Did you watch the vice-presidential debate Tuesday night ? I did. (On the other hand, I get paid to; I don’t know if I’d have slogged through it for free.) JD Vance and Tim Walz met. Like every other journalist who writes about this kind of thing, given the stakes, I was ready for a fight.
And didn’t really get one.
The debate turned out to be, in the words of seemingly every headline written about it, surprisingly civil . The two candidates complimented each other, noted where they agreed on certain issues (or at least aspects of them) and never resorted to immature, schoolyard name-calling. Instead, they actually talked about issues.
What are we supposed to say about that?
Kidding, kidding. Sort of. This is how debates used to be, after all. But in the Donald Trump era, we’re used to fireworks. Which are easier to cover, frankly, if more dispiriting. There was the time CNN’s Jake Tapper described a debate between Trump and Joe Biden as “a hot mess inside a dumpster fire inside a train wreck.” More recently, well, there was Trump and Kamala Harris’ September debate, in which Harris predictably baited Trump into losing his temper and barking out nonsense.
Of course, appearances can be deceiving. Vance lied quite a bit and got angry that co-moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan fact-checked him. (They didn’t spare Walz; they asked why he had mischaracterized being in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. He bonked the answer.)
And there was real news. Walz asked Vance flat-out whether Trump lost the 2020 election (Trump continues to lie about it). Vance’s answer was telling. “Tim, I’m focused on the future.” Walz called it a “damning nonanswer.”
That’s about as contentious as it got. Maybe it was a throwback. But maybe it should also be the future.