The Vice Presidential Debate: Just Another Politics Podcast

On this second edition of the "Just Another Politics Podcast Special", we join our fellow political podcasts in sitting back in our armchairs and sharing our thoughts on the Presidential debate.

The day after the Vice Presidential debate, we recorded a response to what happened and what we think its affect on the 2020 election could be.

We'll be back next episode with serious-minded research and science that looks at our political system!

The show is hosted by three professors at the Harris School of Public Policy: William Howell, Anthony Fowler and Wioletta Dziuda.

Listen on Apple Podcasts or wherever you enjoy podcasts.

Transcript 

Wioletta Dziuda:

I'm Wiola Dziuda.

Anthony Fowler:

I'm Anthony Fowler.

William Howell:

I am Will Howell. And this is Just Another Politics Podcast.

Anthony Fowler:

I am Anthony Fowler, and this is Just Another Politics Podcast where University Chicago political scientists sit around and shoot the breeze and talk about politics, just like every other political podcast does. So this is a new series that we've started. We don't want to make too much of a habit of it because we do take our research very seriously. We take Not Another Politics Podcast very seriously. But in light of the presidential campaign and the recent vice-presidential debate, Will and Wiola got together to record another Just Another Politics Podcast where they gave their fairly immediate reactions to the debate. They talked about what was discussed, what wasn't discussed, what should have been discussed. And so please have a listen and I hope you enjoy hearing their thoughts and we will promise to be back soon with Not Another Politics Podcast, where we will talk about some research and sink our teeth into some data and something kind of nerdy and academic.

William Howell:

We get to try and make some sense of what it is that happened with this vice-presidential debate. And it was different, wasn't it, from the presidential debate. We saw two people on a stage who are not barking at each other, who were sitting down, plexiglass between them, completing whole sentences. What were you struck by?

Wioletta Dziuda:

The fly on Mike Pence's hair? Like why did it stay so long?

William Howell:

That's true. It really was there for a long time,

Wioletta Dziuda:

But yes, it was a very different debate. One question that struck me though, is that the candidates really did not try to answer any of the questions that were posed. They had some agenda, they had some topics that they wanted to bring up and no matter whether they were connected to the question or not, they would just put them forward. And it seems to me that this is this new political strategy that people might think that it's working. Dodge the questions, make your talking points and hope everything will be fine. So I wonder what your thoughts on this issue are and whether you had the same feeling as I did.

William Howell:

No, I was struck by the same thing, that they used questions as kind of an opportunity to springboard or to pivot to whatever their talking points are. And they had a whole bunch of talking points that they wanted to make sure to get out. And I wonder how much of this is a function of how we consume media. A lot of the significance of these debates are the clips that are taken from them. And they're not taken with the question in mind, they're just taken with the 30 seconds or the two minutes of a candidate performing.

Wioletta Dziuda:

I was thinking today a little bit whether we actually need to hear those discussions. In an ideal world, we would have those discussions and they will be consequential. But if you think about what's happening currently in the US politics, it's actually almost impossible to do any policymaking. With the filibuster, divided government, like what was the last thing, legislation has passed that was a big legislation? I guess we have to go back to Obama era. So in a sense, talking about all these policy issues, it's interesting to me and you and people who are really engaged in particular policy areas. But at the end of the day, it's an empty talk. Even if they promise us an amazing healthcare legislation, we know that this is not going to pass. So perhaps politicians recognize this and voters recognize this. And at the end of the day, we say we should just maybe judge more the character of the person and see how he or she responds on the spot. Are they presidential? Do they do have some ability to actually to answer difficult questions very quickly? Because maybe that's what's going to be the most important in commander in chief. If you think about Trump's presidency, that actually became important because we were struck by an event that no one could have predicted during the 2015 debates.

William Howell:

It's true. I mean, we're not going to see any comprehensive legislation. But I guess I'd say that there are real policy consequences to this election, that there are things that presidents can do unilaterally. They can reestablish a set of regulations that were created unilaterally under Obama, and then lifted unilaterally under Trump. You can imagine some action on some policy domains like infrastructure, like revisiting the tax code. Not that we're going to get comprehensive legislation, but there were real policy consequences, don't you think, to the 2016 election? And that it would be good to know clearly where a Biden Harris administration will take us that's different.

