Walz and Vance See Favorability Boost After Debate

Following the only scheduled vice-presidential debate between Ohio Senator JD Vance and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, polling indicates that both candidates saw a rise in favorability. Despite no clear winner emerging from the debate, it appears both Vance and Walz were able to leave a positive impression on viewers, although Walz continues to maintain a higher overall favorability rating.

The post-debate poll, conducted by CBS News and YouGov, surveyed 1,630 likely voters who watched the debate. The results showed Walz’s favorability rating increased from 52% to 60%, while Vance’s rose from 40% to 49%. These gains reflect a notable impact from the debate, with viewers responding positively to both candidates. In addition to their favorability ratings climbing, their unfavorable ratings also saw a drop. Walz’s unfavorability decreased from 41% to 35%, and Vance’s dropped from 54% to 47%. The margin of error for the poll was ±2.7 points.

A key takeaway from the poll is that viewers, by and large, had a positive view of the debate. An overwhelming 88% of respondents felt that the debate was a constructive and valuable exchange. This level of positive feedback reflects that many voters saw both Walz and Vance as prepared and reasonable, with fewer people viewing either as extreme or unfit for the office.

Prior to the debate, polling data already suggested that Walz was viewed more favorably than Vance by Midwestern voters. A New York Times/Siena College poll, released just before the debate on September 28, showed that Walz had a 44% favorability rating compared to 42% for Vance. This poll, conducted among voters in key states such as Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, also showed that Walz had a smaller unfavorable rating than Vance, with 41% of voters viewing him unfavorably compared to 48% for Vance. Notably, in this pre-debate poll, respondents were more likely to describe Walz as “honest” and “trustworthy” than Vance. The Times poll, conducted from September 21 to 26, had a margin of error of ±2.5 points.

Another poll released by the Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research further demonstrated the favorability gap between Walz and Vance. This poll, conducted from September 12 to 16, surveyed 1,771 registered voters and had a margin of error of ±3.4 points. The results indicated that more voters had an unfavorable opinion of Vance (57%) compared to Walz (32%). Additionally, Walz was shown to have more bipartisan appeal, with 11% of Republicans holding a favorable opinion of him, while only 4% of Democrats viewed Vance favorably. This could suggest that Walz’s ability to attract some support across party lines might be a factor in his more favorable overall standing.

A striking detail from the CBS post-debate poll is the near-even split in who viewers thought won the debate. Forty-two percent of viewers believed Vance performed better, while 41% gave the edge to Walz. Seventeen percent of those polled felt the debate ended in a tie. This nearly even distribution highlights how competitive the debate was, with both candidates being able to present their platforms and arguments effectively.

One surprising fact revealed in the polling data was Walz’s unique position as the only candidate on either the Democratic or Republican ticket who had more supporters than detractors among likely voters in the crucial swing states of Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. This finding from the New York Times/Siena College poll underscores Walz’s favorable standing in key battleground states. Although vice-presidential candidates historically have limited influence over the outcome of elections, this level of support for Walz could be significant in the broader electoral context.

In the run-up to the debate, both candidates were relatively unknown to a large portion of the electorate. According to a September poll conducted by the Associated Press, 25% of registered voters said they did not know enough about Walz, and 21% said the same about Vance. This debate was therefore a crucial opportunity for both candidates to introduce themselves to the public and make their case for why they should be considered for the vice-presidential role.

Political analysts often debate how much sway vice-presidential candidates actually have on election outcomes. However, in what is expected to be a highly contested November election, even small boosts from the vice-presidential nominees could prove to be decisive. The latest polling averages from FiveThirtyEight indicate that Kamala Harris has narrowed Donald Trump’s lead over President Joe Biden, and with her now slightly ahead in key polls, it suggests that vice-presidential picks may be playing a more influential role than in past election cycles.

Both Vance and Walz have been positioned by their respective campaigns as candidates who can appeal to voters in crucial Midwestern swing states. Vance’s alignment with former President Trump and his appeal to the MAGA base contrasts with Walz’s more progressive stances, which have drawn the support of Democratic voters pushing for change on issues such as healthcare and education. Political experts have noted that vice-presidential picks not only reflect the broader platforms of their respective presidential candidates but also provide voters with insight into the decision-making processes of those running for the highest office.

Though Minnesota and Ohio are not expected to be key swing states in the upcoming election, running mates can have a notable impact in their home states. In this case, both Vance and Walz bring unique strengths to their campaigns, and their improved favorability ratings following the debate suggest that they have both made strides in winning over voters.

As the election season progresses, it remains to be seen whether the debate performance of either candidate will have a lasting impact on the outcome of the race, but the post-debate polling numbers indicate that both Vance and Walz were able to use the platform to increase their appeal with voters across the political spectrum.