In both style and substance, Tuesday’s vice presidential debate could not have been more different than September’s presidential debate.
Where Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump were combative and frequently traded personal attacks, Sen. JD Vance and Gov. Tim Walz had a relatively civil, policy-heavy debate.
To be sure, it’s highly unlikely that any voters were swayed in either direction on Tuesday. Neither candidate strayed from their running mate’s positions on key issues, and both put up a spirited defense of their running mate’s records.
And while the initial conversation may be over who “won,” I believe that misses the fundamental takeaway: the country would benefit from seeing the two candidates atop the ticket debate again.
Indeed, the way Walz and Vance debated their positions was a refreshing display of civility that has been totally and completely absent from this year’s election.
Even Vance’s veiled attacks were often laced with bipartisanship. The Senator continually repeated that he was “sure” Walz wanted to solve various problems facing the country, even if Harris did not.
This is not to say that there was a complete lack of fireworks. Walz repeatedly brought up Vance’s past criticism of Trump. And in a shrewd political move, Walz made Vance answer whether or not Donald Trump won the 2020 election, surely knowing Trump was watching.
Similarly, Vance, who also clashed with the moderators, effectively tied Harris to an unpopular Biden administration. He slammed Harris’ policy proposals as well, rhetorically asking why, if she “has such great plans” she hasn’t implemented them as Vice President, but is only pushing them when “asking for a promotion.”
And yet, these did nothing to take away from a general sense of respect between the two. Vance and Walz displayed that while Americans may have different opinions, we can disagree without the extremely inflammatory and divisive rhetoric that has defined our politics of late.
Moreover, the debate showed that our elected officials can still want what is best for the United States, even if they have vastly different approaches and policies to address the challenges we face.
However, Vance and Walz are not running for president. The country deserves another chance to hear the presidential candidates make their case for how they will address challenges such as tensions in the Middle East, the southern border, and the economy.
Not only is a second Trump-Harris debate in the country’s interest – and something nearly two-thirds (64%) of likely voters want per Quinnipiac polling – but in reality, it is in both campaigns’ interests as well.
With roughly one month until election day, the presidential race is virtually tied.
Despite national polls such as Morning Consult’s showing Harris with a 5-point lead (51% to 46%), within the swing states that will decide the winner, the picture is much murkier.
In fact, according to the RealClearPolitics polling averages in those seven battleground states, the race is literally tied.
Donald Trump leads in three states – Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia – while VP Harris leads in another three – Nevada, Wisconsin, and Michigan – with the two tied in Pennsylvania.
Further, in no state is either candidate’s lead greater than 2-points, while in Trump’s lead in North Carolina and Harris’ lead in Wisconsin, are less than a single percentage point.
A second debate is what could break this tie, specifically if Trump and Harris can answer questions about where they stand on key issues in a way that they certainly did not during the first debate.
Related Articles
Real-world lesson: Ending rent control boosts housing supply
Project labor agreements are just costly union schemes
Larry Elder: Vance defended Trump better than Trump
Polite VP debate skipped key questions
State ballot measures provide plenty of incentive to vote
That first debate, which was unruly and divisive, did nothing to sway undecided voters based on the extremely limited movement in polls conducted before and after the two candidates clashed.
A second debate needs to resemble what we saw on Tuesday. Trump and Harris, respectfully disagreeing, while intelligently, passionately – but respectfully – making their case to voters.
Most importantly, the two candidates must tell voters, in unmistakably clear terms, how they plan to address the economy, crime, immigration, and foreign policy.
Specifically, in the wake of Iran’s attack on Israel and a potential wider war that could see the U.S. in direct conflict with Iran, Trump and Harris need to tell voters how they would address the growing geopolitical chaos.
Put another way, this close to election day, and in an unprecedented presidential race which, despite everything is a statistical draw, both candidates and the country as a whole, would clearly benefit from the chance to give voters their campaigns’ “closing statement.”
Donald Trump and Kamala Harris should take that opportunity. American voters want it, and frankly, deserve it.
Douglas Schoen is a longtime Democratic political consultant.
