Ryan Boulanger, Editor-in-Chief
@RyanBcourant
Donovan West, Editor-in-Chief
@DWest_courant
The Vice Presidential debate between Senator JD Vance (R-Ohio) and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz took place at 9pm EST held at the CBS broadcast center in New York City.
Moderators:
CBS Managing Editor Norah O’Donnell and CBS Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Margaret Brennan
Link to the debate transcript: www.cbsnews.com/news/full-vp-debate-transcript-walz-vance-2024/
Ryan’s winners and losers:
Winner: Civility/debate tactics
In comparison to the presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, both candidates displayed an encouraging amount of respect for each other. Many times, they verbally acknowledged their agreement on issues such as border security, and there was minimal shouting and talking over each other.
In my opinion, both candidates are superior debaters to their running mates. Vance displayed a poise and professionalism that we rarely see out of Trump. It was almost as if he made Trumpism sound “polite, calm, and coherent” – as one NYT columnist put it. Vance did an impressive job of sticking to the script – trying to build a strong association between Harris’ platform and Joe Biden’s current presidency. There was no personal disparaging of Tim Walz (no “Tampon” Tim mentioned at all), and for the most part, Vance eloquently watered down some of Trump’s more radical policy proposals.
Although Walz got off to a rougher start than Vance, he quickly asserted his role as the common-sense interpreter when it came to things such as the proposed border legislation on January 6th, among others. Walz didn’t sound mean when criticizing Trump- he almost sounded pitiful towards Vance. He avoided word salads, explaining complex policy proposals in very simple terms. Walz pulled ahead as the better debater than Harris in his first on-stage appearance. While Harris flourishes in asking questions as a career prosecutor, she didn’t provide as strong of a performance against Trump.
Loser: Climate Change
Perhaps the weakest policy area for Vance and Trump in this election cycle, this issue was not pretty for Vance on the debate stage. When asked about his plan on cutting carbon emissions, Vance responded: “Well, let’s just say that’s true, just for the sake of argument, so we’re not arguing about weird science.” I’m sure a lot of experts were baffled at his comparison of decades-proven research into the impacts of carbon emissions on climate to “weird science” — what is going on here???
Given the close nature of the presidential race, it is surely disappointing that the possible Vice President is referring to climate change as “weird science.” As I articulated in our Presidential Debate coverage, this race will likely prove influential in the outcome of humanity’s battle with the climate crisis. If the leader of the most powerful democracy in the world insists the crisis is simply not real, how is the remainder of the world supposed to follow our example?
Winner: Defending running mates
Both candidates did a very effective job of backing up their respective running mates. Vance, in particular, reassured voters that there is a method behind Trump’s madness. Providing a calm and collected presence, Vance shined on foreign policy, highlighting the contrast between Trump’s and Biden’s presidencies in terms of overseas conflict. Vance springboarded off of Trump’s term – from which major conflicts were largely absent – and affirmed his strong support for Israeli offensive action against Iran: “Look, it is up to Israel what they think they need to do to keep their country safe. And we should support our allies wherever they are when they’re fighting the bad guys. I think that’s the right approach to take with the Israel question.” Walz had a trickier start and failed to directly answer the same question.
Walz found his moment defending Harris on economic policy. In the face of criticism over rising home, food, and gas prices, Walz doubled down, praising the Inflation Reduction Act and citing the hundreds of thousands of jobs created by the Biden-Harris administration. Walz also highlighted Harris’s career experience prosecuting transnational gangs, which is a strong point in his response to the border debate.
Loser: Tiananmen square
Walz’s lowest point of the debate came after Maragaret Brennan pressed him on his previous claims that he had been in Tiananmen square during the 1989 massacre. Walz has claimed on air– both on CNN Radio in 2019 and Minnesota Public Radio in 2014– that he was present during the massacre, however these claims have been discredited. Walz admitted that he had misspoke but it’s very undermining to his credibility amidst multiple Harris personal campaign attacks against Trump.
Winner: Border Bill
President Biden’s proposed border legislation took center stage throughout the debate. Crafted Bipartisanly, the bill includes some of the toughest set of border restrictions ever proposed. Walz stuck to his playbook, explaining how Trump tanked the bill: “Look, we fix this issue with a bill that is necessary. But the issue with this is what happens when you don’t want to solve it. You demonize it.” Walz cast a damning shadow on one of MAGA’s strongest talking points– a crippling sound-byte for Vance and Trump. Walz’s logic seemed awfully similar to a piece I wrote last spring (perhaps he read it?)
Gun Violence
Last but not least on this list is the issue of gun violence, an often glossed-over topic in the past two presidential debates. Both candidates began by providing their sincere sympathies towards all of those affected by mass shootings, and when asked about their plan to tackle the issue, they gave seemingly similar, but at the same time divergent answers: “We, unfortunately, have a mental health crisis in this country that I really do think that we need to get to the root causes of because I don’t think it’s the whole reason why we have such a bad gun violence problem. But I do think it’s a big piece of it,” said Vance. Vance also emphasized that providing resources to local law enforcement would help to “take offenders off the streets.”
