JD Vance won the debate, but it probably will not matter - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
FT商学院

JD Vance won the debate, but it probably will not matter

His performance offers a clue to the future of the Republican party

It is a truism that US vice-presidential debates rarely affect the electoral outcome. After Tim Walz’s lacklustre showing against JD Vance on Tuesday night, Democrats will be praying that still holds.

Political betting site Polymarket gave Walz a 70 per cent chance of winning at the start of the debate. By the end he was at just 33 per cent. It will be some consolation that the TV viewing numbers are likely to be far lower than the audience of almost 70mn that tuned into Kamala Harris’s encounter with Donald Trump last month.

Either way, the Vance-Walz debate was probably the last of the 2024 presidential campaign. Trump has shown no interest in agreeing to Harris’s call for a second encounter, understandable given how much blood she drew in their first.

In terms of how America votes on November 5, Tuesday’s “veep debate” may not even rank as the second-most impactful event of the day. The first was Iran’s missile attack on Israel and the threat of a wider Middle Eastern war. If sustained, the jump in crude oil on Tuesday will feed into higher US fuel prices and hit consumer sentiment, which would harm Harris. Any impression of Middle East chaos is also likely to play into Trump’s hands.

The second-most important event on Tuesday was arguably Trump pulling out of CBS’s widely watched 60 Minutes show next week and Harris confirming her participation. How she comes across in that interview, and the fact of Trump’s absence, is likely to have more sway than the Vance-Walz debate with the few million American voters who are still undecided.

Nevertheless the vice-presidential encounter offered several pointers on the nature of this election. Three stood out.

The first was Vance’s confidence and fluency. The Ohio senator also told some whopping lies. Of these, Vance’s claim that he had never supported a federal abortion ban and that Trump strengthened the Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare”, were most egregious. Vance has consistently backed a national ban and other restrictions on women’s bodily autonomy. Trump tried to abolish the ACA multiple times.

Vance also conspicuously dodged questions about whether the 2020 election was stolen. His evasions may come back to haunt him. Overall though, Vance evidently took on board widespread advice to come across as more likeable. The debate was a mirror image of last month’s Trump-Harris encounter. Both vice-presidential candidates were civil throughout.

Second, Walz was nervous and often faltering. The Harris-Walz campaign has taken some pride in avoiding mainstream media interviews and press conferences. Walz’s exposure has mostly been in soft settings with friendly journalists. Vance, by contrast, has been touring the Sunday morning shows almost every week. His slick evasions and polished whataboutisms betrayed many hours of practice on live TV.

The Harris-Walz campaign may come to regret their preference for gentler surroundings. America’s relatively small but potentially decisive share of wavering voters repeatedly tell pollsters that they want more information about Harris’s policies. That Trump has supplied much less policy detail is striking. But nobody said politics was fair.

Finally, Tuesday night offered a glimpse into one of America’s possible futures. Given the running mates’ respective age differences with their bosses, Vance’s performance was more significant. At 40, he is barely half Trump’s age. The prospect that a second term Trump would yield to a Vance administration before it ends is significantly higher than that of Harris giving way to Walz, who is several months older than her.

Vance conveyed Trumpism in its palatable form. He stood up for every tenet of Trumpism, including his refusal to accept that Biden won the 2020 election. But his mien was tempered and reasonable.

Many Republicans last year invested great hope in Florida’s Ron DeSantis as the man who could uphold Trumpism without Trump. DeSantis turned out to be a dud in debates and on the hustings. Vance, on the other hand, has a future whatever happens next month. Liberals are right to fear Vance; he is a hardline Christian nationalist. After Tuesday night, however, they would be rash to dismiss him.

edward.luce@ft.com

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

辛瓦尔:哈马斯10月7日袭击的策划者

在狱中服刑数十年的武装分子辛瓦尔在加沙被击毙。

科技行业应做好应对进一步动荡的准备

无论其产品在日常生活中的地位发生了何种长期变化,芯片仍具有很强的周期性 。

人工智能将会“压缩”21世纪吗?

桑希尔:AI可为人类带来不可估量的好处,但它无法纠正人类所有的不完美,我们甚至也不该希望它这样做。

沙特阿拉伯勒紧裤腰带

经过八年的旋风式建设活动和前所未有的支出,沙特的新口号是谨慎。

Lex专栏:芯片战争阴影下的阿斯麦

芯片制造设备供应商警告需求降温,但破坏盛宴的不仅仅是客户。

美国不再有羞耻感了吗?

卢斯:美国政客面对丑闻的厚颜无耻是这个时代的一大特征。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×