🔮Walz Saved by the Mods?

Did CBS fact checking at the VP debate hurt JD Vance?

During Tuesday’s VP debate, conservative social media lit up with criticism of CBS moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan for their fact-checking of JD Vance, which violated a policy announced before the debate that they would leave the gotchas to the candidates. 

On Polymarket, the market on who would win a post-debate poll provides a real-time gauge for the candidates’ debate performance. Going in, Walz was at over 60% to win. Minutes after the debate ended, his odds to win the poll sank to the low 30s, in-line with pundit consensus that Vance won.

But the debate was not a straight line up for Vance. His odds in this market swung heavily as Vance mixed it up with Walz and the mods.

The moments where Walz’ odds rose the most coincided with these moderator interventions. And after Vance called them out for violating their policy, the fact checking stopped and Vance’s numbers rallied again. As of publication, the result of the Ipsos poll is still pending, but a look at how the odds moved during the debate supports the view that moderator intervention helped Walz.

This article uses emojis to mark the direction of odds at key moments in the debate: 

📈: Walz odds climbing 

📉: Walz odds falling

Debate Recap  

📉Shaky Start. Walz appeared nervous throughout, particularly in the first few moments. As Vance spoke, Walz alternated between intense note scribbling, a worried brow-furrow, and staring daggers at his opponent. 

📉Vance Introduces Himself. At his first chance to speak, Vance inserted a crisp summary of his Hillbilly Elegy backstory before pivoting to Middle East policy. During this first round of questions, Walz’ odds fell from the 60% range where they started the debate to the mid 30s.

📈Fact Check 1: Climate. The first fact check took place in an exchange on climate change, which coincided with a rebound in Walz’ odds:

📈Fact Check 2: Springfield. Walz continued to rise after a second fact check of Vance’s comments on the Haitian immigrant community in Springfield, OH. Vance:

Look, in Springfield, Ohio and in communities all across this country, you've got schools that are overwhelmed, you've got hospitals that are overwhelmed, you have got housing that is totally unaffordable because we brought in millions of illegal immigrants to compete with Americans for scarce homes.

Minutes later, Margaret Brennan circled back to retroactively fact check Vance after Walz had had an opportunity to do so in his answer: 

📈Cut His Mic. At this point, Vance calls out the moderators for breaking their own rules, and tries to pivot to another point on immigration. After some back-and-forth, the moderators cut Vance’s audio, but his protests can still be heard faintly from other mics on the set.

This moment drew polarized reactions. Edith Olmsted of TNR writes that a “blubbering” Vance “lashed out” at the moderators. While conservatives saw it as standing up to media unfairness. 

On Polymarket, this moment - less about Walz’ debating prowess than the help of the refs - was near the high water mark for Walz. After this exchange, the moderators would not fact check Vance again, and his odds would continue to climb through the rest of the debate.

📉Inflation. Surveys show that economic issues are the most salient for voters in the election, and Vance’s numbers improved as he hit Walz on the rising cost of food, housing, and medicine. 

📉 Tiananmen Square. Moderators pressed Walz over his inaccurate statements that he was in China during this historic moment. He admitted to being “a knucklehead at times,” and the debate moved on without any serious damage. Not a win for Walz, but could have been a much bigger loss.

📉 Abortion. Walz dramatized his answers with stories of women’s lives impacted by abortion bans. But this was not enough to reverse the overall downtrend.   

📉 Harris “not a newcomer.” Vance scored another hit with this attack on the Biden-Harris administration for not doing more to advance their agenda while in power.  

📉The January 6 “Damning non-answer.” The Harris campaign cut a rapid-reaction TV ad from an exchange where Walz questioned Vance on January 6 and Trump’s election denial. If the ad, which some conservatives have called “powerful,” is a hit this could be an important moment in retrospect. But in real-time it only helped Walz slightly. 

Does This Matter At All?

• Ammo for the Media Wars. Republicans have long argued that the mainstream media is unfair, and this episode hands them another talking point in this regard.

• Odds of Another Debate Falling. Conservatives were already fuming at ABC for fact checking of Trump in the debate with Harris. And this episode further hurt odds for a second debate (🔮18%) between the top-of-ticket candidates. 

• Trump Pulls Ahead. VP debates are not known to be game-changers in the general election, but it’s worth noting that Trump has retaken a slim lead in Polymarket’s general election odds (🔮Trump 50% Harris 49%). 

• Vance’s Stock Rising. After the debate, Republican congressman Mike Collins shared a picture of Vance sporting a digitally-chadded jawline, reflecting a general feeling on the right that he came out on top. Even if Walz is judged the winner in the Ipsos poll, Vance’s debate performance has solidified his image in the GOP as someone who fought back against media bias and won.

---

Disclaimer

Nothing in The Oracle is financial, investment, legal or any other type of professional advice. Anything provided in any newsletter is for informational purposes only and is not meant to be an endorsement of any type of activity or any particular market or product. Terms of Service on polymarket.com prohibit US persons and persons from certain other jurisdictions from using Polymarket to trade, although data and information is viewable globally.