Republican Sen. JD Vance of Ohio and Democratic Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota faced off Tuesday night in what is expected to be the only debate between the two vice presidential candidates and, most likely, the last debate of the presidential election.
Voting has already begun in 20 states in a race that polls show is essentially a toss-up. Their debate, which lasted nearly two hours, was much more civil than last month's showdown between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Trump.
Here are some conclusions:
Stability is at the polls
The debate took place on a day when it seemed like the world was falling apart. Iran launched missiles at Israel, risking an even wider regional conflict in one of the most volatile corners of the world. Residents living in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene were running out of water and other necessities as authorities counted deaths, which surpassed 150. Dock workers on the East Coast went on strike, threatening the economy and supply chain. country supply.
Both candidates appealed to voters' anxiety, acknowledging that choosing which candidate is most likely to calm the waters will be a subjective decision for many of them.
Walz contrasted “an almost 80-year-old Donald Trump who talks about crowd sizes” who flatters autocrats with Harris’ “steady leadership.”
Vance downplayed Trump's volatility, arguing that Trump made the world around him less dangerous and that Harris, as sitting vice president, is responsible for the current chaos.
“Criticize Donald Trump’s tweets,” he said. “But effective and intelligent diplomacy and peace through strength is the way to restore stability to a very broken world.”
Vance tries to soften his image
Vance came into the debate less popular than Walz, especially among female voters. But the election campaign's controversial vice presidential candidate, the guy who mocked “childless cat ladies” in a 2021 interview, was replaced by a moderate candidate who attempted to soften his image.
Nowhere was this clearer than in her discussion of abortion rights, one of her and Trump's greatest political vulnerabilities. She spoke in personal terms about a friend who had an abortion and said she loved her and that her party needed to do better “to earn the trust of the American people again on this issue where, frankly, they just don't trust us.”
“Donald Trump and I strive to be pro-family in the broadest sense of the word, as a Republican Party,” he said, promising help on fertility treatments and housing affordability.
He tried to tone down many of Trump's most controversial policies. Instead of attacking immigrants as criminals or invaders, as Trump often does during his election campaign, he discussed Trump's deportation plans in economic terms. He avoided repeating Trump's false claim that Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, were stealing dogs and cats to eat, and instead argued that eliminating lower-wage jobs would reduce immigrants' incentives to come and raise workers' wages. Native Americans.
“We don't want to blame immigrants for higher housing prices, but we do want to blame Kamala Harris for letting millions of illegal aliens into this country,” he said.
Vance also attempted to reframe Trump's role in encouraging the violent mob that stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, falsely claiming that Trump was simply seeking a peaceful protest and made no effort to thwart the transfer. peaceful power.
Vance's change of tone was an attempt not only to rehabilitate his own image but also to help his ticket appeal to the last remaining undecided voters, who are likely to be more moderate than the grassroots supporters who are already rooting for him. Trump at rallies.
Walz argued that he and Trump cannot inflict undue harm by changing rhetoric. Women have still lost their reproductive rights; children in danger walking to school in Springfield due to Trump's false claims; Trump still refuses to accept that he lost the 2020 election and Vance has refused to condemn his attempts to stay in power.
“That day, 140 police officers were beaten at the Capitol, some with the American flag,” Walz said of January 6. “Where is the firewall if he knows he can do anything, even call an election?”
Are the experts good?
One of the most surprising moments of the night came when the two men debated the role of experts.
Democrats have criticized Republicans for dismissing experts and science during the Trump era. Walz said he was following the lead.
Paraphrasing Trump and Vance, he said: “Economists don't know, they can't be trusted. You can't trust science. You can't trust national security people. Pro tip of the day: If you need heart surgery, listen to the people at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, not Donald Trump.”
Instead of denying that they had attacked the authorities, Vance took the case against them, arguing that they had misled the country about outsourcing manufacturing jobs overseas.
“Those same experts for 40 years said that if we sent our manufacturing base to China” we would create cheaper products and strengthen the middle class, he said. “They lied.”
Walz, who goes after the same white working-class voters as Vance, said he agreed and saw the same tragedy unfold in Minnesota. He blamed the decline of manufacturing on the loss of union influence.
Walz gets carried away by daddy's vibes
Walz, like Vance, was introducing himself to many voters who probably knew nothing about him. Unlike Vance, who has been doing media interviews and seemed more comfortable, Walz seemed uncomfortable at the beginning of the debate.
But after a few minutes, he calmed down and began to define himself as an ordinary man from the Midwest. “I'm at the age where my shotgun was in my car so I could hunt pheasants after football practice,” Walz said, explaining why he changed his opinion on gun control. “That's not where we live today.”
Still, he stumbled over his words several times, saying at one point that he befriended school shooters when he seemed to be referring to the shooters' victims.
Walz also adopted the political tradition of not answering questions and refused to say, for example, whether he would support an Israeli preemptive strike against Iran. Vance responded to that question, saying it was up to Israel, but he also dodged topics and never responded when asked if Trump lost the 2020 election.
The guy on stage with me is fine. It's your boss who is horrible
The candidates were remarkably friendly with each other, insisting quite frequently that they agreed with their opponent on a central issue or that they believed they could at least find common ground. Walz's main problem was with Trump, while Vance had his problems with Harris.
“Senator. Vance has said there was a climate problem in the past. “Donald Trump called it a hoax and then joked that these things would allow for more beachfront property to be invested in,” Walz said as they discussed climate change.
When the topic turned to gun violence, Vance said, “And I think Governor Waltz and I probably agree that we need to do better on this. The question is, how do we actually do it?
Even on the issue of immigration, Vance told Walz, “I think you want to solve this problem, but I don't think Kamala Harris will.”
It was hard to reconcile all that happy talk with the Trump-Harris debates or the nasty ads. In truth, the two men have strong disagreements on climate change, abortion rights, gun control, immigration, taxes, housing and just about everything else they discussed Tuesday night.
Part of the relative civility is explained by the strange dynamics of vice presidential debates. Few voters make their decision based on the running mate. Vice presidents do not dictate policy. They are there to attack the other team and assure voters that, in an emergency, they can be trusted to govern the country.
