“Will you shut up man?” Joe Biden to Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential debate.
“(If I was in control of law) you’d be in jail,” Trump to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential debate.
“Donald Trump is an unserious man,” Kamala Harris said during the 2024 Democratic National Convention.
For three election cycles (eight years), politics have become about vicious insults, partisan divide and national drama; but for one night, it returned to what it should be: a civil difference of opinion. On Oct. 1, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Ohio Senator J.D. Vance faced off for the first and only vice presidential debate of the 2024 election. This marks the last major event containing both campaigns before Election Day (Nov. 5) and an insight into the candidates who have not been broadcasted/projected nearly as much as the presidential candidates listed at the top of the ballot.
Reviewing Walz Performance
In comparison to the Trump campaign, the Harris campaign has done limited TV interviews and the one they did with CNN was mostly Harris talking and answering questions. This lack of experience was exposed early on for Walz. The beginning of the debate started fairly cold for Walz as he seemed uncomfortable and struggled to find a rhythm. Despite this, the arguments he made were vigorous and his delivery improved as the night progressed, hitting his stride on the topic of the state of democracy. He was able to attack Trump’s handling of his losing the 2020 election and pinned Vance in a position where he had to defend Trump’s actions on Jan. 6 and his election fraud claims, which Vance clearly did not want to. Another topic that Walz stood strong on was abortion. What was most powerful about his arguments here were real-life examples where abortion bans cost women their lives, which created an emotional connection with the audience and humanized the issue. Using these examples, he effectively reasoned why overturning Roe v. Wade to the states was unjust, and how Trump was inappropriate for celebrating his contributions to this. A recurring theme in his arguments were examples of related actions he took in Minnesota (the state in which he governs) and attacking Project 2025 as a destructive agenda for Trump (though he claims to have no affiliation. Other topics where Walz outperformed Vance were gun violence and the environment, while he struggled with personal record, housing costs/families, and the economy.
Reviewing Vance Performance
Based on speech and debate skills alone, it was a solid and cogent night from Vance. Between the two, Vance was clearly the more experienced speaker and knew how to both work the camera and have a clear voice tone plus variation better. This of course worked to his advantage as he came off as more presentable and professional, especially until Walz heated up at the end. Vance’s strongest issues of the night were the economy and families/housing costs. On the economy, he effectively demonstrated the stability of the economy under Trump, claiming it brought the highest income pay ever and great inflation rates. While defending Trump, he also attacked Harris’ economic plan saying her plans may be effective, but she has had chances over the past four years to implement them, which led him to claim she either does not trust her plans or she is not committed to them. He deferred questions about how he would stop the projected ballooning deficit that proposed plans by the Trump campaign would bring, but Walz deferred those same questions about the Harris campaign’s economic plans. As for families, he argued how cultural pressure has made it difficult for women to build families how they want and need more options, which he claims a Trump administration would bring by lowering housing costs. Recurring arguments from Vance included illegal immigrants, how they negatively impact the economy and his/Trump’s goal of mass deportation. The weakest topics for Vance were the state of democracy and abortion, which were to be expected as his views on these issues are unpopular with the majority of voters.
Major Issues and Political Dynamic
While on the campaign trail and at various rallies, both Walz and Vance have hurled insults at each other, both personal and about policy; however, you would have never known after watching this debate. They civilly talked before the debate, after the debate, their wives talked and most importantly, there was a sense of respect between the two the entire night. They found common ground on almost every issue by acknowledging good points in each other’s arguments and stating that they both know they are each working to better the country. One issue though, however, that they failed to agree on was the state of democracy. A debate that was mostly controlled by Vance’s tone and control, this was a turning point for Walz. Vance made a critically false statement and a “damning nonanswer”: he said Trump has a peaceful transfer of power, which Jan. 6 was anything but, and refused to answer whether Trump had lost the 2020 election or not, which he did. This marked one of the few times in the night where Vance was clearly wrong, lost and caught up in some of the lies pushed by Trump over the past four years. While this was certainly the issue where Walz dominated the most, he still could have done more — he was pitched a softball and hit a single, not a home run. While Walz got his point across that Vance was pushing nonsensical claims, it was only momentarily that if he made it a theme of the issue, it could have resonated with the audience even more. Walz appeared to have too many pre-rehearsed lines/thoughts he wanted to bring up that he did not take advantage of the gifts his opponent gave him.
Possibly the most monumental topic of the night was gun violence. This topic being so prominent in society today and having the impact that it did on the debate, it begs the question, why was it not discussed during the presidential debate between Harris and Trump? This is an issue that the voters, particularly youth voters and parents, are passionate about, and its controversiality should not have stopped it from being presented during the presidential debate to protect the candidates. Despite this, it was, to me, the most memorable topic of the night. Here more than any other issue the two candidates found common ground, both admitting they do not know the solution but need to find it, and fast. Vance brought up the mental health crisis and claimed this is a connecting issue that needs to be solved and will help curtail gun violence to an extent. On the other hand, Walz said the root of the problem was the guns themselves, and strong red flags laws and background checks are essential. More personal and emotional appeal was brought by Walz, a former NRA member whose opinion was changed after the Sandy Hook shooting and meeting with victims’ parents. While Vance proposed better school security, such as more resource officers, along with stricter punishments/sentences for those convicted of crimes including gun violence, he made no mention of any gun restrictions.
Closing Insights and Winner
There’s no denying Vance was the stronger speaker. As mentioned earlier, he was the more experienced debater, had better tone inflection and presented himself better to the camera. As for the arguments made by each candidate, it’s a matter of opinion on who to say was better. Vance repeatedly attacked illegal immigration for the reason of many problems in the nation and blamed Harris for allowing this to happen. Walz made more appeals to emotion by bringing up specific people and cases related to the topics while centering his message on helping the American people. Whichever form of argument resonates more is up for the audience member to decide. However, it is worth mentioning that Vance made more false and misleading statements throughout the night; and for that reason, I can not declare him the winner of the debate. While the delivery of his words was firm and precise, I can not declare him the winner when those words were not always the truth. More than anything, both campaigns helped their image by having the candidates come off as considerate, tolerable and ready to serve the American people. While I doubt the debate will have any colossal effect on the outcome of the election, it can restore a little bit of faith in politics and open the door for partisan respect again.
