NewNow you can listen to Fox News articles!
Yes, the conventional wisdom is that vice presidential nominees rarely matter. But the vice presidential debates have produced both memorable mistakes and moments — and sometimes actually changed the course of the campaign. I would argue that three out of six presidential election VP debates have made a difference in recent elections, and if you go back to the ancient history of the last 50 years, they have proven to be important, if not decisive. Let’s take a look at six memorable examples.
1976: Mondale vs. Dole on the ‘Democrat Wars’ The first vice presidential debate of the modern era took place in 1976. Coming out of a divided Republican convention, President Gerald Ford chose Kansas Senator Bob Dole, after their divided convention, as a way to unify the conservative and moderate wings of the GOP. , Dole faced off against Jimmy Carter’s vice presidential nominee, Senator Walter Mondale of Minnesota.
In that debate, Mondale responded to the line that Dole had been using in all his speeches – that the Democrats were the party in power when all the wars of the century started – especially both World Wars, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. In an apparently scripted moment, Mondale responded, “Senator Dole has earned his reputation as a bigot tonight by saying and saying that World War II and the Korean War were Democratic wars. Is he really Want to suggest to the American people that there was partisan disagreement over our participation in the war to fight Nazi Germany?”
Inappropriate, absolutely – certainly within the bounds of the typical election debate. In a close election decided by less than 20,000 votes, this could have been decisive – and it certainly hurt Dole, preventing him from running an effective campaign for the nomination in 1980, even though he was able to recover and Were able to become GOP standard-bearers. In 1996.
1984: Bush returns for Bush vs. Ferraro-Reagan: President Ronald Reagan – then the oldest president in history – performed markedly poorly against former Vice President Walter Mondale during his first debate. On several occasions it seemed as if he was having a “senior moment” – in one case it took about 17 seconds to find a word. People started talking about whether he was exhibiting “cognitive decline”. Most people knew that Reagan was favored for re-election – especially since Mondale had “promised” to raise taxes. In an apparent move of desperation Mondale had named Geraldine Ferraro, a little-known New York congresswoman, as his running mate.
A week after that disappointing performance in the first presidential debate, Vice President George H.W. Bush faced Ferraro. Although there were no real “viral moments” in the debate—those watching the campaigns’ internal daily tracking surveys say a turning point came that night—where Reagan was slowly gaining voter support, it was immediately Stopped and changed almost – and barely a month later, Reagan won by the largest popular vote margin in history.
1988: “You’re No Jack Kennedy.” Vice President George H. W. Bush, nominated to succeed Ronald Reagan (then the oldest person to serve as president), chose Indiana Senator Dan Quayle, in part, to represent the “new generation”. Quayle was 42 but looked even younger. Shortly after the announcement that Quayle was selected as the VP nominee, debate arose over whether his service in the National Guard was designed to avoid military service in Vietnam. While Quayle survived the attempt to remove him from the ticket, he was dogged by questions about his experience. He repeatedly pointed out that he had served in the House and Senate until John F. Kennedy was elected President.
JD Vance’s debate preparation strategy includes tapping key legislators to play Walz
The Democratic vice presidential nominee, Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, came prepared for the debate. When Quayle repeated his widely expected – and true – statement “I have as much experience as John Kennedy,” the taller Bentsen said, with his slow, deliberate Texas drawl, “Senator, I have worked with Jack Kennedy. , I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was my friend, Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy.”
In televised debates, the most effective ad lib barbs are the practice of random ad lib barbs. Especially when the Democratic half of the audience cheers, making the target look like he’s been punched.
While Bush-Quayle won – and one could argue that the debate didn’t really matter, Quayle’s political future – even though he had served as Vice President – was badly damaged.
More recently, the VP debate was decisive in three of the six presidential elections since 2000.
2000: Cheney vs. Lieberman-policy wink: George W. Bush chose former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney as his running mate, largely to compensate for his lack of experience in foreign affairs and his limited experience in office (he had served in elected office for half as long as Dan Quayle). . Shortly after being nominated, it appeared that Cheney had to change her residence from Texas back to Wyoming. He has hardly voted in any election since leaving public office.
