Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, speaks during a vice presidential debate hosted by CBS News, with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on Oct. 1 in New York, as moderators Norah O'Donnell and Margaret Brennan listen. (Matt Rourke/The Associated Press)

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Like 43 million of my fellow citizens, I watched the vice presidential debate expecting a cage match between pugnacity and mendacity. Instead, what viewers got was a suave, sophisticated dissembler in Sen. JD Vance, and a less-than-sophisticated and somewhat befuddled Gov. Tim Walz.

As I have said elsewhere, Vance needed to appeal to undecided voters by appearing to be “less of a cat-lady-hating kind of person” — an endeavor in which he was singularly successful. He exuded fluency, charm and gravitas, empathy and compassion, and a level of reasonableness that has been conspicuously absent on the stump. These rhetorical gifts are demonstrably lacking in his running mate as well. That the substance of what he said revealed a passing acquaintance with the truth matters relatively little since undecided voters are probably using heuristics to make their decisions — heuristics such as who appeared more presidential. Hence, the baldfaced lie that Donald Trump saved the Affordable Care Act will go largely unremarked, because it was uttered with such aplomb as to appear completely plausible.

Meanwhile, those expecting Walz to display his customary happy warrior demeanor were likely disappointed. Recall Vice President Kamala Harris watching her adversary at the previous debate with a bemused smile, arched eyebrows and chin planted on her right fist. Anyone who has an aunt of East Indian origin — I have several — know that look. It is a condescending look that says, “You are throwing a tantrum, but go on little man … .” In contrast, Walz appeared like a hyper-caffeinated elderly uncle, furiously scribbling notes as his gaze darted toward the senator, to the camera, and down to his notes. All the while delivering rehearsed lines that sounded like commercials for the Mayo Clinic, Medtronic and 3M. Clearly, the Walz debate prep team had not adhered to the old saw that 93% (or some such large number) of communication is nonverbal.

On matters of substance, both candidates flubbed important topics and missed opportunities.

Walz was completely at a loss when asked about his Tiananmen Square fib. Again, had his debate prep team not anticipated the question? One appropriate response would have been: “You are right. I wasn’t there but I was in Hong Kong that summer and was struck by the human yearning for democracy all across the region. Which is why I am so worried about our democracy now with Donald Trump’s stated desire to be a dictator.”
It took Walz 25 minutes to bring up Trump’s 2016 promise of building a wall that Mexico would pay for. And then he let it go, instead of repeatedly reminding the amnesiac undecided voter of the failed Trump wall. On immigration — this is by far the biggest chink in Republican armor — they talked a big game but accomplished little, other than separating children from their parents at the southern border.
It took Walz almost 100 minutes to bring up Mike Pence. The fact that Vance and Pence (sort of) rhyme was a titillating opportunity to interject some (gallows) humor about the former vice president’s absence from the campaign, an opportunity that Walz let slip.
Vance’s biggest error occurred at the very end, when Walz shot the debating equivalent of a game-winning three-pointer when he asked Vance who won the 2020 presidential election. Vance refused to acknowledge the outcome of the 2020 election, dodging and weaving in an embarrassing and obvious manner. That, to most undecided voters, should have been “game, set and match.”

At the end of the day, however, this debate has not (yet) shifted poll numbers. And, debates ought to be about gaining market share. While base support for both candidates appears to be steady, there is a tiny sliver of undecided, uninformed and uninvolved voters who might be persuaded and likely will determine the outcome of this election, either by choosing a candidate en masse or staying home.

Which brings me to the X-factor in this election — women. Not only do they possess an additional X chromosome (pun intended), they (particularly young women) watch the potential loss of bodily autonomy and the demeaning treatment of a woman by Trump with alarm. It is this market segment that the candidates should attempt to persuade by emphasizing what will be lost if the other candidate was to prevail.

Akshay R. Rao holds the General Mills Chair in Marketing and is chairperson of the marketing department at the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management. His latest book, “Patient,” is available at profakshayrao.com.