In the only vice-presidential debate of the 2024 election cycle, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota and Senator JD Vance of Ohio engaged in a policy-heavy battle of ideas, clashing on the economy, immigration, abortion and protecting American democracy.
The exchanges generally lacked the personal vitriol that punctuated former President Donald J. Trump’s debate with Vice President Kamala Harris. Instead the running mates sought to bring more substance to the big themes of the campaigns while introducing themselves to voters. On more than one occasion there were flashes of apparent comity, with the candidates acknowledging that they shared common goals of broadening access to child care and reducing gun violence.
After the debate, political analysts, pundits and observers on social media noted that Mr. Vance, a Yale-educated lawyer, offered a crisp delivery — even if he was deftly shading the truth — and that he was generally more genial than he is often portrayed by the Harris campaign. However, Mr. Vance struggled when pressed over Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, refused to answer a direct question from Mr. Walz about whether Mr. Trump lost and defended his running mate’s role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by saying Mr. Trump peacefully transferred power to President Biden.
Mr. Walz at times appeared anxious and stumbled when trying to explain misstatements about his background. He seemed to gain his footing toward the end of the debate when the conversation moved to abortion and health policy while Mr. Vance tried to revise history and suggested that Mr. Trump was a savior of the Affordable Care Act (he tried unsuccessfully to repeal it).
Here is a sampling of the reaction.
“Gov. Walz is not prosecuting the case rather it’s a nice-fest. If you agree with Vance on so much then why should we vote for you?” said Symone D. Sanders Townsend, an MSNBC host and former press secretary for the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign.
“I was missing the magic and the organic spontaneity of Tim Walz,” said Jen Psaki, a former press secretary for President Biden.
“Walz’s anxiety was palpable early on, but he caught his stride within the first few questions. Both seemed to struggle initially to focus on direct answers to the moderators’ questions, each wanting to get in pre-scripted jabs at the other side,” said Mikaela Malsin, director of debate at Emory University’s Barkley Forum.
“I think what you saw tonight was the kitchen table versus the Ivy League,” said Van Jones, the CNN commentator.
“I think it’s obvious that on points, Vance is beating Walz pretty decisively. He’s also coming across much less obnoxious than his brand. That’s a win too,” Jonah Goldberg, editor of The Dispatch, a conservative online magazine.
“Expect to see the final exchange on Jan. 6 everywhere. It was a pretty mild debate, but Walz’s answer was passionate and crisp, which provided a stunning contrast to JD Vance’s refusal to admit Trump lost in 2020,” said Caitlin Legacki, a Democratic strategist and a former adviser to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo.
“VP debates don’t matter. Vance won on the points all night long. But in these last five minutes, Walz destroyed Vance on a threshold question of character and democracy,” said Gregg Nunziata, executive director of the Society for the Rule of Law and a former policy adviser to Senator Marco Rubio.
“Walz has missed a lot of opportunities to go on the attack and point out Vance’s lies and hypocrisy. The policy wonking is not really cutting it,” said Asha Rangappa, legal analyst and former special agent with the F.B.I. in New York.
“After tonight, Donald Trump needs to speak less and let JD Vance speak more. Vance’s weakest moments tonight have been in trying to defend Trump,” said Frank Luntz, a political consultant and pollster who worked for Republican candidates in previous elections.
“While the debate was civil and at times even substantive on policy, the candidates approached the debate differently: Walz took opportunities to lay out a vision for what a Harris-Walz administration would accomplish with respect to housing, immigration, and protecting democracy, while Vance downplayed or outright denied the policies and rhetoric of President Trump,” said Didi Kuo, a political scientist at Stanford University.
“Vance would have been better served by a more conservative tie. Fuchsia raw silk is something you wear to summer garden parties, not debates,” said Derek Guy, men’s wear expert and commentator.
The post Who Won the Debate? A Crisp Vance Fends Off Walz appeared first on New York Times.
