The VP Debate in Review: Key Moments and Impact

Piece by Anna Barger

In the final weeks leading up to the presidential election and what is likely to be the first and last debate between the candidates, it was crucial that Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota and Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio present a composed and intelligent front for their respective parties in order to sway any undecided voters that might remain in such a polarized election. The debate, hosted by CBS news and moderated by Nora O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan in New York City, was run similarly to the Harris Trump debate, with each candidate having 2 minutes to respond to each question and an extra minute to make a rebuttal and provide further information, with the moderators reserving the right to mute the microphones. The candidates were allowed to have the moderators fact check their opponents statements, though this point would come into contention later on in the debate. 

Questions started off strong with the moderators immediately diving into the role of Iran as a major threat to the United States’ interests in the Middle East. During the start of the debate, Walz was rather nervous and made several fumbles, specifically dodging the first question and instead speaking about Donald Trump, but in his retort successfully brought into question Trump’s response to Iranian missile attacks, but Vance replied with an attack on why Vice President Harris hasn’t done more in response during the crisis while she is in office to back up what she’s promising to accomplish as president. After these divided opening arguments, Vance and Walz settled into a steady rhythm of responses to the questions. Both were successful in showing respect for their opponents stances, and consistently reiterated the points that they agreed on, such as the need for a reduction of gun violence and a desire to move crucial industries back to America. 

Vance’s strongest points came from his very direct stance on gun control, stating “I unfortunately think we need to increase security in our schools. We have to make the doors lock better. We have to make the doors stronger. We’ve got to make the windows stronger.” This comes at a time when school shootings are more prevalent than they ever should be, and Vance’s sentiment is one held by many Republicans, regardless of whether or not they support Trump. Vance came into the debate in a very tough situation as he has the lowest vice presidential ratings ever, and has had to reckon with many of the statements he has made along the campaign trail, particularly in regards to his false claims about the immigration crisis in Springfield, Ohio such as that “Haitian immigrants are eating people’s pets”. Vance avoided being questioned about this contentious topic and was even able to do damage control following his running-mate’s disastrous “I have concepts of a plan” statement in regards to how he would replace the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Overall, through his eloquent speaking and insightful answers he was able to return credibility to the Trump campaign. This contrasted with Walz, whose main job in the debate was to maintain momentum for the Harris campaign and to convince moderates that she is the more reasonable candidate than Trump. He had a shakier start responding to questions and overall, seemed less confident during the debate, at times having to backtrack for providing false information, especially about his presence at the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 and saying that he had “become friends with school shooters”. This was in an anecdote about meeting with the Sandy Hook parents and he likely meant to say school shooter victims. He later called himself a “knucklehead” over such mistakes, but made up for this with sound responses to questions, particularly about immigration and abortion, during which he and Vance had a fiery argument about the status of Haitian immigrants in Springfield, causing the moderators to turn off their microphones to return to the questions. Arguably, his most successful responses came to questions about abortion and women’s ability to access healthcare, during which he shared heart wrenching individual stories of mothers who were not able to access necessary medical care during their pregnancy to do states, particularly Texas’ strict abortion laws. 

These two topics, immigration and abortion, were some of the most heated parts of the debate, particularly as they have shown to be key points voters are concerned with this election cycle. According to the Pew Research Center, 67% of democrats say abortion is very important 82% of republicans say immigration is very important to their vote. Overall, Harris holds an 11-point advantage over Trump in regards to voters' belief in her ability to handle abortion, while Trump holds a 7-point lead in voters' belief that he will help solve the immigration crisis.

Both candidates had some of their most successful responses in questions regarding this topic, with Vance jabbing at the Biden white house’s seeming inability to “stop the bleeding” at the southern border, stating that the first policy they needed to implement was to lock down the border and build the wall, then consider deportations, starting with immigrants who have entered the country illegally and committed crimes. Walz responded with the bipartisan border bill that recently failed the senate vote, which was largely believed to be a solution to the immigration crisis, but was shot down by Trump supporters in the Senate. Walz continued by mocking Trump’s plans for a wall along the border and saying that Trump hadn’t done anything because he needed something to complain about on the campaign trail.

When asked about abortion, both candidates made several false statements, Vance stated that Minnesota allows abortion into the ninth month, which came up in the presidential debate as well, and is considered by many, to be absurd. Walz also falsely stated that Project 2025 would create a national abortion ban and a registry of pregnancies that would stop women from traveling to get an abortion, this is not a part of the document and later on Vance declared “certainly we won’t” when asked about that registry. Vance and Walz’s stances on abortion are almost opposite, with Vance vehemently defending states’ rights to decide their own abortion policy. As many voters are suspicious of Trump and Vance’s stance on abortion, Vance chose to focus more on what he called “pro-family” instead of pro-life, and spoke about how he would support mothers who had families. Walz responded with personal stories about women in states with restrictive abortion laws, such as Georgia and Texas, making strong arguments about the necessity of doctor’s having the ability to make decisions in the moment about a mother’s health, and retorting against Vance’s “pro-family” stance, stating that being pro-choice doesn’t stop a government from also being pro-family.

Overall, both candidates were well prepared and well spoken, and though it is unlikely to have changed the minds of the voters who are entrenched in their support for one candidate or another, this debate presented a much needed example of what a vice presidential debate can and should be.