Wioletta Dziuda:

True, but we got some sense of the direction that each of the administrations us. So if you ask about environment, which is to me a very important policy area, we know Biden and Harris, they are trying to stay moderate, but they they will follow science. And they actually mention all these issues that Trump administration engaged with when it comes to environment. And then Mike Pence, his answer was sort of like, well we don't really think that we should put environment ahead of economy and really don't think even that there's a relationship between our activity and environment. So we get a sense of this broad direction. The same about taxes. We know where Trump stands on taxes. And at least from the discussion, we learned that Harris and Biden, they will try to get rid of Trump's taxes. But we got some sense of where they are going.

And let's be honest, those debates are really not geared to have candidates engaged in policy discussions, because each time they had two minutes to answer the question. So how do you describe Medicaid for all? And how do you describe how you're going to protect people with preexisting conditions in two minutes? I think it's actually very hard.

William Howell:

It is very hard, but what we got was sort of charge and counter charge repeatedly, that you are going to take away insurance coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. And no, that's a lie. And that's as far as we got. Or Pence saying, "We're going to follow the science." And without any follow-up about precisely what that means, and what does exactly the science say when it comes to climate change. The conversations while they kind of gestured towards policy, they didn't deeply engage it. And I agree with you. I mean, they're under real constraints. They want to hit their talking points. But if not in a debate, then when, in the context of a presidential campaign, are we going to observe this? Most people aren't going to their websites and reading their policy memos on these sorts of issues.

One thing I was struck by, and I'm wondering if this struck you too, is Pence's critique of the Biden Harris ticket was a very traditional conservative critique. It was a critique that says you Democrats are about increasing taxes, about quashing the innovation of businesses, burying small companies in regulations and curtailing our vibrant economy. You're the party of tax and spend. And that's a line that, I mean, we've heard for decades from Republicans directed at whoever the Democratic nominees are. But I guess I'm struck by it because Trump is a different kind of candidate. It's a different kind of Republican, right? He's a populist. And he has gone against all kinds of Republican orthodoxies over the course of the last four years. And Pence is stood faithfully by him. But what he ushered forth, to the extent that he was offering a kind of thematic critique, it was not channeling Trump the populist and his anger at how failed and broken all the institutions are, and the need to roll back democracy, and to take on China and whatnot. It was a very traditional critique of the Democratic party that was being directed at Harris and Biden.

Wioletta Dziuda:

Yeah. I found it also a little bit puzzling and I guess that's sort of the division of labor that they have right now, that Trump is pretty secure in the support of his base, but he might be a little bit less secure whether he has the support of the traditional Republican Party or these traditional Republicans. So perhaps it might be very hard for Trump to appeal to these kinds of Republicans. It's just not in his personality and that's not his strong suit. So they tasked Pence with this kind of defense. But still having said that, I was surprised how he actually tried actively tried to stay away from the issues that you would associate him with. So for example, there was a question about abortion. What would happen if Roe v. Wade was struck down? And he would think he would jump on this because he is, my understanding is that in this administration, he is the guarantor of them pursuing anti-abortion policies. And he completely dodged the question. He acknowledged he's pro-life. He said, "I'm proud." But that's not what pro-life people want. They want action. And he did not promise any action. So I wonder what you make out of that.

William Howell:

It's interesting. I mean, that was one of those rare cases where they clearly stuck out different positions. And then didn't say that the other one was lying about their position. So when Harris comes out and says, "We are not against fracking." And he's like, "Are you kidding me? You are against fracking." Right? Here there was a clear distinction between them. One was recognized that she was for a woman's right to choose. And the other one said that he believed in the sanctity of life. And I think we have every reason to believe that they are where they are. But to your point, what does that translate into when it comes to either overturning Roe v. Wade, or in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade being overturned, what does that translate into the kinds of state action that each of these candidates would like to see and hear?

