If you watched Tuesday night’s vice-presidential debate, you may have come to the same conclusion as I did. Yes, J.D. Vance won a decisive victory over Tim Walz on both substance and style, and any objective political analyst would agree. However, it wasn’t just that Vance won, but how he won that impressed me the most.
While Walz appeared nervous and flustered, Vance maintained a calm and confident demeanor throughout the debate. The word that comes to mind is P-O-I-S-E. For a 40-year-old with only two years of political experience under his belt, it was a remarkable display of oratorical skill, factual knowledge, and self-discipline.
For a full 90-minutes, Vance gave Walz and the viewing audience a master class in debating, easily deflecting the governor’s attacks while simultaneously handling the commentators’ one-sided questions, adeptly framing his answers to score point after point. Vance also oozed empathy and sincerity with every gesture, head nod, and spoken word, connecting with virtually every possible demographic.
Working class Americans can identify with Vance’s hardscrabble upbringing and minority voters are starting to realize that they were better off economically under Donald Trump. And yes, any white suburban women who were watching now realize that he is sympathetic to the pressures they face trying to balance childcare with their careers. Sure, they may not agree with Vance’s staunchly pro-life positions, but he articulated a comprehensive pro-family agenda that is certain to swing a few undecided female voters Trump’s way.
Since the GOP convention, the mainstream media has done everything in its power to portray Vance as a cold and uncaring despot, but he managed to flip that script early and often. His real-life story, told in direct contrast to Walz’s largely fabricated biography, resonates with families dealing with addiction, poverty, and loss, and his command of every subject matter that was discussed had to irk the liberal intelligencia.
Perhaps most of all, in an election offering generational change, Vance was the picture of youthful energy and exuberance tempered by a maturity well beyond his years. He smiled broadly and his piercing blue eyes were reminiscent of Paul Newman in his prime. Meanwhile, Walz played the part of an aging and bug-eyed Elmer Fudd in pursuit of that “wrascally wabbit”.
Not since a suave and debonair John F. Kennedy debated Richard Nixon with his five o’clock shadow has the visual contrast been more stark. In fact, the closest we have come to that seminal 1960 tete-a-tete was in 2008, when a 47-year-old Barack Obama faced off against a 72-year-old John McCain. Like Nixon, McCain may have scored more debate points on the radio, but the TV cameras told a different story. It was Bill Clinton versus Bob Dole circa 1996 all over again, with one candidate representing the future and the other, the past.
In case you’re wondering, in all three of those instances, the younger man prevailed.