Last night’s debate: an impressive performance, a questionable reality and a tiger bite at the end

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of material from 11 contributing columnists, along with other commentary online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Did you know that I actually moderated a DFL primary debate that included Gov. Tim Walz in 2017? Probably not, because even I forgot.

Watching last night, I remembered that old debate. Back then, I thought Walz would clean up. He entered the governor’s race as a swing state congressman with a lot of charisma. But he was nervous, I recalled, and — while not bad — wasn’t remarkable in comparison to the other candidates.

The same might be said of Walz’s performance Tuesday night. When he was speaking authentically, he had great moments — on health care and democracy, for instance. But when he was speaking on foreign policy, or when the questions were pointed at his past misstatements or policies, he became nervous and lost an edge.

Stylistically, Sen. JD Vance came across smoother, more prepared and more articulate than Walz, and especially compared to Trump last month. He sounded a bit smug at times. His claim that illegal immigrants cause rising housing costs was another cynical exploitation of the immigration issue. But his goal was to put a softer lens on the Trump agenda, and he did that.

If you wanted to make a big issue of Walz’s awkward misstatements, you could. But he was also more real. If you wanted to make a big issue of Vance’s indirect answers on a lot of core issues, you could. But he was also more forceful. In some ways, the debate was more civil and substantive than anything we’ve seen in the last two election cycles. But, in a sad irony, that’s exactly why this debate will be lucky to make the Wikipedia page for Election 2024.

Aaron Brown

•••

The best national political candidates are built from hard-fought campaigns with capable opponents and years of facing tough questions from the press. Walz hasn’t confronted either in Minnesota for a long time — and it showed Tuesday night.

Walz was jumpy and unsure of himself. While the Minnesota governor presents well when facing adoring DFL crowds and Twin Cities media softballs, he just doesn’t handle high-stakes situations well. We saw that here during the 2020 Minneapolis riots, and again on the vice presidential debate stage. While a likable guy, Walz wilts under pressure. And at a time when Americans want strong and steady leadership back in the White House, he continues to seem out of his league.

In contrast, Vance gave the finest debate performance of the presidential election season. He was articulate, compassionate and showed off his first-rate intellect and inspiring life story. And he adeptly outmaneuvered the smug and politically partial CBS moderators with class. But his refusal to state the simple fact that his boss lost the 2020 election was reckless and an unforced error.

Vice presidential debates usually don’t move the polls much. But if this one does, and it may, the beneficiary of that bump will be the Republican ticket.

Andy Brehm

•••

I often give talks on the rhetoric of authoritarianism and right-wing Christian nationalism. I always tell audiences that one of the far right’s best tools is to make you question your own reality, to make the truth seem elusive and impossible to ascertain.

Even though I teach about these tactics, I still found myself confused and questioning my own reality as I watched Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate. Vance took the gift of 90 minutes of national airtime to repair his image and pivot 180 degrees on nearly every facet of his political persona and previous policy positions.

A Catholic convert known for his traditionalist views about women and family life, and made famous for comments about “childless cat ladies,” Vance on Tuesday night attempted to come across as empathetic, bipartisan and willing to compromise. He made multiple overtures toward cooperation and congeniality toward his opponent, Walz (though, notably, Vance did not have similarly kind words to offer to Walz’s running mate, Vice President Kamala Harris).

Vance, who previously pivoted far to the right on abortion, on Tuesday night mentioned a friend of his who had an abortion, and he expressed compassion and a desire for cooperation on issues like gun violence and housing reform. But Vance is running with Donald Trump, and by the end of the night, when Vance refused to admit that Trump lost the 2020 election, it was clear any claim toward compromise was a hollow farce. Vance had to demonstrate total fidelity toward his party’s unquestioned leader. Unlike his predecessor, Mike Pence, Vance left no doubt that he’d be willing to betray democracy in order to satisfy Trump’s need for absolute power.

Angela Denker

•••

Walz was not the “attack dog” some expected him to be during his debate with Vance. Instead, he was strategic like a crouching tiger waiting for the right moment to strike. That moment came when Walz directly asked Vance whether he believed Trump lost the 2020 election. This followed Vance’s attempt to downplay the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, sparked by Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud.

Vance dodged the question. Walz’s composed answers stood in contrast to the combative approach many Republicans anticipated or the word salads many Minnesotans anticipated. In Hmong culture, being bitten by a tiger is the worst fate, symbolized by the phrase “niag tsov tom qua ntxi ntawd” — or “may a tiger bite you” — as the highest insult one can give. Walz embodied this tiger-like patience, biting Vance at the perfect moment.

The stakes were high for both candidates. Both men accomplished what they set out to do. Walz needed to build on the positive momentum Harris gained from her debate with Trump, and he delivered a performance on par with hers. Though it took him a moment longer than Harris to find his inner tiger and to strike with his sensible Midwestern answers. On the other side, Vance needed to come across as likable after alienating potential supporters with his offensive remarks about unmarried women. Mission accomplished for Vance. He came across as charming, agreeable and less weird.

Ka Vang

•••

Trump lost the 2020 election. Every Republican and Democratic governor affirmed the results, and multiple investigations and dozens of lawsuits confirmed that Trump lost. Trump refuses to admit the obvious. In Tuesday night’s debate, Walz asked Vance, “Did Trump lose the 2020 election?” Vance rambled for a few minutes about censorship but refused to answer the question. Walz responded, “That is a damning non-answer.” Trump continues to undermine the faith of our citizens in our free and fair elections. Vance stands by Trump rather than on principle. It’s personal ambition first and country second. The American people deserve so much better.

Trump ran for president in 2016 promising to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. He nearly succeeded. John McCain was the sole dissenting Republican vote that saved it. Watching Vance claim at the debate that Trump saved the ACA was ludicrous.

During the presidential debate last month, Trump said of immigrants in Springfield, “They’re eating the dogs. They’re eating the cats.” Schools and workplaces in Ohio received bomb threats in response. Vance did nothing to walk any of that back during his debate performance.

Vance showed us the heart of Trumpism — outright falsehoods and an effort to divide and conquer our country rather than serve it. The choice is clear.

Anton Treuer