Did JD Vance, with his unflappable demeanor and his ability to draw his rival in for that sucker punch, help unravel Tim Walz’s limitations on screen in the Vice Presidential debate last week? Or was Vance’s glibness more about covering for Trump and the blubber from Walz merely a case of being a rough-and-tumble guy who connects with the people but not so much while on the camera?

The jury is out on how the VP debate hosted by CBS News was civil and what the US citizens would have preferred to see in the Presidential debate. However, since wishes have never been horses, there is no chance whatsoever that the people could ever see a mellowed-down wannabe Donald Trump or a docile Kamala Harris while under constant attack by the former. The fact checks that followed found both the VP candidates to have been loose with their assertions, with Vance way ahead of Walz in the false facts department. Sure, “That is a damning non-answer”, maybe his one moment of salvation but there is no denying that Vance led him to a merry dance most of the time.

Be that as it may, shorn of all window dressing, what it boils down to is whether the American public will prefer to give weightage to the slickness and superiority of Vance’s debating skills over and above his propensity to be free with facts in his bid to protect his running mate Trump from the fall-out of his many damning statements on multiple fronts. Likewise, will the US citizens whose votes are still undecided and are likely to use the VP debate as some yardstick to make a decision either way, be willing to look beyond Walz’s peculiar facial expressions suggesting outrage and bewilderment with Vance and choose to look only at the validity of some of his arguments.

But truth be told, when have the Vice President candidates ever decided who the next President of the United States would be? Historically, never. Therefore, unless we are about to witness history being made in determining how the 47th POTUS is to be chosen, the VP debate will remain what it is. At best, it can only be an appetizer before the main course gets served. But it is quite likely that there won’t be any televised title fight, pay-per-view or free-to-air. That is, as the two challengers have decided there will be no more curtain-raisers before the title fight, on November 5.

Meanwhile, the US Presidential election has woken up to how nuanced a disaster can be, at least in the optics of it, built post-reality. The extent of damage caused by Hurricane Helene, which first struck Florida on September 26, and many in states other than those impacted initially brushed off casually, continues to reveal unforeseen dimensions. What initially started off as 16 dead is now, over 220 dead and a few hundred missing. The full extent of the economic cost caused by Helene will need more time to be assessed but it is already put at $34 billion, Sure, it is nowhere near the cost of Hurricane Katrina which was $125 billion, but it is enough to trigger the panic button being pressed about fund availability under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). And that was enough to trigger a political battle breaking out over why there was a shortage of funds available with FEMA for more such disasters.

For those not in the know, FEMA is a part of the US Department of Homeland Security, and the first responders to disaster in the US, with over 20,000 employees, was put under scrutiny by claims and counterclaims by the two sides. The trigger to the battle was a statement by Secretary of US Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas last Wednesday that FEMA did not have enough funds to weather the rest of hurricane season. His frank assessment of funds in hand did not do the Democrats any favor as Trump was quick to fire the first shot from his hip, saying, “The Harris-Biden administration says they don’t have any money…They spent it all on illegal migrants. They stole the FEMA money just like they stole it from a bank..”

Subsequent fact checks by multiple sources, since then made public, point to the misleading nature of Trump’s narrative. It is a fact that the Disaster Relief Funds managed by FEMA have not been diverted for the welfare of illegal immigrants by the Biden-Harris administration. What is also a fact is that there is a Shelter and Services Program that FEMA manages along with the US Customs and Border Protection for the welfare of undocumented immigrants, for which there is a separate source of funding. Both funds are authorized by the US Congress for two separate ends and are not to be appropriated otherwise. As on August 31, the Disaster Relief Fund only had $3.4 billion, with the total disaster relief fund allocation for the 2024 fiscal having been $36 billion. Subsequently, in late September, Congress signed a bill providing an additional $29 billion towards disaster relief under FEMA.

This was the context of the Mayorkas statement following the initial assessment of the havoc wreaked by Hurricane Helene and given the reluctance of a part of Congress to put on tap a steady flow of funds to FEMA for disaster relief. What Mayorkas said: “That doesn’t speak about the future and the fact, as I mentioned earlier, that these extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and severity, and we have to be funder for the sake of the American people. This is not a political issue.” The only problem with that statement was he got the not-a-political-issue part of it quite wrong as the Republicans decided otherwise. The fact-checkers went on to establish that such diversion funds did happen once, by the Trump administration in 2019, when it used $155 million from the disaster fund for the temporary location of asylum seekers from Mexico. Yet, there is no doubt that some fraction of the intended damage has been done to Kamala as not the entire American people are known to be avid followers of post-allegation fact-checking. The slung mud, at least some of it, would stick.

The countdown to deciding whether the 47th US President would be a woman for the first time in its eventful history or a President once removed amid much rancor and grievance, is now in its last stretch, with only 30 days to go. Kamala has nothing to lose for herself, but everything to lose for the Democrats who see in her the candidate that Hilary Clinton could not be. The Republicans however are not as united in their resolve after Trump took control of its narrative yet again. Because there is a faction in the GOP who questions whether his all-out bid to return to the White House is as much to make America great again as it is to counter multiple cases against him in various courts of law and at different stages of progress. Folks, rest assured, it is every bit as good a drama serial as any other streamed by the TV channels in the US these days.

- Vinod Mathew is a senior journalist and author; views expressed are his own.