18 Thoughts on the Vice Presidential Debate

My reaction to the debate between Senator JD Vance and Governor Tim Walz

JD Vance and Tim Walz at the vice presidential debate | C-SPAN

I’m Isaac Saul, and I’m the executive editor at Tangle where I write an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.” For more political analysis like this, subscribe to Tangle here!

On Tuesday evening, vice presidential candidates Ohio Sen. JD Vance (R) and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) faced off in the only scheduled vice presidential debate of the 2024 election. The debate provided a stark contrast to the recent presidential debates, with the two candidates delivering fleshed out policy positions, repeatedly finding common ground, offering respectful disagreements, rarely interrupting each other, and avoiding personal attacks.

The debate covered a range of topics including foreign policy, climate change, immigration, abortion, gun violence, housing, healthcare, and the 2020 election.

Throughout the night, Vance repeatedly pivoted to the strength of the economy under President Donald Trump before the pandemic. Conversely, Tim Walz frequently pivoted to healthcare and housing as two areas where he and Vice President Kamala Harris plan to invest more resources to help with issues of affordability for the middle class.

18 Reactions to the Debate

As with most debates, there is too much to cover for a traditional “my take” section. So here are 18 thoughts on what we saw last night:

1. I’ll spoil the ending first: Vance won the debate. On substance, he seemed to know the issues better; he was a more polished communicator, and it often felt like he got the better of Walz in their exchanges, even when Walz was defending a position more popular with Americans. Post-debate polling showed a pretty even split in who Americans viewed as the winner, so it’s not as if Walz got trounced, but most of the focus groups I saw broke for Vance. That’s what I felt watching it, and I think it’s the most telling indicator. I am skeptical this debate will impact the race at all, but Democrats must be glad they are not running against Vance atop the ticket.
2. Despite the strength of his night, for a lot of voters — especially those in the middle — Vance’s ending to the evening will spoil everything else. That Vance still can’t say Trump lost the 2020 election — that his political future quite literally depends on keeping that charade alive — is both frightening and disappointing. It’s equally disorienting to hear him defend the obviously incorrect claim that Trump oversaw a peaceful transfer of power. Personally, I found that exchange to be the most frustrating thing either candidate did all night.
3. What a nice debate! I mean, really: It was substantive. Cordial. Illuminating. Downright Midwestern. I felt like I had been transported to a different era. There were even some bizarre moments where it was easy to imagine a Vance-Walz 2028 ticket. I genuinely forgot what it was like to watch politicians actually debate policy issues (and sometimes agree with each other). It was brain food. How refreshing. The entire debate reminded me how my own politics are all mixed up and confused and don’t neatly fit into any bucket, because I found so many arguments each candidate made compelling.
4. Not for nothing, but Vance and Walz both seem to know much more about policy issues than their running mates, which makes for an odd dynamic.
5. Vance delivered the best answer on abortion that I’ve heard from any Republican since Roe v. Wade fell. It was a compassionate, pro-family position that will connect with moderates on abortion and even some people in the pro-choice camp. Yet, it’s undeniable that this is a hard pivot to the center from the Trump-Vance ticket. Vance’s past comments on abortion are much different than what he’s saying now, which he explains by arguing he is responding to voters. I’m unconvinced his personal views have changed, as I think he is ideological and principled on this issue. My guess: Republicans are reacting to the numbers. The public polls show they’re clearly losing on this issue, but the internal polling must be awful for them to tack this far to the middle.
6. Walz initially looked nervous, but he recovered by the end of the debate. For the first five minutes, he looked like he might vomit on himself. All week, there were reports about how nervous he was to enter the national political stage, and for the first portion of the debate it showed. I thought the second half of the debate was effectively a draw, but a lot of viewers were probably in bed by then.
7. Walz previously said he was in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests. A report came out last week proving that this was a lie. Somehow, some way, he was not prepared to answer a question about it at the debate. This is political malpractice. I have no idea how his team did not have him ready to explain this — but calling yourself a knucklehead and stumbling through an answer about how you grew up in the Midwest doesn’t cut it. More importantly, he has genuine credibility problems now. He seems to “misspeak” an awful lot.
