Vice presidential debate returns surprising maturity to the podium
Graphic made by Melissa Joseph
After last week’s circus show of a presidential debate, the vice presidential debate showed us all how a debate should be held, despite which side of politics one finds themself on. The debate pitted Senator Kamala Harris against current Vice President Mike Pence in an hour and half debate that many found, well, boring. Yet, boring is not a bad way for a debate to go, as each candidate proved their superb oration and debate skills on stage.
Unlike the bickering and name calling debate of last week, Pence and Harris squared off against each other in a respectable fashion, going over issues such as climate change, the Supreme Court nomination, and the current pandemic ravaging America.
Harris came out strong from the beginning, citing the Trump administration’s lackluster response to the pandemic. It was interesting to note that Pence refused to admit to the failure of Trump’s COVID-19 response, oftentimes fluffing his words and deflecting hard questions to other areas that he deemed easier to discuss. He did however, point to Trump’s early blocking of all travel from China, saying that Biden is too soft on communist China and that he would never have done what Trump did.
Pence frequently referred to the swine flu pandemic which occurred while Biden was Vice President during Obama’s administration, citing that he failed in his response to the issue. The issue that I have with this is that the swine flu was not nearly as deadly as the coronavirus, with the number of deaths being drastically smaller than that of the coronavirus.
When the topic of science came up involving global warming, Pence stated that his administration had helped the environment immensely. Harris rebutted his argument by saying the policies of the Trump administration, such as pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord and lifting restrictions on industries that cause adverse effects to our climate were negatively impacting the country.
During the debate Pence repeatedly accused the Biden administration of supporting the Green New Deal, legislation that Biden has repeatedly expressed opposition to. It seems to me that Pence, like Trump, has a penchant for denying facts and making up statements, even if they are to a lesser degree.
In all, the debate went well. Both candidates did an exceptional job of staying on topic and respecting each other’s time limit, aside from a few interruptions and a few times where each candidate went over the time limit.
Harris started out the debate strongly and with confidence, rebutting many of Pence’s points with facts. Yet as the debate went on, Pence took more of a lead when discussing the issue of stacking the Supreme Court, to which Harris had no response, as well as when Harris’ background as an attorney was brought up.
By the end of the debate, I would say both candidates did equally well, however I would argue that Harris did a slightly better job in general. It was a nice change of pace from the chaos of the last debate, and ultimately is unlikely to sway voters either way. One thing is for certain, it will set the precedent for the next presidential debate, as it showed America how a debate is supposed to be held: with respect and dignity.
Jack Lewis can be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter @JackAttack722
Richard Johnson // Oct 12, 2020 at 7:26 pm
A nicely written critique of the VP debate by this student reporter. I thought Pence won the debate, he was the serious underdog going into the debate, but Pence had Kamala on the defensive all night. But Harris probably was the “winner” because her PR team did such a good job on the post debate spin. Kamala’s PR flacks got these big name women political reporters and TV commentators to start talking about Pence and his “mansplaining” – which commentators define as “the explanation of something by a man, typically to a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing”. This is a new term to me. Kamala, as many know, is surrounded by this cadre of communication experts who have trained her how to smile, how to laugh, how to look incredulous or how to act serious when debating, how to turn on the outrage on cue, etc. etc. I myself have never seen a politician with such an advanced set of communication skills. Yet, in my view, she overdoes all these things to the point she comes off like a robot. I noticed when she ran for POTUS – despite her practiced communication skills, her winning smile and her movie star good looks, she didn’t seem to connect – at all – with audiences when she was on the campaign trail. Amy Klobuchar did, and so did Liz Warren, but Kamala was a total flop in Iowa, New Hampshire, and even in Southern States. When she dropped out of the race she was in 4th palce in her own state of California I think a big problem with Kamala is her lack of likability, she just isn’t a very likable person. You can kind of see – if you study her carefully – this is really a miserable lady. A mean, nasty, rotten lady. I see no way Kamala is helping the Democratic ticket. Okay, I may be mansplaining here, but that’s my read.