On the night of October 1, this year’s vice presidential candidates, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Ohio Senator J.D Vance, had their first and only debate on prime-time television. The debate was crucial for both men to demonstrate to the American public their viability for the second-highest office in the nation.
The two men had a lot to show as both were, until recently, rarely spoken outside their home states, and neither seemed poised to enter into national politics. As a representative and then governor, Walz kept a low national profile, and Vance is a newcomer to national politics, having been more known for his authorship until joining the Senate in 2022.
In a rarity for modern American politics, the debaters were relatively formal with one another and, more often than not, attacked each other on positions of policy rather than character. Policies aside, the two men’s debate styles couldn’t have contrasted with one another more; Vancee presented a calm and collected character as opposed to his running mate’s eccentricities. Meanwhile, Walz appeared to stress under the cameras, his genial attitude giving way to a more aggressive and unsteady debate style.
The first question of the debate was on the United States’ role in preventing the conflict in the Middle East from escalating and if they would support a preemptive strike against Iran to do so. While both men danced around the issue of a preemptive strike, Walz focused on the steady leadership of Harris as necessary for calming tensions, describing Trump’s leadership as fickle, whose own cabinet did not trust him.
Walz cited Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal as a key example of how Trump destabilized Middle East peace initiatives. Vance chose to instead “introduce” himself to the American public before moving on with the question. He insisted on peace through strength, where other nations stayed in line out of fear while also supporting any actions taken by Israel to defend itself.
On the topic of Iran, Vance argued that Biden and Harris unfroze billions of dollars in Iranian assets, indirectly assisting them in their proxy war in Israel, a claim which, according to Factcheck.org, needs additional context.
With the recent devastation of Hurricane Helene, and with similar storms likely to increase in frequency and intensity with climate change, the two candidates were asked how their administrations would tackle it. Vance argued that by bringing back domestic manufacturing, carbon emissions will go down as American manufacturing is cleaner and more efficient. When pressed to say if Vance agrees with Trump’s claim that climate change is a hoax, Vance sidestepped the issue.
Walz rejoined that the Biden-Harris investment in renewable energy under the IRA has not only led to increases in American renewable energy investments but has also led to U.S. U.S. producing record levels of oil and natural gas. He went on to say that climate change policy is not just about storms either, but about protecting farmers from droughts and floods as well.
No doubt, a repeated refrain from Vance throughout the debate was the effect of illegal immigration on the American economy, crime, and health. He claimed that 25 million illegal immigrants had entered the country and that border crossings and fentanyl smuggling were at record highs under Biden.
Current estimates place that number closer to 11 million people; while fentanyl seizures are at historic highs, a vast majority of smugglers have been found to be US citizens. Vance was also asked for details regarding a potential mass deportation under a Trump-Vance administration. To this, he said that before a mass deportation policy could be implemented, the “bleeding” at the border needed to be stopped. For him, this meant “empowering” law enforcement to do their job, though he did not define what he meant by this.
On whether the mass deportation policy would separate families, Vance slid into blaming Harris for dividing families by losing 320,000 children (current estimates have that at 32,000) without ever answering the question properly.
Walz was playing defense for his running mate for most of this part, insisting that it was Republican intransigence that was the cause of the border crisis for not passing the tough immigration bill earlier this year.
For his part, Walz accused Vance of demonizing all immigrants by using hateful rhetoric to drum up fears instead of wanting to solve problems. Specifically referring to Trump and Vance’s repeated false claims that Haitian immigrants were eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, which had forced the governor to send in law enforcement to protect the town. This led to the most intense part of the debate that night, with Vance talking over the moderators to insist on his story, culminating in the now widely shared clip: “you guys said you weren’t going to fact-check.”
On the topic of budgets and deficits, the two men were challenged on how they would pay for their large deficit spending. Walz said the 1.2 trillion dollar deficit would be paid off by the investment made into first-time homebuyers and a child tax credit to make it easier for parents to raise their children.
Vance did not address how a Trump administration would cover the five trillion dollar deficit in its plan, instead relying on nostalgia for the Trump year economy as proof the plan will work. He even went as far as to say that the opinion of economists should be disregarded.
The topic of abortion was Walz’s chance to put Vance on the back foot and seemed to be when Walz was most in his element. Describing the position of Democrats as not pro-abortion but pro-woman and entrusting them to make their decisions. Walz also named and described the experience of three women who either lost their lives or had theirs put into serious jeopardy because of the restrictive abortion laws passed in many GOP-controlled states. Vance held that the Republican position was giving the choice to the states, whose differing values entitle them to decide for themselves the issue.
With gun violence being the number one cause of death for children in the country, the two were asked how a potential Trump or Harris administration would tackle that. Vance maintained his stance on protecting the Second Amendment and said that the best way to tackle gun violence was to go after the cartels and illegal immigrants who were smuggling guns into the country.
In response to school shootings, his solution is to increase security and school resource officers while empowering law enforcement to “take bad guys off the street.” Walz supported extending Minnesota’s red flag laws to the whole country and said some weapons should not be out there (but did not specify which ones). He finished his answer with an emotional call about whether parents want to see their child’s school turned into a fort.
After the first presidential debate, Trump was lampooned for “having concepts of a plan” in regard to a new healthcare policy. When Vance was given a chance to articulate these concepts, he essentially admitted that Trump still does not have one. Vance then went on to say that it was the Trump administration that “saved” the Affordable Care Act, despite Trump’s efforts to have it overturned. Walz reemphasized that the ACA already provides protections against preexisting conditions while reducing healthcare costs under the individual mandate.
On the questions of economics and welfare, both men were asked if they supported a federal maternity leave program. Walz provided a simple affirmative, with Minnesota already passing a similar law during his tenure as governor. Vance struggled with the question, providing a meandering answer where mothers should have a choice of the kind of family care they receive without ever providing any specifics as to what or how that would look like.
The end of the debate was specifically directed toward whether Vance would accept the results of the 2024 election, given that he is on the record to say that he would not have certified the results of the 2020 election. A poignant question, to which Vance was unwilling to answer directly, saying that he and America were ready to focus on the future, claiming there was a peaceful transfer of power on January 20.
Vance ended on the point that Harris is the real threat to Democracy with accusations of censorship. Walz’s response was to insist that the words of the President have real weight, and his refusal to accept the results led to the January 6 insurrection. The governor ended his response with a question of his own toward Vance, “Did he [Donald Trump] lose the 2020 election?” to which Vance gave a non-answer.
For closing statements, Walz spoke optimistically of a future where a broad coalition of people from all across the political aisle can come together and work for a better day. Vance opted to attack Kamala for being an ineffective vice president whose policies have already made things more expensive for the average American.
