S.E. Cupp: The futility of the Walz/Vance nice guy debate

The reviews are in, and America overwhelmingly approves.

Voters and viewers had very positive things to say about the vice presidential debate in New York City on Tuesday night.

What was expected to be a contentious sparring match between former President Donald Trump’s running mate Ohio Sen. JD Vance and Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz turned into something of a love fest between the two men.

Vance’s usual pugilism took the night off, and Walz the “joyful warrior” forgot to bring the warrior to the debate.

Instead it was a night of substance, policy and even compliments between the two contenders. Weird, right?

A majority of voters said both Walz and Vance sounded “reasonable.”

Both men improved their favorability after the debate.

The Midwestern nice was on full display, with both candidates giving each other the benefit of the doubt on a number of issues.

On immigration, Walz said, “I believe Sen. Vance wants to solve this,” despite Trump and Republicans refusing to pass a border bill in order to run on the issue.

And several times, Vance said he appreciated something Walz had just said, on guns and Israel.

No one landed any heavy punches. Walz didn’t dunk on Vance’s bizarre comments about childless cat ladies or pet-eating migrants. And Vance didn’t attack Walz on his military record or his biographical inconsistencies. No one called anyone “mentally disabled.” No one called anyone “weird.”

Perhaps because the two were on such good behavior, it’s unsurprising that the unanimous consensus is that the debate ended in a tie.

A CNN instant poll of debate watchers conducted by SSRS found 51% said Vance won, while 49% chose Walz.

A CBS snap poll had Vance at 42% and Walz at 41%.

But despite all the niceties and substantive debate — which is worth praising — this isn’t actually good news. For either campaign.

After all, this is a contest, and the point is to win.

With margins as tight as they are in the seven swing states that will decide this election, this debate was meant to be an inflection point during which both campaigns tried to move the needle.

Trump and Harris, who are statistically tied in national polls, needed their seconds-in-command to do something of note Tuesday night … or at least they needed their opponents to have a bad night.

Neither happened. Which begs the question, what was the point?

If you’re not there to draw significant contrasts between your visions, or highlight the extremism or incompetence of your opponent, or remind viewers and voters of your opponent’s weaknesses, what are you there for, exactly?

A tie helps no one. And while we may say we enjoyed the pleasant exchanges, we really were hoping for someone to emerge the victor.

See, in America, we really like picking winners and losers. Ever since the Battle of Yorktown, which decided the American Revolution and earned us our independence, we’ve been a nation obsessed with winning, and rightfully so. This likely explains why we don’t like soccer as much as the rest of the world — games that end in a tie make no sense to us.

Ties are deeply unsatisfying.

As Navy football coach Eddie Erdelatz said after a tie against Duke in 1953, “A tie is like kissing your sister.” When a 1968 Yale vs. Harvard football game ended in a tie, the Harvard Crimson printed a headline, “Harvard beats Yale 29-29.” We insist on winners and losers, even if we have to invent them.

So the veep debate, while refreshing, informative and nice, was a somewhat vexing exercise in futility.