Ahead of the Vice Presidential Debate: What Messages are Moving the Needle?
Historically, the Vice Presidential pick does not have a sizable impact on the outcome of Presidential elections. The VP pick can influence public perception and oftentimes generate media attention, but it’s rare to see that choice translate into net votes for their running mate.
Yet, we continue to live in a constant state of “unprecedented” times. With the upcoming Vice Presidential debate, Grow Progress wanted to understand the impact – if any – of recent comments from each VP candidate on the Harris-Trump margin.
We tested three clips from a recent Walz rally in Pennsylvania and three clips from a Vance rally in North Carolina. Here’s what we found.
Walz: No Change in Vote Choice, but Boost in Favorability
For Tim Walz, messaging around key issues, such as jobs and the economy, did not significantly shift voter preference in the presidential race. However, one message stood out: his “Freedom” comments from a recent rally.
This message boosted Walz favorability by 6 percentage points. It worked especially well with voters who often fall through the cracks—those with lower political engagement and educational attainment, such as people who had skipped past elections and voters under 35 years old.
This suggests that messages which engage low-information or disengaged voters might increase favorability, but require stronger connections to broader electoral issues to translate into votes.
Another message, focused on jobs, also had positive results. It may have improved Walz’s favorability and decreased Vance’s favorability, though the evidence isn’t as strong.
Vance: Messaging that Moved the Needle
On the other hand, J.D. Vance’s campaign messaging did move the Harris-Trump margin. His message emphasizing “Immigration and Housing” had the strongest impact, with a 9 percentage point positive effect on Trump’s margin.
“Immigration and Housing,” took an approach of linking anti-immigration rhetoric to rising housing prices. By framing immigration as a pocketbook issue, Vance managed to move voters’ presidential preference, particularly among those with college educations or in wealthier households. This message leveraged economic anxiety, a time-tested strategy in political communication.
Another of his messages, “Environment and Jobs” attempted to unify people around a shared value of wanting “clean air and water” while simultaneously attacking Harris on “shipping jobs overseas” to China, the “dirtiest economy in the history of the world.”
Highlighting values like “purity” while stoking the flames of xenophobia was highly effective. Specifically, it resonated with moderates, Latino voters, college-educated individuals, and members of households earning over $100k.
Despite the impact of these messages on the presidential margin, none of the Vance clips had a measurable impact on his personal favorability. That is, while his messages might have influenced vote choice, they did not substantially alter how voters felt about him as a candidate.
Conclusion
The data paint a concerning picture. While Walz’s “Freedom” message improved his favorability, his messages failed to meaningfully impact voter preferences for Kamala Harris.
Meanwhile, Vance’s messages, especially his “Environment and Jobs” pitch, had a significant effect on the Trump-Harris margin, particularly among critical demographics like moderates and higher-income voters. This suggests that Vance’s messaging is quietly shifting the balance, even if his personal favorability remains mostly unaffected.
Ahead of the Vice Presidential debate, it’ll be important to pay attention to how both VP candidates stick to or change their messaging around these hot-button voter issues.