He joined the debate with a Gallup poll showing Bush trailing Al Gore by about 10 points. Both candidates (Lieberman and Cheney) were seated and apparently engaged in friendly debate. Cheney avoided attacks on her record and the millions she made in her private life, but demonstrated a comfortable ability to discuss all elements of public policy. The immediate surveys were clear. Forty-two percent of viewers thought Cheney won while only 24% thought Lieberman won. Shortly thereafter, a Gallup poll found that the race had reversed. Bush was now 8 points ahead of Gore. One need not think that all that change was due to the debate, one need not believe that it made any difference.
wall
2012: The Interpreter Beats the Policy Wonk—VP Joe Biden vs. Paul Ryan: The VP debate took place about a week after the first presidential debate between incumbent Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney. Romney used that debate to make a clear argument against Obama’s first term. Romney was well-rehearsed and made solid arguments, but what was worse for Obama was that the Democratic nominee appeared completely unprepared.
Obama supporters were disappointed at how bad a job he had done. Surveys told the same story. During the debate, Obama went from a 4 point advantage over Romney to a 1 point deficit.
The VP debate took place a week later. Biden deployed his more youthful ability to talk (this was 12 years ago). You could argue that all he did was yell at the unconscious Ryan. But you can’t debate the results. democratic audience The energies were – and the polls showed – the Obama-Biden ticket to a tie.
2016: Mike Pence stays on message…Tim Kaine interrupts: The debate between the two men came a week after the first Donald Trump–Hillary Clinton debate, where Trump was argumentative and seemingly poorly prepared – and several news cycles after Trump’s fight with a former Miss Universe. The focus was on what Trump did. Was forced to lose weight. At the same time he was continuing his battle with a judge from a Gold Star family and of Mexican heritage. Pence’s objective was clear: Focus on potential policies of the Trump administration — rather than specific statements made by Trump — and make Trump acceptable to both evangelical voters as well as more moderate Republicans who opposed Trump’s nomination.
Pence proved himself to be a brilliant former radio talk show host who had made a career out of touting conservative positions. His opponent, Senator Tim Kaine, tried to interrupt him more than 70 times and did not appear comfortable. In contrast, a focus group watching the debate found that “Pence looked the most presidential. He was calm, reassuring – I want him in the crisis, not the other guy.”
Although the debate did not prevent Trump’s defeat in the elections, it presented the Trump-Pence ticket as a less risky option. And so, just a month later, they were able to get voters who disliked both Clinton and Trump to vote for Trump – and help him win the election.
In the other three elections this century, the VP debate mattered little (2004, 2008, and 2020).
Click here for more Fox News opinion
tuesday night, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate JD Vance The Democratic nominee will debate against Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. Vance made his name writing about his Appalachian heritage, how he was raised by a hard-working, gun-toting grandmother (uncle), and talking about the part of America that has been destroyed by globalization and “neoliberalism”. Was forgotten by the policies. His opponent, Walz, also came from the more rural and small-town Midwest – and he won a Republican congressional district and was elected Governor of Minnesota and pursued progressive policies.
Although they are similar in background – and both nominations are aimed at helping propel their tickets into the industrial swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin – their campaign personalities are very different.
Vance is an outspoken person Yale Law School graduate – who has performed well in most interviews, but who has struggled to maintain personal favorability in most polling.
Walz performs well without thinking, and has created several viral moments, most notably when he called Trump and Vance “weird.” At the same time, it is less clear how well he can talk about specific policies – and make good on a specific argument about different approaches to governance.
Click here to get the Fox News app
The big question on Tuesday night will be what is the public looking for? Would they—in 2016—choose someone like Pence who appears capable of translating Trump’s Make America Great Again movement into a set of achievable policies? Or do they want someone more in line with Joe Biden of 2012, who made his Republican opponent look like a policy whiz who didn’t have enough energy?
Just remember: J.D. Vance may seem like a deliberate Yale-educated lawyer, but he knows how to temper the Appalachian aggression of his late Mavma. And, Tim Walz, the former assistant high school football coach, may represent what people in the Upper Midwest refer to as “Minnesota Nice” – by which they mean the ability to knife your opponent, even if politely.
