By: Denise Calderon, Oct. 15,2024
The first and only vice-presidential debate between Ohio Sen. JD Vance and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz occupied the attention of 43.12 million viewers Oct. 1, according to CBS News.
With Election Day less than a month away, the debate was much surprise for viewers as both candidates were cordial,unlike the former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris during the presidential debate.
Ashwin Phillips, an environmental health student, was among those who were surprised with the amicable tone and behavior of both vice-presidential candidates.
“Compared to other debates, I thought both candidates were civil and talked about actual policy,” said Phillips. “As much as I hate to say it, I thought Vance did way better in this debate than I thought he would, based on his many previous social gaffes.”
Vance and Walz discussed multiple issues ranging from immigration to reproductive rights.
CBS News journalists Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan moderated the debate and kept both candidates focused,even at times when Vance and Walz spoke after they had ran out of time.
The debate began with the most pressing foreign policy issues – a preemptive strike by Israel following Iran’s attempted attack on Israel the morning of the debate.
Walz stated the importance of Israel having a strong defense, but he mostly emphasized the importance of having strong leadership in the United States, making it known Trump was unfit to lead the country by mentioning how many of his past advisors have said he shouldn’t be in any leadership position.
Vance responded by side-tracking and introducing his working-class background to the audience and emphasized how the Trump campaign wants to restore the American dream. He did not begin to address the question until later in his response, stating it should be Israel’s choice on whether the country wants to retaliate. Like Waltz, he stressed the fact that his running mate is the best person to lead our country by stating Trump can maintain “peace through strength.”
Besides the Middle East, the topic of immigration which resonated with many viewers. Political science student Juan Gomez said that it is really important to know what solutions both sides propose about immigration because that will guide many people when casting their votes.
“The issue on immigration would have been close to solved if it wasn’t for Trump telling the Republican Party to sabotage the bipartisan bill to have better border security,” said Gomez. “Just so he can have a talking point for this election season, Walz was right to bring this up because this isn’t a left or right issue, it’s an American issue that most if not all Americans want solved.”
Walz emphasized that immigration needs to be solved collectively because it affects all Americans, but explained his belief that Trump is making false promises about building a wall Mexico would pay for and is not willing to work with other politicians on a tangible solution.
Vance, on the other hand, said “before we talk about deportations, we have to stop the bleeding.” He shared his belief that the government first needs to stop immigrants from entering the country and then start the mass deportation. He proposed they start deporting immigrants that have committed crimes and then continue with the rest.
However, immigration was something both candidates agreed was an issue that needs solving, but acknowledged they are not in agreement with how to do it.
Another pressing issue discussed was the economy and the different economic plans that each candidate wants to implement and how they will execute them without ballooning the $1.2 trillion deficit.
Walz explained Harris’ idea to implement a new housing plan that would build new homes for Americans. He also emphasized the importance of helping the middle class and said that he knows the middle class’s struggles because himself and Harris both came from middle-class families. He also brought up how they want to give tax breaks to the middle class instead of wealthier Americans like Trump did in the past. Walz claimed by doing this, Trump caused an $8 trillion increase in national debt, which has been the largest in U.S. history.
Vance rebutted, stating that under Harris, there was a 25% higher cost on food. He then questioned why she has not done anything yet for the economy in the three years she has been vice president. He also emphasized the fact Trump does not want to rely on other countries for goods, and they want everything to be manufactured in the U.S.
Reproductive rights were also a buzzing topic for many Americans. On the issue of reproductive rights, Vance displayed a more moderate view compared to Trump’s rhetoric.
I want us, as a Republican Party, to be pro-family in the fullest sense of the word. I want us to support fertility treatments,” Vance said. I want us to make it easier for moms to afford to have babies.”
Additionally, Vance stated he believed each individual state should have its own abortion laws instead of a national right for all women.
Walz highlighted the importance of restoring Roe v. Wade and how women should not have to travel to different states for any reproductive treatment or even risk death. He said he believes with the restoration of Roe v. Wade; we can bring back choice to women’s reproductive decisions.
Finally, in their closing statements, they both highlighted their stance and the importance of voting for either side. Walz made it clear he and Harris want to bring back an opportunistic economy and give people the freedom to make choices about themselves as well as emphasize that Trump has shown his true colors and that we should all believe him.
While Vance decided to bring up what he believes Harris has been doing wrong in the country, he emphasized that because Harris’ communities are filled with fentanyl and the poor are not able to afford necessities like heat in the winter, the American dream would not be achieved with Harris in charge.
With the end of the vicepresidential debate, many students may wonder about the impact it could have on the country’s future. Cal Poly Pomona political science professor Neil Chaturvedi said vice-presidential debates are useful, but they are not a breaking point for voters.
“The viewership for the VP debate was quite high (43.5 million viewers, not including streaming platforms), but in terms of the overall impact, Senator Vance said something a few weeks ago that rings true here,” said Chaturvedi. “People rarely make the decision on who to vote for based on the VP candidate,They’re voting for the top of the ticket.”
According to Chaturvedi, for the most part, vice-presidential debates are not very influential to voters, in fact Chaturvedi explained the debate is not going to be very memorable for voters.
“I don’t think the debate had a huge impact on the country’s future,” Chaturvedi said. “I think it is already fading out of the headlines. And by Election Day, few will cite it as a reason they voted one way or another. It did have an impact on JD Vance’s future, though,.I think he came off as the heir apparent for the Trump legacy.”
The debate concluded with both candidates thanking each other during the closing statements, which showed civility in comparison to their running mates. While both had differing ideologies in some respects, they were able to agree on some topics, which is not something that has been seen in previous debates.
As of now, there are no future debates announced for the 2024 election cycle. Election Day is nearing in just a couple of weeks (Nov. 5), so be sure to keep up with The Poly Post on election day for live coverage as final decisions are made.
Featured image courtesy of Pexels