Walz opened by providing an interesting contrast to the country of Finland, which, after two mass shootings in 2007 and 2008, implemented much stricter regulations surrounding firearm purchase and carry. Walz said it quite plainly: “Sometimes it just is the guns. It’s just the guns.” However, he was quick to not alienate a healthy swath of voters: “I think there’s a capacity to find solutions on this that work, protect Second Amendment, protect our children. That’s our priority.” Overall, this was the most time the topic of gun violence got on air between any of the electoral candidates, and it was good to see that both Vance and Walz agreed it was an issue that needed to be addressed.
Loser: 2020 Election
The worst sound-byte and the weakest point of Vance’s debate performance came near the end when he was forced to defend Trump’s record on January 6th and the persistent peddling of false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. Certainly a tough task– but it was made tougher when Walz posed a question to Vance: “Did [Trump] lose the 2020 election?” to which Vance responded: “Tim, I’m focused on the future. Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 COVID situation?”
There’s really no correct way for Vance to answer this question; either he answers truthfully and is damned by his supporters or ducks the question altogether. There was no “out” for Vance here.
Donovan’s Winners and Losers:
Winner: The Midwest and a Small Town Appeal
While the debate moderators repeatedly asked hard-hitting questions intended to force the two candidates to take firm stances on hot issues, JD Vance and Tim Walz continuously used their allotted time to connect with the American middle class and explain their small-town roots and Midwestern ties. On the opening question about supporting an Israeli missile strike on Iran, Vance first used his time to explain his Ohio working-class upbringing, describing his mother’s struggles with addiction and his eventual enlistment in the Marine Corps thanks to the GI Bill. Vance continued to refer back to his childhood throughout the debate and gave the American public needed information about who their potential vice president truly is.
Walz had a similar approach- trying to connect with working-class families, especially farmers- when describing his upbringing. “I grew up in small, rural Nebraska, town of 400. Town that you rode your bike with your buddies ‘till the streetlights come on, and I’m proud of that service. I joined the National Guard at 17, worked on family farms, and then I used the GI bill to become a teacher,” Walz said when responding to a question on Tiananmen Square. He spent the night justifying his reputation as a more down-to-earth candidate, something the Democrats think will greatly help them.
Both candidates’ Midwestern backgrounds and promises to do well in their home regions make swing states in this area, mainly Michigan and Wisconsin, even more interesting. One thing is for sure: the Midwest will continue to see a lot of love throughout the election cycle, as those two swing states could hold the deciding votes in the race to 270.
Loser: “The experts”
One of the most heated moments of the debate came when the two candidates were trading blows about Kamala Harris’ track record of helping the middle class. Walz compared Harris’ record with that of Donald Trump, who has repeatedly ignored the opinion of experts on issues such as the economy, national security, and others. Walz then said, “My pro tip of the day is this: if you need heart surgery, listen to the people at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, not Donald Trump.”
Vance’s response was a fiery degradation of these aforementioned experts. “Governor, you say trust the experts, but those same experts for 40 years said that if we shipped our manufacturing base off to China, we’d get cheaper goods. They lied about that…And we’re not going to stop [the outsourcing of pharmaceuticals]by listening to experts. We’re going to stop it by listening to common sense wisdom, which is what Donald Trump governed on,” he said. This anti-expert stance is sure to trickle down to the base of the Republican party and will certainly increase the mistrust between the average American and the so-called expert. Thus, “the experts” are big losers.
Winner: Climate Change (Kind of)
“And Norah, you asked about climate change. I think this is a very important issue. Look, a lot of people are justifiably worried about all these crazy weather patterns. I think it’s important for us, first of all, to say Donald Trump and I support clean air and clean water. We want the environment to be cleaner and safer…,” JD Vance said in response to a question on climate change. He kind of recognizes that climate change is a pressing issue and then expresses his support for cleaning up the environment.
Yet, then Vance expresses his frustration with another element of the climate debate. “…one of the things that I’ve noticed some of our democratic friends talking a lot about is a concern about carbon emissions. This idea that carbon emissions drives all the climate change. Well, let’s just say that’s true, just for the sake of argument, so we’re not arguing about weird science. Let’s just say that’s true. Well, if you believe that, what would you, what would you want to do?” Vance said. He refers to carbon emissions as “weird science” and then continues his point by saying the answer to the climate question lies within the economy. Vance’s hesitance to support immediate environmental changes is why climate change is the only kind of a winner. The American public is still not sure what the Republican party would do about the climate if elected.
On the other hand, Walz took a very pro-environmental stance. “But my farmers know climate change is real. They’ve seen 500-year droughts, 500-year floods, back to back…so the solution for us is to continue to move forward, that climate change is real. Reducing our impact is absolutely critical,” he said. The Democratic party maintains their pro-environmental stance and upholds their belief that aggressive change is needed to save the climate.
