《时代》意见版组邀请了13位专栏作家与撰稿人观看了副总统候选人辩论，并对双方的表现进行了评价。我们还请他们讨论辩论的整体质量：这些政治家的演说能否激发热情？还是这番对峙仅仅是美国政坛问题的缩影？
以下是专栏作家们的见解。一个新功能允许读者通过在评分表上添加标记来参与评论，比较自己的观点与其他撰稿人以及读者的意见。
本杰明·艾普鲍姆，编辑部成员 JD范斯展示了一个能增加其政党吸引力的版本，让特朗普主义听起来更为礼貌、冷静且条理清晰。但问题在于选民是否会信任这种与候选人行为和观念严重背离的表现。
乔希·巴罗，通讯作者 范斯在辩论前半段更加灵活，特别是在第一次对抗焦虑的蒂姆·瓦尔茨时如此。然而，在辩论进行过程中，范斯在堕胎和2020年选举等议题上出错时显得步履蹒跚，他的语言技巧无法挽救他所处理的内容。
查尔斯·M·克劳，时代专栏作家 瓦尔茨获得了胜利。尽管有人担心他会压倒瓦尔茨，但可以放轻松了。瓦尔茨似乎得到了一个不表现出“傲慢的毕业生”的提示。然而，表现得过好可能效果适得其反。范斯的表现平淡无力，并且不得不以各种方式回避特朗普的言论和自己的过去陈述。
杰梅尔·博伊，时代专栏作家 范斯总括来说赢得辩论，但若说有一个关键时刻，那就是在最后时刻拒绝承认乔·拜登赢得了2020年大选。这种对特朗普选举否认主义的支持可能削弱了他整个表现。
简·科斯顿，意见撰写人 杜撰的回答使瓦尔茨在1月6日问题上显得茫然失措，这是范斯的败笔所在。
盖尔·康利，时代专栏作家 在辩论中瓦尔茨表现非常糟糕时，可能会说她输了。然而，并不会这样下结论。因为这场辩论实在太接近分水岭了。瓦尔茨在回答最坏的答案时表现出如此热情和信心，而范斯则有史以来第一次给了我们一个特朗普可能会说话的影子。
罗丝·多思赫蒂，时代专栏作家 对于范斯来说是主导表现；对瓦尔茨而言则是紧张的乱流。对于观众而言，则是在唐纳德·特朗普在任期间最文明和实质性的一场辩论。
马特·拉巴什，通讯作者 没有人真正占上风。但我会给予小优势给瓦尔茨，因为范斯在1月6日事件中故意低调处理，并且在辩论过程中还发布了一份来自唐纳德·特朗普的推文：“更多注解！为什么韦尔斯不能记得他说过的话？低智商！”这提醒了我们范斯老板应多看Hallmark频道，少看点Newsmax频道。
凯瑟琳·曼戈·沃德，原因编辑人 范斯获胜。相比总统候选人，副总统候选人的表现已经十分出色了。但如果看了足够多的“爱是盲目的”，你可能就会忘记简·奥斯汀的存在一样。范斯在辩论中轻快、灵活，但这场辩论并不会被政治历史上列为名篇。
丹尼尔麦卡锡，现代时代编辑人 范斯在前半段有更强劲的表现；而瓦尔茨在后段则显得迷失方向，尤其是在吹嘘哈里斯联盟的陈述中——包括伯尼·桑德斯、迪克·切尼和泰勒·斯威夫特等人物。这些议题让选民在今年11月想要或者需要的东西大失所望。
梅根·斯塔克，意见撰写人 在最后几分钟时，当讨论到1月6日事件，瓦尔茨终于找回了他的声音与清晰度。突然间，局势翻转，范斯开始犹豫不决，并将辩论的焦点转向了社交媒体审查而不是特朗普试图颠覆大选结果的行为。
法拉·斯特克曼，编辑部成员 我会说是平局。范斯出色地扮演了一个体面的人。瓦尔茨回答了一些问题失常，并且在是否承认自己1989年在天安门抗议中说谎的问题上犹豫不决。但他最终恢复了自信。
彼得·韦纳，意见撰写人 范斯获胜。他言辞犀利、掌控全局，并证明了他是一位出色的辩论家。有时试图过于讨好对方显得空洞，但这位“好的范斯”确实有助于修复他的形象。
本杰明·艾普鲍姆 关键在于移民问题的讨论。范斯巧妙地利用民众对移民的恐惧，并以自己的关注点是美国公民福利为由回避了一个关于这种语言潜在危险的问题。
巴罗的州长政策案例与瓦尔茨相比显得逊色，表明了他们各自作为领导人背景的差异。
博伊的辩论中的关键部分在于最后拒绝承认拜登赢得2020年大选的时刻。这可能削弱他整个表演，通过纵容特朗普的选举否认主义。
科斯顿的亮点是1月6日问题上的回答，瓦尔茨最终找到了声音和清晰度，在讨论唐纳德·特朗普努力颠覆上一次选举结果的问题时，范斯则显得犹豫不决，并将辩论焦点转向了社交媒体审查而不是直接应对这一事件。
曼戈·沃德在最后阶段的出色表现，突出了瓦尔茨的信心和事实应用，尽管整场辩论中败下阵来。
麦卡锡关注于农业话题让瓦尔茨在明尼苏达州获得优势，但在工业工作力量在2023年大选中可能决定宾夕法尼亚等关键州的形势下，这是一次赌博。
韦纳的评语是，从范斯的表现来看，对于支持特朗普的政治人士来说，在90分钟内有极大程度的解脱感。同时范斯的好口碑会激怒特朗普，并显示出他更关心修复自己的形象而非成为攻击工具。
本杰明·艾普鲍姆 90分钟的辩论让人回忆起一个几乎不涉及和平与繁荣的时代，但最终，这场辩论提醒人们范斯及其搭档并不尊重民主选举结果。这是一个奇怪且难以忘怀的事情，放在了辩论的结尾部分。
巴罗尽管前期对瓦尔茨和范斯间可能存在异常敌意的关注，本次辩论却表现出令人惊讶地文明、政策聚焦且常规。这预示了未来不涉及特朗普的政治时期可能的模式。
科斯顿强调了在1月6日问题上的回答，瓦尔茨最终找到了他的声音，并以清晰度回应特朗普试图颠覆选举结果的行为，范斯则显得犹豫和转而讨论社交媒体审查而非直接应对这一事件。
斯塔克注意到范斯将唐纳德·特朗普描绘成奥巴马医保的救星，让在场的人们爆笑。这是对瓦尔茨提问时，范斯回答“我专注于未来”的笑声中的另一个例子。
韦纳评价范斯表现良好，特朗普则显得非常糟糕。对于支持特朗普的人来说，在这场90分钟内感到极大的解脱和宽慰——除了对特朗普的厌恶增加了之外。
本杰明·艾普鲍姆在最后几分钟时的辩论感觉像是回到了一个几乎没有争议的时代：所有关键选举仅关系到和平与繁荣。但在最后几秒钟，依然有人在看的人被提醒范斯和他的搭档并不将自己束缚于民主选举结果——这是场奇怪而难以忘怀的事情。
新闻来源：www.nytimes.com
原文地址：Opinion | 13 Writers on Who Won the Walz-Vance Vice-Presidential Debate
新闻日期：2024-10-02
原文摘要：
Times Opinion asked 13 of our columnists and contributors to watch the vice-presidential debate on Tuesday night and assess who won and who lost. We also asked them to weigh in on the quality of the debate. Were the candidates inspiring, or was their face-off a depressing sign of everything that’s wrong with American politics? Here’s what our columnists and contributors thought of the event. In a new feature, readers can score the debate, too, by dropping a pin on the scorecard to see how they stack up against other readers, as well as our contributors. Binyamin Appelbaum, member of the editorial board JD Vance was more effective in presenting a version of his party’s ticket that might broaden its appeal. He made Trumpism sound polite, calm and coherent. The question is whether voters will credit a performance so strikingly at odds with the behavior and views of the man he was purporting to represent. Josh Barro, author of the newsletter Very Serious Vance was far nimbler than the nervous Tim Walz, especially in the first half of the