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。

马斯克呼吁由他人取代法拉奇出任英国改革党领导人

在法拉奇拒绝支持马斯克的一些网络言论数小时后,此前盛赞法拉奇的马斯克做出令人惊讶的转变,称“改革党需要一位新领导人”。

医疗行业如何用AI完成病历记录“抄写员”工作

随着大型科技公司和初创企业竞相抢占市场份额,对应用程序的投资翻了一番。

奥地利总理辞职,排除极右翼势力的努力宣告失败

卡尔-内哈默尔因未能组建温和联合政府而下台。

多邻国的唠叨猫头鹰让我们无处藏身

这款语言学习应用的吉祥物背后有科学依据,但游戏化机制并不总能提高我们的效率。

如何为乌克兰争取一个可接受的协议

对普京施加压力以及为基辅提供安全保障至关重要。

是时候进行“重置”了吗?

这是政客们的新流行语,那么为什么它对我们其他人不起作用呢?
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×