Insights from Analysts on the Vice Presidential Debate

US vice presidential candidates JD Vance and Tim Walz engaged in a heated debate on Tuesday, discussing the strengths of their respective running mates and the accomplishments of the previous administrations.

Vance, the Republican nominee supporting Donald Trump, delivered a confident defense of the former president, particularly highlighting his economic achievements. In contrast, Walz, the Democratic candidate alongside current Vice President Kamala Harris, initially appeared uncertain but gained momentum as he criticized Trump’s persistent claims regarding the 2020 election results.

Despite moments of tension, the overall tone of the debate was relatively civil when compared to a previous exchange between Trump and Harris last month. As the race for the White House intensifies, Harris holds a slight edge over Trump in national polling, while both candidates remain closely matched in crucial swing states that could influence the outcome of the election on November 5.

Here’s a summary of analysts’ reactions to the debate:

UBS noted that while the candidates had differing visions for the country, their interaction maintained a level of civility and decorum. The debate covered various significant topics, from immigration to taxation and healthcare. They emphasized that while vice-presidential debates typically do not sway election outcomes, this particular debate held more weight due to the tightly contested race and potential as the final debate between any of the candidates before the election.

Raymond James remarked that the fundamental aim of a vice presidential candidate is to instill confidence in voters regarding their readiness to assume the presidency if required. They expressed that both Vance and Walz met this expectation. The debate itself featured a more substantial discussion on policy than seen in previous campaign moments and drew comparisons to the vice presidential debates of 2016 and 2020. They observed that Vance’s polished delivery may position him as perceived winner, especially considering his low favorability ratings.

Wolfe Research suggested that Vance was more effective overall, whereas Walz appeared less assured. They acknowledged the potential impact of the debate, noting that VP debates typically attract significant viewership. Despite the mixed reactions reflected in flash polls, they maintained a slight preference for Harris, with their odds set at 55%, even as some polling models indicated a higher likelihood for her.