debate. But as the debate went on, Vance stumbled on two issues — abortion and the 2020 election — where his rhetorical skill could not salvage the very unappealing material he was working with. Charles M. Blow, Times columnist Walz won. You could tell that he was a teacher, because he clearly did his homework. Anyone afraid that Vance would roll over him could breathe easily. Vance seemed to have been told not to come across as a condescending valedictorian. But he might have heeded that advice too well. Vance’s performance was anemic. Also, he had to contort himself to dodge Donald Trump’s statements and his own past statements. Jamelle Bouie, Times columnist It’s a pretty straightforward verdict: Vance won this debate. It’s not hard to see why. He has spent most of his adult life selling himself to the wealthy, the powerful and the influential. He is as smooth and practiced as they come. He has no regard for the truth. He lies as easily as he breathes. We saw this throughout the debate. He told Americans that there are 20 million to 25 million “illegal aliens” — a lie. He told Americans that Mexico is responsible for the nation’s illegal gun problem — a lie. He told Americans that Trump actually tried to save the Affordable Care Act — a lie. If Vance had to sell the benefits of asbestos to win office, he would do it well and do it with a smile. Jane Coaston, contributing Opinion writer Vance seemed smoother and more practiced, but “won” is a very strong term here. Gail Collins, Times columnist Calling it a draw just because Walz was so bad in much of his delivery. Vance was a much more forceful speaker while spewing lies on everything from abortion to Biden’s foreign policy. Ross Douthat, Times columnist For Vance, it was a commanding performance. For Walz, it was a nervous ramble. For the audience, it was the most civil and substantive debate of the Trump era. Matt Labash, author of the newsletter Slack Tide Nobody truly dominated. But I’m giving the slight edge to Walz, since Vance embarrassingly soft-pedaled Jan. 6 and Trump posted this to Truth Social during the debate: “More Notes! Why Can’t Walz just remember what he has to say? Low IQ!” Reminding us that Vance’s boss should watch more Hallmark Channel, less Newsmax. Katherine Mangu-Ward, editor of Reason Vance won. Compared with the candidates in the presidential debates, both vice-presidential candidates performed admirably. But if you watch enough “Love Is Blind,” you can forget that Jane Austen exists. Vance was facile and light on his feet, but this debate will not go down in the annals of great political rhetoric. Daniel McCarthy, editor of the periodical Modern Age Vance won with a stronger start, then Walz lost with a closing statement boasting of a Harris coalition “from Bernie Sanders to Dick Cheney to Taylor Swift.” Socialism, endless war and manufactured teen feelings are the last things voters want or need in November. Megan Stack, contributing Opinion writer Vance nimbly reframed questions to his advantage, sounded deeply concerned about ordinary Americans and managed to appear forthright even when sidestepping or dissembling. Vance ran circles around Walz. Until the very end, when the question of Jan. 6 and democracy shook Walz awake, he often looked woolly and discombobulated, widened eyes suggesting panic. Farah Stockman, member of the editorial board I’d call it a tie. Vance did an excellent job of impersonating a decent man. Walz flubbed a number of answers — and dodged a question about whether he lied about being in China during the Tiananmen protests in 1989. But