Five Key Takeaways From the Vice Presidential Debate

JD Vance and Tim Walz faced off in a policy-focused and relatively cordial vice presidential debate on Tuesday night that presented an opportunity for the campaigns to build momentum in a race where polls have barely budged.
Kamala Harris has seen a modest, yet consistent, national polling lead since replacing President Joe Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket in July. She saw a slight polling bounce after the debate against Trump, when she was perceived as the winner. But in the swing states that will determine the outcome, the race remains a toss-up.
The debate came in the midst a chaotic week both at home and abroad. Hurricane Helene brought devastation to large swaths of the Southeastern U.S., including the critical swing states Georgia and North Carolina.
Overseas, tensions are boiling over in the Middle East, where an escalating regional conflict between Iran and Israel threatens to shake up the race in an October surprise.
Meanwhile, a prolonged strike of dockworkers at ports up and down the East Coast has the potential to throw supply chains into chaos at the worst possible time for the Biden administration.
The 2024 race presents a political oddity—typically, presidential candidates would face off in at least two or three debates, with one following the vice presidential debate. Trump and Harris have only debated once thus far, and Trump has declined another debate against Harris.
This means the vice presidential debate may have been the campaigns’ last chance to present their visions for the country—on issues like the economy, immigration, foreign policy and abortion—to a national audience.
Here are five key takeaways from Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate.
The Vance-Walz debate stood in stark contrast from the Harris-Trump debate just a few weeks earlier, when the two presidential candidates threw frequent personal attacks but faced criticism for offering limited details about their plans for the country.
Vance and Walz, however, offered a more civil, policy-focused debate, each acknowledging that they believe their opponent wants to fix issues — be it immigration or gun violence — but disagreeing on the specifics of their solutions.
Neither candidate made any major gaffes that would jeopardize their ticket in November, following the cardinal rule to “do no harm” during vice presidential debates.
For example, the two sparred over the details of a bipartisan border bill, opposed by Trump, that would have delivered more funding and resources for border security. They discussed the legal mechanisms of reducing the number of border crossings, with CBS News at one point cutting off their microphones as the conversation turned to bickering — the one and only time of the evening the mics were cut.
Vance and Walz both attacked the policies of their opponents, but mostly stayed away from cutting personal attacks.
They even found common ground on some policy issues, including support for building more housing and a protectionist view on trade, agreeing in their opposition to policies that allowed corporations to ship U.S. jobs abroad.
“I actually agree with Tim Walz,” Vance said toward the end of the debate. “We should get out of the idea of housing as a commodity.”
Elsewhere, Walz said he doesn’t think “Senator Vance and I are that far apart” on providing more government support for childcare, such as community and church-based options.
Things did turn tense at the end, when the debate turned to democracy and the events of Jan. 6, 2021. Walz noted he and Vance are “miles away” on the riot at the Capitol that day, knocking Vance’s comments attempt to turn the issue to one about censorship as a “damning non-answer.”
Vance has built a reputation as a vocal conservative in the Senate, having served as something of an attack dog for Trump on the campaign trail. But he toned down his fire-breathing rhetoric Tuesday night, projecting a more polished and TV-friendly style in an appeal to moderates amid his underwater favorability ratings.
Vance kept to the issues, resisting falling into traps set by Walz — unlike Trump, who memorably took the bait in his debate against Harris when she brought up his crowd sizes.
In a similar fashion to Harris, Vance frequently tied his policies back to his difficult upbringing and personal experiences growing up poor in Appalachia. In one memorable moment, he related a question about reproductive rights, a key weakness for Republicans, back to a friend who received an abortion.
The debate kicked off with a discussion of Middle East policy, coming hours after Iran unleashed its biggest direct attack ever against Israel after Israeli forces moved into southern Lebanon. The new escalation threatens to upend the race in its final weeks and could prove beneficial to the Republican ticket, given Trump’s stance that President Biden – and by extension Vice President Harris – have made the world less safe.
During the foreign policy discussion, Walz quickly took aim at Trump’s foreign policy, trying to remind voters of what many viewed as the chaos that enveloped his administration, accusing the former president of tweeting through various international crises.
“When Donald Trump was in office, it was Donald Trump who we had a coalition of nations that had boxed Iran’s nuclear ability in. Donald Trump pulled that program and put nothing else in its place,” he said.
Vance was ready with a defense, arguing that Trump brought “peace through strength” and steady leadership, and noting that he was the only president in recent history under which no new foreign wars erupted.
Both candidates also voiced support for Israel, with Vance saying he would leave it to the Israelis to determine if they need to conduct a preemptive strike against Iran, the original question asked by the moderators.
Walz did not answer that specific question.
It’s no secret that Trump values loyalty above all else, so the selection of Vance – a former vehement critic of Trump – as his running mate puzzled some political observers. But Vance has since morphed into Trump’s biggest attack dog on the campaign trail and in the media. He deftly broadcast for the former president Tuesday night, earning praise from Trump as he responded to the debate in real time on social media.
Vance frequently complimented Trump, crediting his border policy with lowering illegal border crossings, praising his “wisdom and courage” to bring jobs back from overseas and record on healthcare — doing so in a less obsequious way than former Vice President Mike Pence often would.
“He has a record to be proud of,” Vance said of his running mate.
Trump expressed his pleasure with Vance’s performance in the series of posts on Truth Social during the debate.
“JD Vance just CRUSHED Tampon Tim with the FACTS. America was GREAT when I was President, and we will Make America Great Again after we win on November 5th!” he wrote in one.
Walz used the debate as a chance to win over moderate and independent voters, particularly those in the Midwest and Rust Belt swing states. He highlighted some of the more moderate parts of both his and Harris’ platform and record.
He praised Harris’ support for an “all-the-above energy policy” and the bipartisan border bill, while mostly avoiding falling into the trap of defending her more progressive policies on issues like abortion and immigration.
The debate strategy plays into the goals of the Harris campaign to win over centrist independents and never-Trump Republicans.
When the issue of gun control came up, Walz emphasized that he and Harris support “reasonable” measures and that they are both gun owners.
“There are reasonable things we can do to make a difference. It’s not infringing on the Second Amendment,” he said.
Walz was picked in part to appeal to voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, the three “Blue Wall” states that represent Harris’ clearest path to an Electoral College victory. And the Minnesota governor made a point of referencing those Midwest bona fides whenever possible — even as Vance, another born-and-bred Midwesterner — did the same.