A Shift in Tone at the Vance-Walz Debate
Gone were the sensational claims like “they’re eating the cats and dogs.” Tuesday night’s vice-presidential debate between Ohio Senator JD Vance and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz was a stark contrast to the heated rhetoric of previous debates, featuring a measured, policy-driven exchange.
Right from the outset, Vance and Walz set aside the aggressive tactics that have dominated the 2024 election cycle, diving into detailed discussions on key issues. Unlike the volatile face-offs between Trump and Harris, this debate focused on substantial matters like manufacturing, gun violence, and immigration, offering the kind of in-depth conversations voters had been eager to hear from the candidates at the top of the ticket.
Detour Into Substance
With Iran’s missile strike on Israel setting the stage, foreign policy quickly took center stage. Walz, nervous at first, praised Harris’ leadership but sidestepped the moderators’ question about a preemptive strike by Israel against Iran. Vance, meanwhile, framed Trump as a global strongman whose presence on the world stage deterred threats, countering, “Walz can criticize Trump’s tweets, but peace through strength brings stability.”
In contrast to the social media-driven moments of recent debates, Tuesday’s exchange delved into policy details. When asked about Hurricane Helene’s devastation, Vance pivoted from climate change to manufacturing, arguing that U.S. manufacturing growth could aid in clean energy leadership. Walz focused on the Biden administration’s renewable energy investments and record levels of oil and gas production, emphasizing America’s potential as an energy superpower.
Immigration Sparks Heated Exchange
Despite the overall civility, tempers flared during the debate’s immigration discussion, resulting in the only moment where the moderators cut the candidates’ microphones. Both Vance and Walz agreed illegal immigration is a problem but placed the blame squarely on each other’s presidential running mates. Vance repeatedly referred to Harris as the “border czar,” blaming her for the rollback of Trump’s immigration policies. Walz shot back, arguing that Trump personally derailed a bipartisan Senate deal that could have improved border security.
Even on divisive issues like abortion, the debate remained largely policy-focused. Vance denied supporting a national abortion ban in 2022, calling it a “minimum national standard” instead. Walz, for the most part, allowed him to express his stance without significant pushback.
Gun Violence and Personal Stories
One of the most emotional moments of the evening came when Walz shared that his teenage son had witnessed a shooting at a community center. Vance responded empathetically, “I didn’t know your son went through that. I’m sorry. Christ have mercy, that is awful.” The discussion shifted to gun control, with Vance advocating for increased school security while Walz highlighted his efforts to pass gun control laws in Minnesota, including a red-flag law.
Jan. 6 and Democracy
The night ended on a tense note as Walz challenged Vance directly on the January 6 Capitol riots, asking if he would acknowledge Joe Biden’s 2020 election win. Vance avoided a direct answer, focusing instead on the role of social media censorship as a threat to democracy, a response that some analysts saw as his weakest moment in the debate.
Although the debate ran longer than the scheduled 90 minutes, some major issues remained unaddressed. Vance wasn’t questioned on Ukraine, despite being a leading Republican voice against U.S. aid, and neither candidate touched on Trump’s criminal cases or Vance’s controversial past remarks about Haitian migrants.
In the end, the debate proved to be a rare moment of substantive policy discussion in an otherwise fiery election cycle, leaving voters with much to reflect on as November approaches.