he recovered. Peter Wehner, contributing Opinion writer Vance. He was sharp and in command and proved he’s an excellent debater. At times he tried too hard to appear likable; I came away more convinced that he’s a hollow man, radioactive and incendiary one day, conciliatory and agreeable the next. But the “good Vance” did a lot to repair his tattered image. Appelbaum The exchange on immigration. Vance played on fears of immigrants and deftly deflected a question about the dangers of such language by insisting he was focused on the welfare of “American citizens.” Meanwhile, instead of folksy Walz, the audience got a lecture on legislative procedure. Barro Asked whether Trump lost the 2020 election, Vance replied “Tim, I’m focused on the future,” then pivoted to talk about the past: about pressure government officials put on social media platforms in 2021 to censor posts related to Covid. While some of Vance’s redirections in the debate were effective, this one just highlighted how he sold his soul to get on the ticket. Blow Walz kept invoking his policies as governor and how national policies affected his state. Vance had no corresponding examples. It was a subtle but effective way of underscoring Walz’s executive governing experience, which marked him as more of a leader. Bouie Vance won overall, but if there was one pivotal moment, it came at the end, when he refused to admit that Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election. Vance might have undermined his entire performance by indulging Trump’s election denialism. Coaston Vance’s complete nonanswer to the Jan. 6 question. Collins Maybe just when the Democratic vice-presidential candidate walked in, appearing super-nervous. That charming grin he’s so famous for was more of a desperate stare. Douthat Vance set the tone during the initial foreign policy questions, when he offered a variation on the famous “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” question for world affairs and Walz could barely muster a response. That was the pattern of the whole night: Vance reliably gave the strongest version of the Trumpian case (including in areas where the Trumpian case is weak); Walz only intermittently offered anything like an effective counter and hardly ever turned the tables. Labash There really weren’t any. Even though I just watched the debate, I’ve already forgotten it. So many factlets recited from memory, without anyone saying anything memorable. Maybe the Trump years have ruined vanilla politics forever. Mangu-Ward In the final minutes, Walz landed confident hits on the facts and implications of Jan. 6. The debate didn’t go his way, but he finished robustly with the point that Trump’s behavior that day is the strongest case against a Trump-Vance ticket. McCarthy Vance had a tougher second half than Walz but ended on a decisive point in favor of the Trump ticket: Harris has been in office for nearly four years and can’t credibly promise change, or as Vance put it, “Day 1 was 1,400 days ago, and her policies have made these problems worse.” Stack Addressing Jan. 6, Walz finally found his voice and clarity. Suddenly the dynamic flipped, with Vance waffling and then pivoting to censorship rather than engaging with Trump’s efforts to subvert the results of the last election. But this moment came so late in the evening, it felt more like an epilogue than the main event. Stockman When Vance portrayed Trump as the savior of Obamacare. The people I was watching with laughed out loud. They also laughed when Walz asked Vance whether Trump lost the 2020 election and Vance