Republican presidential nominee, former U.S. President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris greet as they debate for the first time during the presidential election campaign at The National Constitution Center on Sept. 10, 2024 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images via TNS
After only three meetings, the presidential debate stage is unlikely to see any more action in 2024.
Since the presidential face-off between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump Sept. 10 — which followed this election season’s first debate on June 27 between Trump and President Joe Biden, before his ultimate withdrawal from the race — and Tuesday’s vice-presidential contest between Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, it appears this year’s debate cycle has come to an end.
Though Harris and Trump both initially agreed to a second debate with one another, Trump said after Sept. 10’s match, “THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE,” via a Sept. 12 Truth Social post, referencing his face-offs with Biden and Harris. At the time of publication, there are no additional debates scheduled before Election Day Nov. 5.
In light of this, political experts Aaron Kall — University of Michigan’s Lee H. Hess director of debate — and Thomas Nelson — an Ohio State professor in the Department of Political Science with research expertise in political psychology and American politics — weigh in on how they viewed the two most recent debate performances, and how such displays may impact this exceptionally close election.
Appealing to college-aged voters
In regard to the presidential debate, Nelson said Harris’ discussion of young families and climate change may have positioned her well among younger viewers when compared to Trump, who didn’t address climate change as directly.
Though Nelson said Harris came off as more “youthful” and “optimistic” than her opponent, he added that Trump’s mostly calm demeanor may have hindered the vice president’s success in resonating with younger voters.
“Her job is to make him look like an angry old man, and I think she wasn’t 100% successful at that,” Nelson said. “He actually kept it mostly under control.”
Kall said in an email while there weren’t a large number of questions focused specifically on college-aged voters throughout the vice-presidential debate, Vance likely appealed to the demographic more than Walz for reasons even beyond the debate itself.
“Both Vance and Walz have younger children who were referenced and connected to the policy issues being discussed throughout the night,” Kall said. “Vance, being about 20 years younger, could help him connect with this group, and he appears to be more closely connected to social media.”
More generally, however, Kall said the civil tone of Tuesday’s contest “was welcomed” by younger viewers.
“Many younger voters believe the current state of politics is too partisan and probably appreciated the two candidates saying nice things about each other and a debate focused on substantive issues that can impact their lives,” Kall said.
Debate differences
When comparing the presidential and vice-presidential debates with one another, Kall said Tuesday’s display was a “180-degree reversal” from the Trump-Harris battle.
“Kamala Harris had an intentional strategy of attacking Donald Trump over issues like the 2020 election and crowd sizes, knowing this would evoke a particular response in return,” Kall said. “Trump fell for the bait and was distracted from successfully prosecuting the case against Harris’ political record and policy transformation.”
This, he said, was starkly contrasted by Vance’s performance.
“Vance made no similar mistake and instead had a laser-like focus on some of the failings of the Biden-Harris administration during the last several years over the issues of immigration and the economy,” Kall said.
Beyond candidates’ performances, Kall said Tuesday marked “the most civil debate [he’d] witnessed in a long time,” which likely appealed to less politically engaged moderate voters who think “partisanship is overdone and unnecessary” and respond more strongly to “a positive and forward-looking vision for the country.”
“Many of the vice-presidential responsibilities are ceremonial in nature, so the same incentives don’t exist for the combativeness while on stage,” Kall said. “Vance and Walz seemed to have genuine respect and admiration for each other, which contributed to a more positive tone. This may have not been the case in Philadelphia.”
As a result of this cordial tone, Kall said both running mates will benefit in likeability and job-approval ratings. Plus, he said this means viewers are more likely to invest additional time into their own research on the nominees.
“The major question will be whether this is sustainable or ebbs again once they return to their roles as attack dogs on the campaign trail,” Kall said. “Both men substantially helped their political brands and increased their name identification to an audience of tens of millions.”
Winners
Nelson said though he thinks Harris “could have done better,” she came out on top against Trump in the Sept. 10 contest.
“If I were to pick a winner, which is hard to do, I would say she probably won, if by winning you mean impressing people who didn’t know what to expect from her,” Nelson said.
He said this is largely due to Harris’ focus on values, which gave voters a better sense of who she is as the lesser-known candidate.
“If I were advising the campaign, that’s exactly what I would’ve told her to do, so I think people did get a better sense of who she is, what she stands for,” Nelson said. “I would say her main goal was to look like a solid leader, somebody who can step out of Biden’s shadow and really take command of things, and I think she did pretty well.”
That said, Nelson said he thinks it was important for Trump to emphasize the connection between Biden and Harris because of Biden’s low approval ratings.
“I think he did try to do that, and he did get a few specific zings at her,” Nelson said. “One of his better moments was when he basically blamed her for not stopping Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”
Kall said Trump’s “stumbles” and “poor debate performance” from Sept. 10 gave Vance a more difficult challenge coming into Tuesday’s debate, and the Ohio senator not only delivered, but also came out slightly on top of Walz.
“Vance clearly understood the importance of the debate and spent a lot of valuable time participating in formal debate preparation,” Kall said. “The favorable subject matter and Walz’ early indecisiveness contributed to a fast start when the largest audience size was watching.”
However, Kall said scientific polling on the vice-presidential contest indicates it was “mostly a draw,” and that both candidates performed well once Walz “found his bearings.”
Specifically, Kall said Vance succeeded in “softening his image” to on-the-fence moderate voters, while Walz’ “folksy language and demeanor” likely resonated with older, blue-collar Midwesterners, who will also play an integral role in this election.
“It was the first time in the national debate spotlight for both candidates, and the more civil tone of the event will probably help the favorability ratings of both men,” Kall said. “Both Walz and Vance came across as competent and accomplished leaders who could fill in if needed as president.”
When taking a holistic view of both campaigns by analyzing the two debates, Kall said he thinks Harris and Walz came out slightly ahead. Though Kall said the vice-presidential match was “hotly contested and close,” he said the presidential contest was “pretty one-sided and decisive” in Harris’ favor.
“Presidential debates receive greater weight and typically have much larger audiences,” Kall said. “[Tuesday] night was an important event that was viewed by tens of millions of Americans, but is still likely perceived as an undercard. Opinions and views concerning Kamala Harris and Donald Trump at the top of the ticket will be determinative in the final outcome of this very close election.”
