered a more cutting critique of Kamala Harris than his running mate, Donald Trump, managed in his own debate with her last month,” wrote Politico. “Tim Walz, on the other hand, took a while to warm up — and wasn’t that great even when he did.”
Post-debate flash polls overwhelmingly gave Vance the edge — which is why the media is pushing the narrative that the debate won’t have any impact on the race at all. Politico’s panel of six reporters was unanimous in their assessment that JD Vance won the debate, but they dismissed the idea that the debate would “change the trajectory of the race.”
Recommended: REPORT: Kamala's Husband Doug Emhoff Assaulted Ex-Girlfriend
Let’s face it, vice presidential debates are usually minor events in the grand scheme of election season, an obligatory side event tucked between the more consequential presidential debates. But that may not be the case for this debate.
Do the media downplayers have a point? Sure. But before the debate, the political betting markets were all predicting a Walz victory, and ABC News was saying that the debate "could matter more than history suggests." Naturally, in the aftermath of the debate, the narrative has swung back to "it won't matter."
But it could. Here's why.
Traditionally, the vice presidential debate happens in the midst of a series of three presidential debates, serving as a brief intermission between the more critical confrontations. But with no further presidential debates scheduled, this Vance-Walz face-off was likely the last chance for voters to see the two tickets contrasted on the same stage before they cast their ballots. That means the stakes were higher, and for Walz, that pressure was clearly too much to handle.
Walz’s performance revealed just how unprepared he was for the spotlight. He appeared visibly nervous throughout the debate. Though he improved modestly later on, his delivery felt overly rehearsed, as though he was clinging to talking points rather than engaging with the issues at hand. His responses came off as forced, and there were regular awkward pauses. He was seen taking notes often, likely trying to remember what he was supposed to say, and he lacked the genuine confidence that voters look for in someone who wants to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
In other words, Walz failed to give a good lasting impression that he's ready to take over the highest office in the land, and that's a problem. Barack Obama may have been an inspiring figure to many on the left, but even he had to balance the ticket with an old white guy to compensate for his lack of experience. With Kamala Harris already the least popular vice president in history and infamous for her incoherent word salads, Walz brings none of that elder statesman gravitas to the ticket — especially after such a shaky debate performance.
For a candidate trying to prove his readiness, Walz’s inability to relax and connect on a human level left a lasting negative impression, and it's likely the last impression the voters will get before Election Day.
In a close race, that could make a difference.