replied, “I’m focused on the future.” Wehner There wasn’t one. A vice-presidential debate wouldn’t have mattered under any circumstances, but this one won’t move the needle at all. The debaters were at times respectful and agreed with each other, but the debate itself will be forgotten by the end of the week. Appelbaum For 90 minutes, this debate felt almost like a throwback to a more innocent time when all that was at stake in a presidential election was peace and prosperity. Then in the final few minutes, anyone still watching was reminded that Vance, like his running mate, doesn’t regard himself as bound by the results of democratic elections. It was a strange thing to save for the end. Barro While a lot of predebate coverage focused on the idea that Walz and Vance have an unusual level of animus, the debate was remarkably civil, policy-focused and normal. It’s a preview of what politics might look like someday when we again have an election not involving Trump. Blow Vance’s cerise tie was … a choice. Bouie Vance’s quip that many Americans don’t agree with him on abortion really underplayed the fact that his position — that there’s little to nothing that would entitle a woman to terminate a pregnancy — is toxic to a vast majority of Americans. Coaston Vance saying that Republicans needed to “earn” back the trust of the American people on abortion. I wonder why. Once again, Dobbs remains the single greatest “dog that caught the car” moment in political history. Collins When Walz pointed out that, despite his claims to the contrary, Trump did lose the election in 2020 and Vance replied, “I’m focused on the future.” Douthat On almost every policy issue that came up, Vance was armed with much more detail than Walz; on many of those policy issues, he staked out a position that could be framed as more moderate or centrist than his party’s orthodoxy. That’s a very Bill Clintonian combination, one that wins debates — and elections. Labash Interesting that Vance — normally so preoccupied with masculinity issues — wore a hot pink tie. Is he showing us his softer side? Mangu-Ward In an exchange about censorship, the candidates squabbled over what constitutes “shouting fire in a crowded theater.” That phrase turns up, like a bad penny, anytime someone is struggling to justify unconstitutional censorship. It originates in the context of Schenck v. United States, a 1919 Supreme Court case about anti-draft pamphleting, and it is one of the most misunderstood and misused phrases in legal history. McCarthy Walz often talked about farms, whereas Vance emphasized manufacturing. Walz’s agricultural focus might have helped him in Minnesota, but it’s a gamble when the industrial work force is likely to be decisive in Pennsylvania and other battleground states this year. Stack The candidates were each asked about embarrassing or dishonest statements. Walz rambled and fumbled and called himself a “knucklehead” but never explained, even when pressed by the moderator. Vance, on the other hand, simply said that he’d been wrong and wanted to be honest about having been wrong. Stockman Vance admitted several times that his party had lost trust on abortion. Wehner Vance — because he was quite good and Trump was so awful — must have had MAGA Republicans all over the country admit, if only to themselves, that Trump is not just flawed but deranged. For them, it must have been 90 minutes of enormous relief. Oh, and Vance’s excellent reviews will enrage Trump. So will the fact that Vance seemed more interested in repairing his own image than being Trump’s attack dog.
