In spite of the prevalent view, the recent debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz on Tuesday night might not contribute greatly to the outcome of the American election. History indicates that running mates typically have a lesser impact, as electorates often pay more attention to head-of-state candidates. Consequently, the New York faceoff between these vice-presidential contenders attracted fewer headlines than the previous interaction between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.
With Vance achieving more acclaim for his performance than Walz, this echoes Harris’ perceived triumph over Trump at their last standoff. Vance’s accomplished oratory skills and agreeable disposition appeared to triumph over the controversial and less popular persona he has been portraying since Trump’s endorsement of him in July. However, it’s noteworthy that Walz’s performance picked up towards the end of the 90-minute discussion, particularly when Vance sidestepped the question of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.
While historical evidence infers this may not significantly influence the electoral outcome, referencing the past might not be a valid approach for this unpredictable election where typical conventions have been disregarded.
In previous years, the schedule of live debates leading up to the presidential election was well established, including two to three candidate face-offs in the pre-election weeks. This year, however, the agenda diverged – the first debate occurred in June and led to one candidate’s replacement. The single debate between Trump and Harris was held two months prior to the election day. With current polls indicating a tight situation in swing states, even the smallest effect could be essential.
Harris’s campaign should be concerned about sustaining momentum in the final five weeks before the election without the aid of significant media events, particularly as Trump’s public visibility requires little assistance.