Vance and Walz Keep it Civil in VP Debate: Who Came Out on Top?
Tuesday night’s vice-presidential debate between Republican JD Vance and Democrat Tim Walz was a polite, policy-focused discussion, standing in sharp contrast to the fiery presidential debates earlier this year. Held in New York and broadcast by CBS News, the debate centered around key issues for voters ahead of the upcoming November election. Both candidates spent more time targeting their opponents’ running mates than each other.
Walz had a slow start, but found his footing when addressing abortion rights and the January 6 Capitol riots. Despite a few tense moments, like when Vance grew irritated with fact-checking from the moderators and both candidates’ microphones were briefly muted, the debate remained largely civil. The two candidates even agreed on certain issues, with Walz remarking, “There’s a lot of commonality here,” and Vance offering genuine concern when Walz mentioned a personal story about his son witnessing a shooting.
However, the most heated exchange came toward the end, revolving around Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election. Vance dodged a direct answer about Trump’s loss, which Walz quickly criticized as a “damning non-answer.” Walz stressed the importance of stopping the rhetoric that led to the January 6 attack, emphasizing the divisive impact it’s had on the nation.
Throughout the debate, Vance, a polished speaker, seemed more comfortable, particularly in the early stages when discussing foreign policy, a subject on which Walz appeared less confident. Vance consistently reminded voters that Democrats have been in power for the past three and a half years, implying they had failed to deliver on their promises.
On immigration, Vance attacked the Biden-Harris administration’s policies, claiming they burden American cities, while Walz accused Vance of amplifying harmful falsehoods. The debate highlighted both men’s strengths: Vance’s smooth, confident delivery versus Walz’s folksy, relatable charm.
When the topic shifted to abortion, Walz stood firm, arguing Democrats championed women’s rights and freedom of choice. Vance, on defense, acknowledged that Republicans need to build more trust with voters on the issue.
Despite the friendly tone, gun control was another area where the candidates diverged. Walz emphasized the need for background checks, though he did not push for the Democratic call to ban assault weapons. This left some wondering if he missed an opportunity to press Vance on the issue.
Ultimately, the debate’s outcome may have limited impact on the election’s results. History shows that vice-presidential debates rarely move the needle, as seen in 1988 when Democrat Lloyd Bentsen crushed Dan Quayle, only for Quayle to win the vice presidency. While Walz held his own and showed his appeal, Vance’s polished performance may have further secured his future within the Republican Party. His ability to present conservative ideas in a composed, confident manner likely left a lasting impression, potentially setting him up for a bigger role in national politics.