Kamala Harris was asked quite directly, "What would you like to see your own state of California do should Roe v. Wade be overturned?" And she didn't speak to it. Right? She didn't engage the question. And so they both were playing it safe, right? They weren't taking anything other than they wanted it to. But I guess I'm puzzled by that too, in that that makes sense to me in my mind as an explanation for Kamala Harris's performance. She and Biden, after all, are up by somewhere between six and nine points.

But if Trump and Pence are going to claw their way back into this campaign, they've got to redirect. what's being talked about. They can't just establish the fact that they've got a smooth talking vice-president who is competent on the debate stage, which was clearly demonstrated. He's very good. What they needed to do was to forcefully repudiate Biden/Harris and redirect the agenda for what's going to be talked about in the coming weeks. And it's not clear that came forward in any serious way. I mean, there were some lines that I think are going to linger. We're going to keep talking about that fly. But did you walk away saying, "Oh, things are different now by virtue of that debate?"

Wioletta Dziuda:

So the sense in which I think things are different in my mind is, if you think about how we came to this debate, I think there's a stark difference between what was the goal for Mike Pence and what was the goal for Kamala Harris? I think we all, of course we all know who Mike Pence is. And I think also we care less who Mike Pence is, in a sense, because we know that he's the second behind Trump. And Trump is probably leading by himself. He's not really relying on Mike Pence too much, or his opinion or his strong opposition. But I think when it comes to Kamala Harris, we, and I don't know, but I feel like Trump has managed to convey to people that, or to convince people that Biden is an elderly gentleman, that Kamala Harris will be the person who is actually going to lead the country, either explicitly or implicitly.

And I think a lot of voters actually don't know much about her. So she really had to sort of build an image of who she is, how she behaves, what's her thinking. And for me, in this respect, this debate clarified a lot. And we have, as people who followed politics during the primaries, we have memories of her performance during the primaries. But it was very uneven. And I actually didn't know what's the real Kamala Harris who is, how is she going to perform the pressure? And once she has to actually reconcile all these different positions that she and Biden took during the primaries. And here, I think I got a pretty clear image of who she is and how she thinks and at least how she's going to project herself moving forward within this administration. So I know we would all love to talk about policies, but at the end of the day, I think that was an important unknown to a lot of voters and the debate clarified it.

William Howell:

Yeah, that sounds right to me. I mean, I'll say in the context of a campaign that has been as volatile as this one and in the aftermath of just the utterly chaotic and frankly embarrassing presidential campaign, there was something to be said for having somebody in the Trump camp come forward who comports himself well, can speak in whole sentences, maybe even in whole paragraphs, who's a smooth talker, to reassure some members of Trump's base that it's not all chaos. There are some folks in the campaign, I mean, in the administration, who are kind of level-headed. No? This is just by way of being reminded. Because so much, it's all about Trump all the time, when we look at this administration. And here's smooth talking Mike Pence.

Wioletta Dziuda:

So that's definitely true. I just wondered to what extent people forgot who Mike Pence was, and to what extent they forgot that he was the smooth talker and calm. And so definitely if he came shouting and interrupting Senator Harris all the time, and if he came Trump-like, that would be shocking and that would definitely, I think, rattle people. But I think this was outside of the ramp of possibilities. And also to be honest, if that was his goal, if he really wanted to reassure us, I'm not sure he really did such a good job. He was calm and we know that's his personality. But if you listen to his answers, especially to his answers about democracy, which I'm guessing we're going to go back to later today, they're not extremely reassuring. He attacked the media at some point completely unprovoked. So in this sense, I feel like, I don't think he really needed to reassure people too much, but even if that was his goal, I don't feel like he really excelled at it beyond just his personality.

William Howell:

I agree. I mean, I would say that on a number of issues, the democracy issue, which we should turn to ,and also on COVID, he doesn't have a lot of good material to work with. I mean, he is in fact tied to a president who is working overtime to attack our free and fair elections and to roll back the franchise and to delegitimize the upcoming election, and has signaled quite clearly that he would like to see the Supreme Court settle this matter.

