How J.D. Vance (Appeared to Have) Won the Vice Presidential Debate

When former President Trump announced Ohio Senator J.D. Vance as his running mate in the 2024 election, the venture capitalist and Hillbilly Elegy author was lambasted for everything from his eyeliner to his controversial comments about liberal women and former status as a “Never Trumper” to his deviant relations with a certain couch. It seemed like a misstep for a candidate that has been dealt numerous hits in the past year, including federal convictions and an assassination attempt. 

But when Vance went head-to-head with Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota at the vice presidential debate, it became clear what purpose he served in the Trump campaign. Vance brought empathy and reason to a ticket that has been built on  political theater and absurdity since 2016, all while lying through his teeth. 

A CBS poll found a 9% increase in viewers with a favorable opinion towards Vance before versus after the debate, and a 10% decrease in viewers holding an unfavorable opinion towards him. Considering how poorly Vance was received as the vice presidential pick, that kind of improvement after just one debate is massive.  

Polls were almost universally split on who actually won the vice presidential debate, but compared to the September 10th presidential debate between Harris and Trump, Vance performed vastly better than his running mate did. 63% of viewers believed that Harris won against Trump, a CNN poll taken after the presidential debate said. In closing that gap in his own debate, Vance exceeded viewers’ expectations and overcame the countless disadvantages stacked against him—his own image, Trump’s defeat at the hands of Kamala Harris and the relative popularity of his opponent, Governor Walz. 

So how did Vance manage such a difficult feat? The answer lies in his debate strategy. 

Rather than trying to create memeable moments or rage-bait, Vance presented the MAGA platform in a way that seemed calm, collected and highly logical. Trump’s campaign tactic has always been to confidently deliver blatant lies and commentary so unbelievable it sounds like a headline from The Onion. In the September 10th debate, that continued to be his strategy. Throughout the evening, Trump referred to such absurdities as after-birth abortions, “transgender operations on illegal aliens in prison,” and the idea that illegal immigrants in Springfield, OH, were consuming pets, all of which unsurprisingly made their rounds on the internet.

And when asked if he had a plan to replace Obamacare, something that has been a campaign promise since his 2016 run, Trump responded, “I have concepts of a plan.”

Vance, however, took the polar opposite approach. When moderators asked about the housing crisis, he proposed an immediate solution and a logical explanation of why it would work. 

“If a truck driver is paying 40% more for diesel, then the lumber he's delivering to the job site to build the house is also going to become more expensive,” Vance said. “If we open up American energy, you will get immediate pricing relief, not just in housing, but in a whole host of other economic goods too.”

Even on issues like gun violence, where Republicans typically avoid a straightforward answer so as not to alienate supporters, Vance was ready with an action plan, albeit a rather faulty one. 

“We have to increase security in our schools. We have to make the doors lock better. We've got to make the windows stronger. And of course, we've got to increase school resource officers because the idea that we can magically wave a wand and take guns out of the hands of bad guys just doesn't fit with recent experience,” Vance said. 

Aside from the uncharacteristically specific campaign strategies, Vance presented himself in a way that few Republicans have endeavored to do in the Trump era: kind, empathetic and seemingly moderate despite running on a far-right platform. 

When discussing the issue of abortion, he referenced a woman he knew who had expressed that getting an abortion had saved her from an abusive relationship. He looked directly into the camera and spoke to her: “I know she’s watching tonight, and I love you.” 

At other times he turned his empathy towards those impacted by Hurricane Helene, women struggling to get adequate paid leave after having a baby, and even Governor Walz’s own son, who witnessed a shooting while playing volleyball at a community center. 

Not only were his expressions of emotion frequent, but they also appeared remarkably genuine, more so than with most politicians. This might be because even with the supposed passion behind his words, he seldom dropped his composure or raised his voice. Unlike a typical politician’s display of humanity, his emotions felt real because they were downplayed: they didn’t seem like they were being put on for the viewer’s benefit, but rather something he was experiencing in earnest.

The catch? For all of Vance’s debate skills, most of his arguments—especially those attacking Vice President Harris’ record and defending former President Trump’s—were just as false as the ones his running mate made in the presidential debate. 

On the issue of immigrants, Vance asserted fallacy after fallacy. He said that Harris was allowing undocumented immigrants to bring fentanyl into the country, a myth that has been debunked (although fentanyl does enter the US through the border, about 90% of it is seized by border patrol officers, and virtually none is brought in through asylum-seekers, according to NPR). 

When it came down to it, almost all of his arguments on policy were faulty, misleading or founded on “facts” that have been thoroughly disproven. As New York Times contributing writer Frank Bruni put it in his headline, “J.D. Vance Is Smoother—but No Better—Than Donald Trump.” 

Still, Vance made a remarkable case for himself and the Trump campaign, adding an unprecedented dimension of reason and thoughtfulness to MAGA. And even if it doesn’t end up impacting the election—vice presidential debates rarely do, so close to voting day—it vastly improved his own image. A Politico/Focaldata poll found that after the debate, 51% of viewers said that Vance would be ready to become president should Trump be unable to complete his term. Among those who did not watch the debate, only 34% believed that was the case. 

Considering the age and health of his running mate, that should be quite reassuring for J.D. Vance.