8. On the other hand, at one point in the debate, Walz said he was “friends with school shooters.” If Walz can deliver a gaffe that big on the biggest night of his political career, then I’m willing to believe that any lie or mistruth from his past was actually him misspeaking.
9. I saw a never-Trump GOP strategist on X say that Tim Walz has “the killer instinct of a manatee.” I laughed when I saw it because it’s so true. What I’m less sure of is whether this is an asset or not. My personal feeling is that Walz might be a bit too soft for the job — not assertive or direct enough. I don’t feel that way about Trump, Harris, or Vance. But then, this morning, as I was re-watching the debate in my kitchen, my wife walked in and listened for a few minutes while having her coffee. “He just seems so nice,” she said to me unprompted, in a cheery tone. “He doesn’t sound rehearsed. He sounds like a real person. None of the other politicians ever talk like this.”
10. As magazine editor Max Meyer noted, Vance could have appeared more comfortable than Walz because he has been debating in liberal spaces for years. That got me thinking: I’d love to see JD Vance and Pete Buttigieg debate each other. Both men have a knack for communicating their ideas to people who disagree with them.
11. Can CBS really not find a single conservative to moderate the debate? It’s genuinely embarrassing at this point. They asked Walz a few tough questions, but the insertions of subtle “fact checks” and comments all going in one direction, and the inherent liberal bias in their framing, is grating to me. And I’m a moderate. I can’t imagine what it’s like for tried and true conservatives to watch this. I will say this, though: They make it a lot easier to pitch Tangle.
12. At one point, Vance tried to give Donald Trump credit for “salvaging” the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare). I damn near fell out of my chair. This was one of the most egregious “up is down and down is up” moments of the night. Walz rightly pointed out that Trump tried (and continues to promise) to kill the ACA without explaining what will replace it. It is pretty shocking to me that Republicans have had a full decade to develop a coherent message and plan on this issue, but still have nothing.
13. At another point, Walz claimed “you can’t scream fire in a crowded theater” in response to Vance’s criticism that the Biden administration tried to censor speech online. I actually slapped my own forehead in shock. This is one of the most persistent myths about free speech and free speech law. It is not true. This misunderstanding comes from a non-binding statement from a Supreme Court ruling in the early 1900s that has been overturned for almost 50 years and is so common of the law that it’s become a meme.
14. The number-one attack line on any of Kamala Harris’s promises is “she’s been vice president for 3.5 years, why hasn’t she done it?” For some reason, Harris and Walz refuse to say “Republicans” or “Congress.” It’s very odd to me. When Vance was asked about why he criticized Trump’s record on the economy as recently as 2020, he justified it by saying that Trump would have gotten more done if “Congress was doing its job,” describing our current Congress as a forum for whining. This is a good answer. When Harris and Walz are pressed about why Harris hasn’t already enacted her agenda, they respond as if someone just asked them to explain quantum mechanics.
15. I’m really curious if, after watching this debate, there are any conservative Republicans out there — especially die-hard Trump supporters — who realize that they may have a better leader for the party in their midst. To me, it seems apparent that Vance is a better communicator than Trump, and he has the policy chops to explain why people should vote for their ticket. As The Wall Street Journal editorial board put it, he “makes a better case for Trump than Trump.” Plus, he has none of the baggage. If you’re a Trump voter who watched the debate last night, I’d be curious to hear from you about how his performance landed.
16. While discussing bringing down child-care costs, Vance said we should “induce more people to provide child care options.” This sounds like classic big-government language (it seems to imply government incentives to work in child care). It’s worth pointing out that a different way to reduce child-care costs is actually by encouraging immigration.
17. Speaking of big government, it appears that both major political parties have officially abandoned any semblance of a small-government orientation. This has been obvious for several years to anyone paying attention, but it’s cemented after last night.
18. I’ll end with something reporter Lee Fang said that I endorse wholeheartedly: In another world, we could have political coalitions of reasonable leaders. Fang wrote, “Walz and Vance agreeing with each other on lots of topics, on trade, even some aspects of clean energy policy, suggests to me in some alt political system — ie Denmark’s multiparty system instead of our two party system — we would have political coalitions of reasonable leaders.”

If you liked this article, you can subscribe to Tangle here to receive free politics newsletters like this one Monday-Thursday and can sign up for a paid membership to receive special Friday editions.