And he is in fact at the very center of the administration's response, a failed response to this pandemic. And so when he was ask directly, "We, on a per capita basis have more dead as a result of this pandemic than any other country in the world. How can that possibly be?" He never grappled with that in a serious way. He had talking points about all the things that we had done, but he didn't offer an explanation for why all the things that we have done failed when, relative to the performance of all these other countries that have been affected as well. And so what does he have to work with here? Not a lot. we do actually have a question though, from our audience, which let me put to you if I could. It's about this democracy. They said, they talked about election rigging and mail-in voting. What does this mean about our institutions and what are reform recommendations that might help create free and fair elections? What do free and fair elections even look like? How are we to think about these attacks that are being leveled against our democracy?

Wioletta Dziuda:

How are we even supposed to think about what's happening right now? I'm completely puzzled all the time. Frankly, I'm terrified by the fact that, not only that Trump is attacking the integrity of elections, because we've gotten used to strange and very surprising attacks from this administration, but I'm extremely surprised that actually not many people on the right side of the political spectrum come out very strongly against it, and speaking against it. And going back to what you just said a second ago, Mike Pence was asked about this. And I thought it was really costless for him to say, "Of course, we are going to hand over power." Because the base would know this is just a wink-wink. Trump is going to hold onto power. We are going to dispute this election. But you just have to say it to calm people down. And he did not say that. And for me, the second most shocking, I think, takeaway from this entire debate, that even at this low stake moment where I don't see the drawback of saying that, Mike Pence was unable to reassure us that we can believe in this election. So I don't know how you took this. Were you reassured by what he said?

William Howell:

No I'm not. I mean, I, like you, am deeply disturbed. And I guess I'll say two things. I think that there is, how do you administer a free and fair election and how do you administer a free and fair election in the context of a pandemic? And so this is why all the talk about mail-in voting is so important. It's so vital that we figure out a way to bring in as many people as we possibly can within the franchise to actually be able to cast their votes and to ensure them that they will actually be counted. So there's the administration part. And we ought to worry about Trump and Pence's efforts to kind of roll back those efforts.

Moreover, though, there are the public perceptions of the legitimacy of the elections. It's what they take away from them. It's not just, can we actually transfer power? It's what do the tens of millions of people who are on the losing side think about the efficacy of the election? And if they're told again and again that they were cheated, that they were robbed, and that there is an illegitimate president who's occupying the White House and exercising all these powers in order to denigrate them and their true wishes, we're just in for a world of trouble in the years ahead. We're just trying to govern that kind of country. So it's not just that we have an incumbent administration that's working against the administration of a free and fair election. It's that they're undermining the public sense of that election's legitimacy, the efficacy of that election. And that is profoundly troubling when we think about the health of the democracy.

Wioletta Dziuda:

Yeah. I think I have to agree with you. And I think this is important to convey to our viewers and listeners, that the elections are most likely going to be fair. We have this episode that you mentioned on mail-in voting. And there are a lot of States that have universal mail-in voting and there's no evidence in fraud. Everything seems to be working smoothly. And all evidence also seems to suggest that mail-in voting doesn't benefit one party over another. It's really neutral when it comes to the outcome of the election. What's happening right now, and I think this is what Trump cares about more than the first part, is exactly this undermining of people's belief in democracy, and people's belief in the final outcome. And I can envision a situation which Biden wins on the election night, even, in which we don't even have to count the mail-in votes. But nevertheless, Trump is going to announce this election rigged. And I have no idea what happens then.

And going back to the question from the audience, what do we do about this? I don't know. Will, you might have some thoughts on that. So give us some hope.

William Howell:

It's really good. I mean, I think a lot of both parties, particularly the Democratic Party is preparing to address this challenge. It's a challenge that's going to play out in the courts, but more broadly, that's going to play out with the larger public .and we're going to have to get our messaging right. And this will be yet another moment where, to your question, what will people on the do? Will Mitch McConnell come forward and just say, "Look, I don't like the outcome of this election, but the votes have been cast and it's been certified and we now need to move forward." Will there be that moment? I don't think we should expect it to come from Trump. And he won't go quietly into this night. And given that he will not go quietly into this night, I think that it's going to be an ongoing challenge.

