On Tuesday night, JD Vance and Tim Walz exchanged sharp words over key issues like international conflict, the U.S. economy, immigration, and abortion rights during their first and only televised debate. Despite moments of tension and a muted microphone, this debate was one of the more civil exchanges of the 2024 election. Here’s a look at the most significant takeaways.
Contents
Vance’s Commitment to Regain Trust on Abortion
The debate touched on abortion, one of the most polarizing topics in the 2024 election. Democrats have used this issue to motivate their base, emphasizing former President Donald Trump’s role in shaping the Supreme Court, which ultimately overturned Roe v. Wade. This ruling dismantled decades of federal protection for abortion rights.
Tim Walz recounted tragic stories of women whose lives were affected by abortion restrictions, using these cases to highlight the human cost of such policies. JD Vance, on the other hand, took a different approach. While he once supported national abortion restrictions, he has since changed his stance, recognizing that most Ohio voters favor abortion access. “We need to earn the American people’s trust back on this issue,” he admitted, acknowledging the distrust many have toward his party.
Vance Sidesteps Trump’s 2020 Election Defeat
In one of the more tense moments of the debate, Vance avoided directly answering whether Trump lost the 2020 election. Tim Walz, seizing the opportunity, described this non-answer as “damning” and pressed him further on the issue of election integrity. The moderators also highlighted Vance’s previous remarks about not certifying the 2020 election results.
Vance maintained his defense of Trump, emphasizing that the former president asked Capitol rioters to protest peacefully. While Vance expressed support for Walz if Democrats win in November, he raised ongoing concerns about election security, showing that he and his opponent remain far apart on this critical issue.
Middle East Conflicts Weigh on Debate
Only hours before the debate, Iran launched a missile attack on Israel, intensifying Middle East tensions. This event set the tone for the opening question.
Walz appeared hesitant as he reiterated Kamala Harris’s promise of strong U.S. support for Israel, while Vance echoed Trump’s claim that no major global conflicts erupted during his time in office. Notably, neither candidate would commit to a position on whether they supported a pre-emptive strike by Israel against Iran.
Immigration Sparks Muted Mics and Friction
Immigration played a central role in the debate, with Vance repeatedly stressing the issue of border control and illegal immigration, which he and many Republicans view as a weak point for Democrats. Walz countered by pointing out that Trump had a hand in derailing bipartisan efforts to pass tough immigration legislation.
Tensions flared when Vance was asked about false claims he had previously made regarding Haitian migrants in Ohio. When the moderators attempted to correct him, Vance spoke over them, leading to the muting of his microphone in a dramatic moment.
Walz’s Admission of Past Missteps
Tim Walz had to answer for his own mistakes during the debate. He was asked about a previous claim that he had been in Hong Kong during the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Walz admitted he had misspoken, saying, “I’m a knucklehead at times,” and clarified that he had arrived in China later that summer.
Vance also had to address past controversial remarks, including once referring to Trump as “America’s Hitler.” Vance conceded that he had been wrong about the former president, acknowledging his own misjudgments.
A Surprisingly Civil Debate
The tone of this debate stood in sharp contrast to the earlier chaotic exchanges between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Vance and Walz shook hands at the start, remained courteous throughout, and even smiled at each other at times. Though they took jabs at their opponents’ running mates, this debate showed that political discourse can still have moments of civility.
The Calm Before the Storm
While this debate may not have changed the trajectory of the election, it provided a brief respite from the otherwise combative tone of the campaign. Both JD Vance and Tim Walz presented their party’s platforms, and despite deep divides, they maintained a level of politeness rarely seen in today’s political landscape. The question remains: will this civility last as the election draws near?
