This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up to get stories like this sent to your inbox.
The lone debate between the vice presidential nominees, set to take place on Tuesday night, promises to be a heated showdown, pitting Ohio’s junior senator with his assertive approach to conservatism against Minnesota’s governor known for his folksy demeanor. The evening is anticipated to be a high-stakes reflection of the cultural divides defining this national election, with sharp criticisms regarding “,” in boys’ bathrooms, and pet-hunting likely to be thrown around from the outset.
With early voting already underway in certain states—including Minnesota—and no further televised events scheduled before Election Day on November 5th, this undercard debate takes on an unprecedented significance. Both Vance and Walz remain relatively unknown to much of the American public; a recent Pew Research Center poll indicated that roughly a quarter of the electorate had never even heard of Trump’s and Harris’ running mates. While Vance enjoys a slightly higher recognition rate compared to Walz, he also faces a larger share of negative opinions among those familiar with him. Tuesday’s event, hosted by CBS News and expected to be simulcast by other networks, has the potential to be a game-changing moment for the vice presidential race.
Current polling suggests a relatively stable race heading into the 90-minute debate. Vice President Kamala Harris, seeking an unexpected promotion following President Joe Biden’s to his ongoing re-election campaign, appears to have the so-called Blue Wall states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Former President Donald Trump, aiming for an unprecedented return to power, seems to have established a slight advantage in Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina, while Nevada, like all seven battleground states, remains a toss-up.
This dynamic explains why both VP picks have been subjected to heightened scrutiny, a level of attention not seen since Sarah Palin’s in 2008. Vance, to the Senate in , has a relatively limited public record; few anticipate much impact from a first-term lawmaker in the minority party. Walz, a former House member who returned to his home state to run for governor, has a slightly more extensive track record, though it remains largely unknown outside the Upper Midwest.
Certainly, Vance can point to his populist stance and his for East Palestine, Ohio, following a major train derailment shortly after he arrived in Washington. His work in the tech sector has garnered praise from Silicon Valley, although the child-online-safety legislation he co-sponsored passed the Senate with him the vote.
And Walz can highlight his state’s universal free meals for students and his success in passing universal background checks for guns and enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution. However, he has yet to fully counter attacks stemming from his decision last year to sign into law a measure that requires all students from the fourth grade onwards to have access to menstrual products in school bathrooms. While the bill generated little public opposition at the time, conservatives seized upon it after Harris selected Walz, labeling the governor “Tampon Tim” and falsely that he had mandated public schools to provide menstrual products in every boys bathroom.
Given this backdrop, and in keeping with the traditional role of running mates as attack dogs, Vance and Walz have both been diligently studying the other’s record. For Vance, this has entailed dedicating significant time to mastering Walz’s voting history in the House and his tenure as Minnesota’s governor, including the that witnessed the convergence of the Covid-19 pandemic and the unrest in Minneapolis following George Floyd’s death at the hands of police. Audiences should expect Vance to accuse Walz of delaying too long in the National Guard to restore order. To aid his preparation, Vance has enlisted the help of House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, a Minnesota Republican, to play the role of Walz during debate practice sessions.
And Walz is prepared with an arsenal of Vance’s past statements, many of which predate his time in office. Some of these comments were highly critical of Trump, as TIME pointed out during an with Vance back in 2021, prompting a rare and understated mea culpa: “I’m not just a flip-flopper, I’m a flip-flop-flipper on Trump.” Vance has questioned why individuals without children should have a say in school matters, and his “childless cat ladies” remark has become a symbol of perceived disrespect towards voters who have not given birth—Harris . For his part, Walz has been practicing against Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a former Mayor of South Bend, Indiana.
Policy positions, authenticity, and even general vibes hold significance in this race. However, the primary reason why debate prep sessions have been focusing on this level of criticism is because both campaigns recognize an opportunity to paint the other side as a caricature of itself, a distorted representation of a toxic culture war that neither side can truly win. Vance will against “wokeness”; Walz found his stride while running a shadow campaign for Harris’ nomination, when he the GOP ticket as “weird.”
In a sense, Vance and Walz are on a similar mission: to make the other candidate appear unpalatable. It’s not a refined approach. It’s far from sophisticated or even remotely policy-oriented. But it’s what their strategists believe is the most effective tactic at this juncture, when voters are just beginning to pay attention to the rest of the ticket. With five weeks until Election Day, this is not a time for polite exchanges but rather for petty barbs. Voters claim to detest negativity—the ads, the rhetoric, the innuendo, and its more aggressive cousin, slander. But here’s the truth: it usually works. The culture wars ignite fear, and fear drives people to the polls. Both campaigns understand this, and voters will simply have to buckle up for this final push.
Make sense of what matters in Washington. .