Because it isn't just about what happens between election day and inauguration. It's also about how is he going to behave in the aftermath of the election? And in turn, are there going to be investigations and prosecutions of him, of members, of his family, of members of his administration? There's all kinds of concerns about scandals and conflicts of interests. But this sort of churn, this effort by Trump to sow disaffection and anger is going to persist. And it's going to be a real challenge for a Biden/Harris administration, even if they're able to secure power, to find a way to productively move forward to actually govern in this incredibly divided country of ours.

Wioletta Dziuda:

And yes, we all hope that Mitch McConnell is going to come forward and say, "The election was fair and square and Biden won." But I'm actually a little bit skeptical about this, because why wouldn't they come forward right now? And right now, media has had to chase them to even be able to ask this question. And if they manage to ask this question, they get like one sentence answer. I would just really, if you asked me this question few years ago, or even two years ago, and said that the election, this is what's going to happen, and this is going to be what Trump is talking about. And if you asked me, What do you think the reaction will be of the Republican party?" I would say, "They're going to come forward. And they're going to say very strongly, 'That's not what we stand for.' And they're going to hammer it down on Fox News and CNN." And they are not doing that. So sorry, our viewers, but we are not going to reassure you too much, I think, on this one.

William Howell:

So we've been focused on Trump and Pence, but look, in the context of the debate, Kamala Harris was asked directly whether or not she would commit to not pack the court. This was a direct question that was also asked of Biden. He dodged the question, wherein packing the court, meaning changing the number of justices that serve on the Supreme Court in order, presumably to increase the number of people on the left of the political spectrum and thereby as sort of the counter punch to the efforts of the Republican party right now to rush through a replacement to Ruth Bader Ginsburg with somebody who is decidedly on the right. She wouldn't answer the question. What do you make of that?

Wioletta Dziuda:

I don't know. I actually don't know. So I think it's pretty obvious that answering the question affirmatively would be a wrong answer. I think that would just, I'm guessing this is what was going on in their head, that that would just mobilized other sites to actually go and to vote for Republican senators, to make sure that this court packing is not going to happen. On the other hand, I'm surprised that they didn't say, "No, this is not something that we are talking about on this moment." They don't have to commit that we will never do that, but we have first order questions right now. We have first order problems. We have to talk about healthcare for all and fighting COVID and reestablishing our relationship with foreign countries. Why wouldn't they just say this? That's a little bit puzzling to me.

William Howell:

I think that was the move that Kamala Harris tried to make. I mean, not with regard to the significance of health policy or relationships with other countries. But rather, her argument was, that look what's before us now is whether or not, just weeks before an election, amidst an election no less, we have one party rapidly, sort of frantically, trying to push through a candidate that will dramatically alter the composition of the court. That that's what we ought to be talking about right now. And then Pence comes back and says, "Yes, the President has the Constitutional power and responsibility to put forward a candidate when there is a vacancy. And the Senate, they're doing their duty by considering the candidate that's being put forward. So what we're hearing from the left, is moves to undermine the institutional legitimacy of the third branch of government by packing it, as was done, or as was threatened to do, under FDR some 85 years ago. And she continued to dodge.

I mean, my read on this is that this is an effort on their part, Harris and Biden, to keep the left together. It's a hard one, because significant portions of the left, of Democrats, are furious over what's happening with this domination. And they recognize there's not much they can do about it. And what they want is to keep the attention on the lack of fair play and the efforts by the right to again, just stuff the judiciary with radical conservatives. They want that to be the plot line. They want that to be what's talked about. And the idea that in the, before we even reckoned with their misbehavior, we on the left are going to disarm and say, we aren't going to respond by something that's available to us, is simply more than some folks on the left can take.

