I remain opposed to debates between candidates for high office, especially president and vice-president.
The primary reason is that debates are seriously inappropriate for determining whether a person should be president or vice president. They do not reveal much about what a person in either of those jobs does every day.
I have thought so since the beginning of these televised debates. I did not watch or listen to the first presidential debate between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon. But since they are a permanent part of the election process for these lofty offices, I still watch one or two each cycle.
The recent Vice-Presidential debate between Senator Vance and Governor Walz provided a second example of the problematic nature of these exercises. As with the first debate between Kennedy and Nixon, a unfortunate critical factor in judging these debates is how well the candidates present themselves – their “come-across.”
The Washington Post’s fact checker, who counted over 30,000 false or misleading claims by Donald Trump during the four years of his presidency, reported on such statements in the Vance-Walz debate.
The fact-checker noted 20 statements that deserved a response – 15 by Vance and five by Walz. They judged 15 of Vance’s statements as false or mostly false, while two of Walz’s statements were judged true, one false, and two exaggerated. That is a negative, one-sided scorecard, mostly about Vance lying.
Yet, according to a panel of thirteen New York Times’ columnists and contributors, Vance won 8-2-2. Eight said Vance won, two said Walz won, and two said it was a tie. But what the panel said about each contestant is revealing.
Let’s look at comments from the two panelists who thought Walz won. One said, “Walz won…Vance’s performance was anemic. Also, he had to contort himself to dodge Donald Trump’s statements and his own past statements.” The other said, “Nobody truly dominated. But I’m giving the slight edge to Walz, since Vance embarrassingly soft-pedaled Jan. 6.” These respondents seemed to base their judgments on content.
Now let’s look at some comments from those who judged Vance the winner:
“Vance was more effective in presenting a version of his party’s ticket that might broaden its appeal.”
“Vance won this debate…He is as smooth and practiced as they come. He has no regard for the truth. He lies as easily as he breathes. We saw this throughout the debate.” This columnist went on to list three of Vance’s apparent lies.
“Vance was far nimbler than the nervous Tim Walz, especially in the first half of the debate…Vance stumbled on two issues—abortion and the 2020 election—where his rhetorical skill could not salvage the very unappealing material he was working with.”
“For Vance, it was a commanding performance. For Walz, it was a nervous ramble.”
“Vance seemed smoother and more practiced.”
“Vance won…[He] was facile and light on his feet.”
“Vance won with a stronger start.”
“Vance nimbly reframed questions to his advantage…[He] ran circles around Walz…Walz often looked woolly and discombobulated, widened eyes suggesting panic.”
“Vance won. He was sharp and in command and proved he’s an excellent debater…I came away convinced that he’s a hollow man.”
These comments clearly show that substance is not necessarily what wins a debate. Instead, it is the presentation of oneself – one’s “come across.”
One of the two people who called the debate a tie said, “Vance did an excellent job of impersonating a decent man.” That expresses my opinion exactly, and it shows the problem with regarding debates as meaningful exercises in judging presidential or vice-presidential timber.
