Vance Smooth, Walz Shaky in VP Debate

By Jason Collins

Vice Presidential Debate Recap: J.D. Vance and Tim Walz Politely Spar Over Key Issues

Last month, we saw Donald Trump and Kamala Harris go head to head in a presidential debate, which did not disappoint. We even got a new viral song about the dogs and cats in Springfield! Harris and Trump are unlikely to hold another debate so, the anticipation for the showdown between the two vice president picks was palpable. What were the results? Few fireworks, and more civility. It was a surprisingly normal debate between two cordial running mates.

Here’s what you missed during this discourse between Republican J.D. Vance and Democrat Tim Walz. 

A Case of Midwestern Niceties

Unlike previous debates we’ve seen this year, there was a distinct lack of name-calling or personal bashing. Both candidates had a case of Midwestern niceties and preferred to focus on their stances on topics like immigration, abortion, the economy, and the crisis in the Middle East. 

The debate was hosted at the CBS Broadcast Center in New York City and moderated by Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan. The 90-minute debate allowed each candidate two minutes to answer the question and another two minutes for their opponent to respond. The moderators also had the right to mute mics. 

While the two did clash over things like the housing crisis, immigration, and abortion, there was no name-calling, nor was it personal. Their attacks were not on each other but on the people who weren’t in the room: Trump and Harris.  

Disagreement Over Abortion 

Abortion rights were a core part of the debate, and both candidates articulated strong opinions about these rights and clarified their stances on this issue. 

Vance made his opinion clear that he feels that abortion laws should be decided at the state level rather than at the federal level. He argued, “We have a big country and it’s diverse and California has a different viewpoint on this than Georgia.” 

Walz disagreed and countered, “The states will decide what’s right for Texas might not be right for Washington. That’s not how this works,” Walz added, “This is basic human rights. We have seen maternal mortality skyrocket in Texas (since its restrictions went into effect), outpacing many accounts in the world.” In one of his stronger moments of the evening, Walz described the story of a young woman, Amber Thurman, who died of sepsis after waiting more than 20 hours for a medical procedure required after taking an abortion pill. 

Vance agreed that Thurman should have survived and explained that the GOP proposes to help women and children economically to prevent the need for women to terminate pregnancies. He also admitted that the Republican party needed to push “pro-family” policies better. 

Walz proudly explained,

In Minnesota, what we did was restore Roe v. Wade. We made sure that we put women in charge of their health care.

Clash on Springfield and Immigration 

It wasn’t just abortion that the two candidates clashed on, but also the infamous claim that Haitian migrants are eating the pets of residents in Springfield, Ohio. At the start of the debate, Walz, who appeared to have a case of shaky nerves, did not back down when it came to addressing Vance’s claims. 

Walz told Vance, “There are consequences for this,” and explained that Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine had dispatched state troopers to Springfield. Vance claimed that Springfield was facing problems of overcrowding in schools and a housing crisis because of the 12,000-plus migrants. It was at this moment that CBS moderator Brennan stepped in to fact-check the Republican and explain that those migrants were in the country legally. Vance complained and told her,

Margeret, the rules are you weren’t going to fact-check.

Vance then had the most viral moment of the debate as he eviscerated Brennan on immigration policy and explained to Americans, who were likely hearing for the first time, how illegal immigrants can use a five-minute app to give them status in the country. Shortly after trying to steer Vance and Walz to the economy, Brennan told both men that no one could hear them as their mics had been turned off. Republican viewers finally had their moment; a GOP politician who wasn’t going to accept media fact-checking.

Both candidates blamed each other’s presidents for the ongoing immigrant crisis. At one point, Vance called Harris President Joe Biden’s “border czar,” calling out her inability to tackle the root causes of migration. Vance also asked Walz why Harris addressed problems like the economy and immigration,

If Kamala Harris has such great plans for how to address middle-class problems, then she ought to do them now – not when asking for promotion, but in the job the American people gave her 3-1/2 years ago. 

Walz blamed Trump’s thwarting of a bipartisan border security bill and claimed that Trump wanted to keep immigration a problem for his campaign. 

While both disagreed on who caused the problem, they both agreed it needed to be fixed. Walz admitted, “We could come together and solve this if we didn’t let Donald Trump continue to make it an issue.” Vance agreed, saying,

I think that you want to solve this problem, but I don’t think that Kamala Harris does.

Difference in Foreign Policy 

The latest ballistic missile attack on Israel from Iran was discussed during the debate, and both candidates offered similar foreign policy strategies. Walz was asked whether he would support or oppose a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran. While Walz didn’t answer the question, he promised the American people steady leadership. On the other hand, Vance answered the question and suggested he would defer to Israel’s judgment. Vance promised that under a Trump administration, there would be effective deterrence against Iran. Both parties are going to support Israel and there isn’t much difference in their stance on the Middle East. Ukraine, previously a major foreign policy topic, didn’t even come up suggesting both a Harris and a Trump administration are distancing themselves from the war.  

A Conversation About Gun Violence 

Unlike their clash on abortion and immigration, both candidates held a constructive conversation about gun violence and agreed it is getting worse and needs to be fixed. 

Vance believes that the root cause is the current border policy, mental health, and other more complicated reasons. Walz agreed with this sentiment, also agreeing that lawmakers should look at all these issues. With so much agreement, you’d think something could be done in a bipartisan manner to fix these problems. 

While neither candidate offered any solid solutions, Vance suggested increasing security in schools by making locks stronger. Walz agreed but pointed out,

Do you want your schools hardened to look like a fort?

Who Won The Debate? 

J.D. Vance appeared polished and was the better speaker. He had a handsome, almost movie star look and exuded an American throwback Gary Cooper vibe. Walz was pale, pasty, and fumbling in comparison. He completely butchered his defense of the claim that he was in Tiananmen Square when he was in reality still in the United States. And while both candidates spoke well and expressed their stances on important issues, Vance won the all-important optics category. For Walz, his best moment came nearly 90 minutes into the debate when he put Vance on the spot during a discussion of the Jan. 6 attacks. 

Walz tried to force Vance to acknowledge that Trump lost in 2020 and was laying down the groundwork to reject the outcome of November’s election. Vance didn’t acknowledge the accusation and Walz got the last word in, “He lost this election, and he said he didn’t. One hundred and forty police officers were beaten at the Capitol that day, some with the American flag, and several later died.” He added,

Here we are four years later, in the same boat. The winner needs to be the winner. This has got to stop. It’s tearing our country apart.

And yet, aside from the core Democratic base, the country has moved on from January 6th. As Vance said, we are looking to the future. So, who won? Vance won the debate on points and optics. However, at this point, political analysts agree that this debate has done little to change the trajectory of the election primarily because people don’t vote for a President based on who is vice president. The biggest takeaway from the debate may end up being that J.D. Vance has solidified himself as the future of the Republican Party.