Wioletta Dziuda:

But there's a different explanation for why they were unwilling to engage with this question, which is perhaps what would be beneficial for them right now electorally would be to say, "No, we are not thinking about this. This is undermining the institutions." As you said, because that put them in very, very stark contrast to Trump and Pence. But on the other hand, they might look forward and they might say, "We want to discipline the court. We want the court to know that if they actually, if we happen to get the presidency, and if we happen to get the Senate, if they actually move forward with very extremely radical conservative rulings, we are going to do something about it." So perhaps they are trying to sort of kill two birds at the same time. And the best strategy is to pivot, to sort of accuse Trump of packing the court in some other way, by nominating so many judges, accusing him of not caring about diversity within the court and so on. But maybe they have those two conflicting objectives, and it's really hard to figure out which way to go.

William Howell:

That's for sure. I think that that's right. And I'll say, look, these issues about how independent the Court should be, and the efforts by Congress and the President in turn to curb their influence in different policy domains, has a long history. I mean, these have been played out for a very long time. And at different moments in that history, each party has borrowed the arguments of the other, depending upon who's in charge, whose ox is being gored. A lot of it just gets down to ideological disagreement, that these larger arguments about what is just and true when we think about institutional form, in fact mask what are, at base, partisan considerations, ideological considerations. If they were rushing through somebody on the political left, the Democrats would be happy to sign off, right?

This is not a story about the impropriety of a last ditch effort to appoint somebody to the courts. I mean, there is the impropriety when, and this was I think what drives a lot of people in the left mad, frankly, people of principle too, is that McConnell's action in 2016, his refusal to consider somebody because he held up the sanctity of election years as being a period when we would forego consideration of nominees to the Supreme Court. And then to see him, this go round, at the very next election, just weeks before, being perfectly willing to go full steam ahead is more than many can take. Count me in that camp. That said, I also recognize that the politics of this are ones where it's really about, I think at heart, partisan and ideological disagreements.

Wioletta Dziuda:

So if you could speculate a little bit, what would you say would happen if Biden wins? Do you think they are going to pack the Court? Supposedly, we have the nomination go through as planned before the new election is approved. And what's going to happen?

William Howell:

I think it's a live possibility. I mean, it's a long shot. It would be a very dramatic thing for them to do, but I think it's a live possibility. There are other things that they can do though, which could also come into play. I mean, they can take active steps in their public rhetoric to criticize the Court and to make life difficult for the Judiciary. And that's a fight, that public fight, that public political fight, is one that the courts are ill-equipped to engage in and they have institutional reasons to try to scale back their intrusions into policy domains for fear of being called out as being unrepresentative, unelected would-be legislators who are violating the will of the people .that's bad for them. They also can do things through Court curbing activity, right? They can actually formally proscribe judicial actions into certain policy domains. And there's a long history of that kind of activity. That could be picked up as well.

Wioletta Dziuda:

So we have another question, which I think is on a lot of people's minds. What about the gender issues? So let me read you the question. Do you think Pence's dismissal of disrespect for the rules and both women, Susan the moderator and Kamala, will sway the white suburban women away from Trump?

William Howell:

I think it's going to matter for some, I actually do. And I think that Kamala was aware of this. She was prepared, right? She showed up and she said, "No, I'm talking right now. I'm talking right now". And she called him out repeatedly on this with an eye towards underscoring this offense, and underscoring the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. And the Republican party is predominantly, is overwhelmingly, the party of White people, that people of color overwhelmingly find themselves in the Democratic party. It's just a much more diverse party when it comes to race and ethnicity. And so this, yes, will it be the thing that tips it? No. Will it matter for some? I think so.

And we've seen in the aftermath of Trump's performance, red in the face, interrupting at every turn, kind of barking incessantly. I think that turned off a number of voters. He's slipped in the polls. And I think not just because people thought that he took the wrong positions. It's that they were offended by his behavior. Some were. But I've got no data to support this. That's just my reading. I think there is something in play here. And I think Kamala preparing for that is a sign that the Democratic party recognizes something being at stake here.

Wioletta Dziuda:

Do I count as a suburban woman? Because then we can have one data point.

William Howell:

There we go, give it to us.

