Vice presidential candidates JD Vance and Tim Walz faced off in a televised debate on Tuesday, October 1, in New York City. In their only debate of the race, the Republican Vance and the Democrat Walz contrasted in style, while trying to appear affable and reassuring. While neither candidate stood out, "each returned satisfied to his own, in an ultra-polarized political field where there are few left to persuade." Ludivine Gilli, director of the North America Observatory at the Fondation Jean Jaurès, answered questions from Le Monde's readers following the debate in a liveblog.
A debate between the presidential candidates would, indeed, have been more useful to voters. However, in the 2024 situation, the vice presidency candidates are little known to the general public. A debate between them therefore gives voters a direct idea of who they are, and in so doing informs them about the presidential candidates' choice of running mate: Who have Donald Trump and Kamala Harris selected to govern alongside them or replace them if need be?
The impact of presidential debates is always extremely minimal. It's even more so in the case of debates between vice presidency candidates, but in the case of an election that's shaping up to be very close, even minor factors can ultimately have a (very) slight impact.
This debate was pretty close and each side could benefit. On the Republican side, JD Vance projected an image of calm and moderation that made up for the outbursts associated with Donald Trump. On the Democratic side, Tim Walz presented a natural, accessible demeanor, reinforcing his image as a sympathetic Midwesterner. On substance, both sides scored points.
Historically, running mates have had little impact on how voters vote. Among the exceptions: In 2008, John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin did him a disservice, by giving the impression that he had made a poor choice regarding his running mate.
Yes, voices are being raised against this voting system. In fact, there are initiatives to change it, such as National Popular Vote, but changing the rules would require bipartisan agreement. Now, changing the rules would hurt Republicans, who benefit from the current system, so they're not inclined to accept a change in the rules.
Despite the electoral system, which entails that the election is played out exclusively in the famous swing states, voters are playing the game. Turnout rates differ from state to state, but not so much between swing states and other states, but rather according to the political culture of different states and their demographics (different voter profiles vote more or less). Turnout rates, for example, tend to be high in New England states such as Vermont and New Hampshire, and low in states of the "Old South" such as Alabama and Mississippi. In states that are perceived to be a foregone conclusion, one effect is that more voters cast their ballots for third-party candidates. In the capital Washington, DC, for example, which votes overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party, the Green candidate is garnering high scores, sometimes rivaling those of the Republican Party.
This isn't surprising, given that foreign policy issues are far from the top of voters' minds in the United States. They are far behind the economy, health care, immigration, democracy, housing and so on. The moderators therefore chose to question the candidates on the topics most likely to interest voters.
No clear winner in this debate: Both candidates had good moments and more difficult ones.
The impact is very important – especially if you think about both presidential and congressional elections. Some areas depend largely on the federal government (like education, for example), but in many areas the federal government can set requirements that apply to all the states. This is the case, for example, with reproductive rights, gun control, environmental regulation and so on. As a result, the impact of the president and congressional majorities is very strong. The president appoints Supreme Court justices, who are confirmed by the Senate. It is these judges who rule on the validity of laws passed by Congress, with a major impact on everyone's daily life.
A few flash polls on the debate itself. No wider polls yet, we'll have to wait a bit. The latest results from poll aggregators (which average several national polls) offered by 538, RCP, 270 to Win or the Washington Post give Kamala Harris a slight lead nationally... but the election isn't being played out nationally. In the seven key states, all poll aggregators give the two candidates neck-and-neck, systematically within the margin of error.
Candidates are trying to both mobilize their base and appeal to undecided voters. There is a strong polarization in the US between staunch Democrats (about 30%) and staunch Republicans (about 30%), but there is also a larger segment (about 40%) of people who feel neither fully Democratic nor fully Republican. They are sometimes more centrist than both camps. They also sometimes have more extreme positions than one camp on one subject, but more extreme than the other camp on another subject, which doesn't really place them in the middle. Finally, on a whole range of subjects, a large majority of the population agrees on measures seen as common sense and is not all that polarized (like the consensus on a certain degree of gun control, on a certain degree of access to abortion, etc.)
The electoral system works differently in each of the states within the US. The early voting system exists in different forms in the different states: more or less easy to implement, open more or less early. It exists in two forms: either by mail, or in person. By mail, the voter receives and returns a ballot prior to the election date. In person, the voter will appear in person at a polling station opened before the election date. (These stations are far fewer in number than those open on election day, but they give greater flexibility to vote, with the election being held on a weekday, not a Sunday as in France.)
It's not impossible, but it seems unlikely in the near future: In short, for the system proposed by NPVIC to work, Republican-majority states would have to agree to participate, yet they have everything to lose, since the current system gives them a very clear electoral advantage. In the last eight elections, the Democrats have won the popular vote seven times, but lost the election three times under the current rules.
The rules regarding the organization of voting are governed by each state, and the rules vary widely from state to state. Some states require photo ID, others require non-photo ID, and still others use other means to verify the voter's identity, which vary according to each voter's situation (e.g., more requirements if the voter is voting for the first time, etc.). Some states require photo ID, others require non-photo ID, and still others use other means to verify the voter's identity, which vary according to each voter's situation (e.g., more requirements if the voter is voting for the first time, etc.).
The abortion issue is not the primary concern of voters (for most, it's the economy). On the other hand, it is the main concern of some voters (figures vary depending on the survey: around 15%), particularly in swing states. This issue can therefore help swing certain states.
JD Vance's performance may help reassure part of the non-MAGA (Make America Great Again) Republican electorate. Beyond the substance, he offered an appearance and rhetoric that were generally more moderate than the rhetoric offered by Donald Trump since the start of the campaign, which may have a reassuring effect for some voters. However, the effect will most likely remain marginal.