Walz vs Vance debate/ 2024 VP debate/ Harris vs Trump/ VP debate policies/ Middle East crisis/ Newslooks/ NEW YORK/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ Tim Walz and JD Vance went head-to-head in the sole vice presidential debate, criticizing each other’s running mates, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. In a more restrained debate compared to their presidential counterparts, the two tackled major issues like immigration, abortion, and the Middle East conflict, while also acknowledging past missteps.
VP Debate: Walz vs. Vance Quick Looks
- Key Topics: Immigration, abortion, the economy, and Middle East tensions.
- Tone: Calmer than previous presidential debates, with moments of empathy and rare apologies.
- Running Mate Focus: Both candidates centered criticism on Trump and Harris.
- Vance on 2020 Election: Refused to acknowledge Trump’s 2020 loss, focusing on future issues.
- Walz on Policy: Pushed for stability, criticized Trump’s chaotic leadership.
Walz, Vance Clash Over Policy and Running Mates in VP Debate
Deep Look
Tuesday’s vice presidential debate between Democrat Tim Walz and Republican JD Vance was a marked departure from the more heated showdowns that have defined the 2024 presidential race. With a more measured tone, both candidates focused on criticizing each other’s running mates—Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump—while addressing current crises and policy issues.
Set against the backdrop of escalating conflict in the Middle East and the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, the debate tackled a broad range of topics, including immigration, abortion, and the economy. Polls show Harris and Trump in a tight race, making this debate a key opportunity for both campaigns to shore up support.
Criticism of Running Mates
As expected in vice presidential debates, both candidates aimed much of their criticism at the top of their opponent’s ticket. Walz, the Democratic governor of Minnesota, painted Donald Trump as a chaotic leader out of touch with the needs of the country. Walz pointed to Trump’s past behavior, especially his focus on crowd sizes during critical moments, as an example of failed leadership. He argued that steady leadership, particularly during international crises, is essential.
Vance, on the other hand, praised Trump’s strength on the global stage, positioning him as a powerful deterrent to international adversaries. “Effective, smart diplomacy and peace through strength is how you bring stability back to a very broken world,” Vance said, countering Walz’s accusations.
Immigration and Policy Disputes
The debate took a sharper turn when the candidates clashed over immigration, particularly concerning Vance’s past comments about Haitian immigrants in Ohio. Walz accused Vance of demonizing legal immigrants, referencing false claims Vance and Trump had amplified about Haitian immigrants eating pets in Ohio. Walz called for a more inclusive approach, arguing that demonizing the issue instead of addressing it only fueled division.
Vance, defending his stance, argued that the Biden-Harris administration had ignored the real challenges caused by the influx of Haitian immigrants in his state. Despite the moderators clarifying that the immigrants had legal status, Vance continued to press his case, leading to a moment where his microphone was cut as moderators moved to the next topic.
Abortion Debate
The candidates also took time to discuss their views on abortion, with both Walz and Vance sharing personal stories. Walz emphasized the impact of restrictive abortion laws on women, recounting the story of Amanda Zurawski, a Texas woman who was denied an abortion despite life-threatening complications. He also mentioned Hadley Duvall, a 12-year-old girl who became pregnant after being raped by her stepfather, highlighting the need for reproductive rights.
Vance, meanwhile, shared a personal account of a close friend who felt that having an abortion saved her from an abusive relationship. He clarified his stance on a national abortion ban, stating that while he had once suggested the idea, he now supports a “minimum national standard” rather than an outright ban. This is in contrast to Trump, who has taken credit for the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade while also stating during the debate that he would veto a national abortion ban.
Jan. 6 and Election Integrity
One of the most contentious moments of the debate came when the topic of the January 6 Capitol attack was raised. Vance downplayed the event, arguing that Trump had asked his supporters to march peacefully and shifting the focus to what he called the real threat to democracy—censorship of conservative voices. When asked if Trump won the 2020 election, Vance deflected by saying he was focused on the future, prompting Walz to call his response a “damning non-answer.”
Walz was quick to point out that the January 6 attack was the first attempt in U.S. history to overturn a fair election, underscoring the severity of the event and accusing Vance of supporting Trump’s undemocratic actions.
Acknowledging Past Missteps
In a rare display of humility in today’s political climate, both candidates admitted to past mistakes. Vance acknowledged that he had been wrong in his previous harsh criticisms of Trump, including comparing him to “America’s Hitler.” He explained that people should be honest when they change their views, framing his shift as a lesson in personal growth.
Walz, too, admitted to missteps, including a false claim about being in Hong Kong during the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. He owned up to the mistake, saying, “I’ve not been perfect. I’m a knucklehead at times,” and recognizing the importance of transparency.
A Calmer Debate with Lasting Impact
While the debate covered a range of heavy policy topics, it also had moments of surprising camaraderie. Vance offered genuine empathy when Walz shared that his teenage son had witnessed a shooting. These moments of humanity contrasted with the often fiery tone of the 2024 campaign.
Despite the less combative atmosphere, the debate remained a crucial moment in the tight race between Trump and Harris. Both Walz and Vance played their roles as attack dogs for their respective campaigns while addressing pressing national concerns.
The night ended on a note of acknowledgment, with Walz admitting he enjoyed the debate and Vance echoing his sentiments, signaling a rare moment of bipartisanship in an otherwise divided race.
