Vice Presidential Hopefuls Walz and Vance Focus on Their Opponents in Final 2024 Debate

Tim Walz, Minnesota’s Democratic governor, and JD Vance, Ohio’s Republican senator, squared off in a policy-driven debate on Tuesday, highlighting stark contrasts between their campaigns just weeks before Election Day. This debate, potentially the last of the 2024 campaign, provided both vice presidential candidates an opportunity to criticize their opponents at the top of the ticket: Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. This strategy is often used in political debates to undermine the credibility of the opposing party and redirect attention from their own potential weaknesses.

The debate began as early voting opened across the country, with millions of ballots already being cast. The discussion also unfolded against a backdrop of escalating global and domestic crises, including a missile attack by Iran on Israel, a devastating hurricane, and a looming port strike threatening to disrupt the nation’s economy.

Foreign Policy: Walz vs. Vance on Leadership

One of the most prominent points of contention was foreign policy. Walz emphasized “steady leadership” under Harris, contrasting it with what he described as Trump’s erratic response to global crises. On the other hand, Vance pushed for a return to “peace through strength,” promising effective deterrence against adversaries like Iran if Trump returned to the White House.

Walz used the opportunity to criticize Trump’s past behavior, mainly focusing on personal matters like crowd sizes during critical moments. Vance countered by attacking Harris’s role in the Biden administration, asserting that the recent attacks on Israel occurred under her watch as vice president.

Attacks Focused on Top of the Ticket

While both candidates debated policy, most attacks were directed at their opponents at the top of the ticket. Walz repeatedly criticized Trump’s unfulfilled promise of building a border wall. At the same time, Vance accused Harris of failing to address critical issues like immigration and national security.

The debate reflected the historical role of vice presidential candidates, who typically serve as “attack dogs” for their running mates. Walz pointed out Trump’s failure to fund his border wall project, while Vance shifted the blame for the country’s immigration challenges to Harris.

Substance Over Soundbites

In a departure from the social media-friendly quips that often dominate modern political debates, Tuesday’s discussion was notably policy-heavy. Walz and Vance delved into healthcare, housing, and energy policy, discussing the intricate details of government programs and regulations.

Walz, for instance, drew on his experience in the House of Representatives to discuss the Affordable Care Act, while Vance cited a Federal Reserve study to back his claims on housing prices. Both candidates linked energy policy to climate change and trade, reflecting a thoughtful approach to complex issues.

Abortion: A Heated Topic

The debate over abortion rights also took center stage. Walz accused Vance of advocating for policies that would limit women’s rights based on geography, emphasizing that reproductive decisions should be left to women and their doctors. Vance, meanwhile, supported a state-by-state approach to abortion, arguing that local governments should have more control over such issues.

The debate became more personal when Walz referenced the tragic death of Amber Thurman, a woman who died after being denied a medical procedure related to an abortion. Vance acknowledged the tragedy but maintained that the Republican ticket’s policies would better support women and children economically, reducing the need for abortions.

Climate Change: A Domestic Focus

Both candidates focused on domestic solutions when asked about climate change in the context of the recent Hurricane Helene. Vance argued that bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. would help fight climate change, pointing to the country’s relatively clean energy economy. Walz touted the Biden administration’s investments in renewable energy and record levels of oil and natural gas production, presenting an optimistic vision of the U.S. as a future energy superpower.

Immigration: Blame on the Opponents

Both candidates agreed that the immigration system is broken but disagreed on who was to blame. Vance repeatedly called Harris the “border czar,” suggesting she was responsible for the country’s current immigration problems. He proposed more stringent border control policies. Walz, in turn, accused Trump of killing a bipartisan deal to improve border security and speed up immigration processing. He advocated for a more humane and efficient immigration system.

Avoiding Tough Questions

As in many debates, both candidates sidestepped tough questions. Vance, for instance, avoided directly answering whether Trump’s immigration plan would separate families, while Walz skirted a question on whether he would support a preemptive strike by Israel against Iran.

Walz’s Missteps and Vance’s Defense of Jan. 6

Walz stumbled through several moments in the debate, including confusing Iran and Israel early on. However, he landed some effective punches, particularly on the issue of abortion and Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Vance, meanwhile, defended his stance on the Jan. 6 insurrection, refusing to back down from his support of Trump’s false election claims.

As the debate concluded, the differences between the two candidates were clear. Walz presented himself as a steady leader who would defend democratic institutions, while Vance aligned himself with Trump’s vision of America, focused on restoring strength and order. The stage is now set for voters to decide which vision will prevail in the upcoming election.