The Vice-Presidential Debate saw a stark contrast in style, with Tim Walz, the Democratic candidate, offering a more policy-heavy performance, while J.D. Vance, the Republican candidate, radiated a Reaganesque charm and smoothness.

Walz, the incumbent governor of Minnesota, was clearly prepared with detailed policy proposals, highlighting his stance on issues like healthcare, climate change, and the economy. His focus on data and concrete plans, while admirable, lacked the emotional resonance and charismatic delivery often seen in successful political arguments. His responses, though informative, felt somewhat mechanical, losing some of their impact due to a somewhat monotone delivery.

Vance, on the other hand, played the role of the charismatic outsider. He presented a simplified narrative, relying on powerful anecdotes and appeals to shared values. His Reaganesque smoothness and folksy charm connected with the audience on a personal level, making his arguments feel genuine and relatable. While his policy positions were less specific than Walz’s, his communication style created an impression of authenticity and trustworthiness.

The debate demonstrated the power of different styles of communication. Walz’s policy-driven approach might resonate with voters who prioritize detailed information and concrete plans. However, Vance’s magnetic personality and simplification of complex issues could appeal to a broader audience who prioritize relatability and emotional connection. Ultimately, the success of each candidate will depend on how their communication style translates to the voters.