Wioletta Dziuda:

So I think I would disagree a little bit. I think I agree with the second part that you said, that Trump's behavior towards Biden is the behavior that probably, maybe there's no one to be swayed anymore, but probably discouraged a lot of women who were hoping to vote for Trump, and maybe encouraged a lot of women who want to vote for Biden to go and vote.

But I think actually in this debate, this Vice Presidential debate, I didn't see gender come across too much. And Pence was relatively respectful. You can't compare him, like I think if you watch a lot of debates, you see candidates talking over each other and talking over the moderators, and this is irrespective of the gender of the moderator or the other candidate. And I think here, I did not get a sense that Pence was treating Kamala differently because she was a woman or because she was a woman of color. So here, I feel like we are alert to gender issues and we have those things in mind. But I think there was nothing unusual in this debate that would allow us to really say, Oh my God, look at this. He's mistreating women. He's treating women differently than he would have treated Pete Buttigieg or some other candidate.

William Howell:

That could well be. I mean, it would be interesting if we swapped out Chris Wallace, right, last night. And would he continue to talk over him? The answer might well be yes. But there was a noticeable difference. I mean, I was struck by the difference between the two candidates vis-a-vis the moderator. That Kamala, relative to Mike, was much more respectful, would stop, in the main, not always, but more often when told to stop and he—

Wioletta Dziuda:

Because she's the woman.

William Howell:

And this is the baseline from which we've been operating for a long time in these debates. I don't think he was especially different from past presidential candidates. That's true. But in the last four years, much more attention has been paid to these issues. They've been surfaced in a way that they haven't been in our national politics, with the whole MeToo movement. And that maybe that his failure to adapt is going to stick in the craw of some folk who say, "I've just, I've had enough of it. I'm done with the mansplaining and the over-talking."

Wioletta Dziuda:

So I think she did a great job. In light of that, I'm a little bit reluctant to talk about this gender issues, because I feel like the more we talk about them, the more salient they become. And I think we should acknowledge, finally we are at the point at which women have entered politics in larger numbers and they are at the top of the ticket right now, or on the ticket, and let's move on. Let's just treat it as a normal event. And hopefully this will become normalized.

William Howell:

Yeah. And I think one of the reasons why last night was significant, and people recognize this, it isn't just that these two are younger than these two very old men at the top of the ticket. But that certainly, I think with regard to Kamala Harris, that she is seen, as the kind of standard bearer of the party, should Biden win. That not only will she replace him, but that she's going to be the face of the party moving forward. I think it's less clear with Pence, mostly because I think these divisions between populist and traditional conservatives are going to persist in the Republican Party and he isn't going to resolve them. But I can see the Democratic Party kind of following her lead. And in that sense, the critique of the Republican Party of Biden, which is that you are a Trojan horse for, Kamala Harris is going to be running the show. I mean, it's overstated. And it's said in overly conspiratorial terms. And it said in ways that meant it's meant to denigrate the Democratic Party. But I think there's also an element of truth in that, look, she's got a much longer road ahead and she looks like the Democratic Party in a way that an old white man does not. She's going to be at the center of things moving forward.

Wioletta Dziuda:

Yeah. And that's why I think this debate was so important for her. And my perspective might be biased, but I think she did well. She was presidential. And I think she reassured some people that if something happens, she's going to be ready on day one.

William Howell:

No, I agree. Are there going to be any more Presidential debates? Are we done? What's your guess?

Wioletta Dziuda:

No, we are not done. We are not done.

William Howell:

I think Trump said no. He said he's not going to do this.

Wioletta Dziuda:

He needs those debates.

William Howell:

He needs those debates. Being right in front of the camera.

Wioletta Dziuda:

Yes. I completely see how he's going to refuse debating on Zoom, but there will be a debate.

William Howell:

Yeah. Okay. You've heard it here first.

Wioletta Dziuda:

And it's going to be excellent.

William Howell:

Wioletta, it was great talking to you.

Wioletta Dziuda:

It was great talking to you too.

Anthony Fowler:

And thanks for listening to Not Another Politics Podcast.

Wioletta Dziuda:

Our show is a podcast from the Harris School of Public Policy. And it's produced by Matt Hodapp. Thanks for listening.