It was a shame that the moderators felt compelled to try to influence the debate. In doing so, they actually hurt Harris, since it revealed how Vance could respond to such an interruption and use it to advance his arguments rather than be flustered by it.
Otherwise, it was good seeing both candidates comport themselves as gentlemen. However, I think Bill O'Reilly did the best summary of the debate.
VPs have two goals in a debate.
To support their ticket by making clear the policies of the Presidential nominee and second convince viewers that should they be called upon to serve as President, the nation would be in good hands.
In the first case, Vance was amazing and Walz was okay. Vance humanized Trump's policies and explained them clearly. Walz did nothing to add or detract from Harris's position on issues.
On the second issue, Vance presented as a far better "step in" for President should the need arise. One simply cannot see Walz facing off against Putin or Xi Jinping. Walz does not exude "presence".
I am not sure why Harris chose Walz. There were certainly more competent VPs, she could have chosen.
Perhaps it highlights a big difference between Trump and Harris/Biden. Trump has selected Pence and Vance much like he would have hired a COO to run his company.
Pence did an incredible job during Covid handling the special task force assigned with deciding and implementing America's response to Covid. I find Pence boring (but extremely competent). Vance comes across as someone Trump could delegate almost anything to, and he would get it done.
Walz, like Harris before him, seemed almost to be a "symbolic" pick. A white folksy man to balance Harris's coastal, minority identity. In much the same way, Biden chose a black woman to balance his ticket. This highlights the problem with DEI politics.
Mark Cuban makes a good point; a truly talented person can achieve DEI goals without compromising on the quality of who they pick. But that does not seem to be the reality, whether talking about VP or Cabinet posts.
There are certainly talented minority women who would have been a better choice than Harris. Until they were suddenly stuck with Harris, the left leaning media was trying to figure out how to get her off the ticket for this November. Meanwhile, Biden thought so little of his cabinet, he did not hold a cabinet meeting for almost a year.
Harris could have found a far more competent white man than Walz. Many point to Shapiro from Pennsylvania or Breshears from Kentucky.
Ideologically, Walz hurts the ticket which many cite as being "to left". Nor does he come across as a man with gravitas or sharp intellect. Something the ticket needs.
Instead, America saw a "folksy" guy, who probably left most honest viewers asking the same question... "why Walz". I don't think VPs move the vote much, but this election will be determined by a small number of voters in PA, MI, or WI.
If voters were influenced by the debate, then my bet is Vance picked up some votes for Trump, while Walz did not cost Harris any votes, but did not help either.
