This week on “Simplifying the State,” we’re cutting through the noise to bring you the biggest stories in politics. First, we break down the VP debate—who landed their points, what was at stake and whether it might sway any voters.
Next, we head to Nebraska, where a surprising Senate race is shaking up a Republican stronghold. Plus, a court just unsealed documents from January 6 that reveal new details about what went down before the Capitol attack.
And we’ll wrap up with a look at the growing crisis in the Middle East and why it’s becoming a global concern. Join us for a fast, focused and non-partisan look at what’s really going on!
Adam (00:00.51):
Welcome back to Simplifying the State. I’m Adam Watson.
Nicholas (00:03.362):
I’m Nicholas Perrin.
Adam (00:30.178):
Today we’ve got several topics to dive into. We’ll start with the VP debate between J.D. Vance and Tim Walz, which took place Tuesday night. Next, we’ll cover the highly contested Nebraska Senate race. Then, we’ll touch on the U.S. court’s unsealing of January 6th documents, and finally, we’ll discuss the current situation in the Middle East.
So, overall, I found the VP debate to be the less interesting of the two debates. There were fewer noteworthy moments, but a couple of clips stood out to me. We’re going to play one of them now.
J.D. Vance was asked about January 6th, and Tim Walz directly questioned whether Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. Here’s how Vance responded.
Adam (01:27.51):
As you heard, he dodged the question about whether Trump lost the election, likely due to Trump’s ongoing claim that he won. Nicholas, do you think this response will have any impact, or will it just get lost in the noise?
Nicholas (01:50.168):
I think Vance handled it well. He dodged the tougher questions without too much damage. I don’t think this debate will significantly affect the election outcome, but it could lean a bit more in the Republicans’ favor, especially since Vance managed to soften some of the more hardline MAGA views.
Adam (02:29.506):
Right, he definitely made some extreme MAGA ideas more palatable to centrist Republicans. The second clip that stood out was from Tim Walz. He was asked about a claim he made that he was in China during the Tiananmen Square protests. Some newspapers in Nebraska pointed out that he was actually in Nebraska at that time. Here’s his response.
Adam (03:21.422):
That could be an issue for Walz, though I think it’s just a case of him misspeaking. What do you think, Nicholas?
Nicholas (03:48.794):
Yeah, it seems like an honest mistake. He even called himself a “knucklehead” for getting the story wrong. It’s probably not something that will hurt him much.
Adam (04:05.038):
Right. When it comes to debating skills, I think J.D. Vance came out on top simply because he’s more experienced. But in terms of likability, I’d say Tim Walz had the edge, given the favorability ratings post-debate. But overall, there’s no clear winner; most polls show it was a tie. What’s your take, Nicholas?
Nicholas (05:14.434):
Most people do think it was a tie, which means it likely won’t change the election dynamics much. Vance managed to dodge tough questions, and Walz came off likable, so both had their strengths.
Adam (05:48.622):
It felt like Vance was positioning himself for a future presidential run, possibly in 2028. He’s made MAGA ideology more palatable to centrist voters, and before embracing Trumpism, he was seen as a centrist himself. He’s experienced in appealing to a wide range of voters. Now, let’s look at their favorability ratings before and after the debate.
Before the debate, Vance had a -22% approval rating, and afterward, it improved to -3%. Walz went from +14% to +37%. While Vance gained ground, Walz clearly had the better night in terms of approval ratings. A group of undecided voters was polled after the debate, and only one said they would vote for Vance, so this debate probably won’t change much.
Now, onto the Nebraska Senate race.
Adam (08:06.19):
Nebraska is typically a red state, but some new polling shows the race is much closer than expected. The Republican incumbent, Deb Fischer, is up against Dan Osborne, an independent candidate. Osborne is polling at 39.9%, while Fischer is at 42.6%. If Osborne wins, he’s likely to caucus with the Democrats, which could shift control of the Senate. What are your thoughts, Nicholas?
Nicholas (10:52.346):
The polling in Nebraska is surprising. An independent candidate in a red state could appeal to swing voters, especially those who don’t want to vote for a Democrat but might consider an alternative to a Republican.
Adam (11:29.228):
Right, being an independent makes it easier for Republicans in Nebraska to vote against their own party without crossing the aisle to vote Democrat. Now, let’s move on to the unsealing of January 6th documents. A U.S. court unsealed new evidence about Trump’s role in the events of January 6th, and some of the quotes are pretty damning. For example, when an aide told Trump that Vice President Mike Pence was in danger, Trump allegedly responded, “So what?” When informed that his claims of election fraud wouldn’t hold up in court, Trump replied, “The details don’t matter.”
Do you think this new information will affect public opinion, Nicholas?
Nicholas (13:19.01):
Official documents like this can be damaging, but Trump and his team have been able to brush off January 6th accusations before. I wouldn’t be surprised if that happens again.
Adam (13:49.292):
Right, it’s something to watch for, especially if Trump loses the election and can’t use presidential immunity to shield himself. Now, let’s move on to the situation in the Middle East.
Since our last episode, tensions have significantly escalated. Israel assassinated the head of Hezbollah, which led to missile strikes from Iran. Israel has now launched ground raids into southern Lebanon. The U.S. strategy to avoid a wider war in the region seems to be failing. What do you think?
Nicholas (15:50.74):
It feels like we’re seeing the early stages of a broader conflict, maybe something like the Six-Day War or Yom Kippur War, with Israel fighting on multiple fronts. I wouldn’t be surprised if this leads to a full-scale war, possibly involving Iran.
Adam (16:24.366):
I’m not sure it’ll escalate into a war with Iran directly, but I do think we’ll see Iran’s proxies, like the Houthis in Yemen, ramp up their attacks. Israel is already striking back, but we don’t know how far this will go. It’s definitely a fast-moving situation that could evolve rapidly over the coming days.
That’s all for today’s episode. Thanks for tuning in to Simplifying the State. We’ll be back next week with a new episode, so tune in then.
