Who Won the Vance-Walz Vice-Presidential Debate?

Tuesday night’s vice-presidential debate between Republican JD Vance and Democrat Tim Walz showcased a civil discussion on key issues for American voters in the 2024 campaign, a stark contrast to the earlier presidential debates this year.

While Vance occasionally bristled at what he perceived as unfair fact-checking by the CBS moderators—leading to a brief moment when both candidates' microphones were muted—the overall tone remained restrained. There were even instances of agreement, with Walz noting, “There’s a lot of commonality here,” as they discussed affordable housing. When Walz recounted a traumatic experience involving his 17-year-old witnessing a shooting, Vance responded with genuine concern: “I'm sorry about that, and I hope he's doing OK. Christ have mercy, it is awful."

From the outset, the candidates presented contrasting styles. Vance typically exuded confidence with a smoother delivery, while Walz offered a relatable, everyman vibe. In the early exchanges, Vance appeared more at ease and articulate, while Walz seemed hesitant and less familiar with certain topics.

The debate’s civil nature likely benefited Vance, allowing him to defend Donald Trump without excessive scrutiny. He portrayed Trump’s presidency as one of low inflation and higher take-home pay, stating, “Something these guys do is make a lot of claims about terrible consequences if Donald Trump becomes president. But in reality, Donald Trump was president. Inflation was low.”

Cordiality with Clashes

The most intense moments arose toward the debate’s conclusion, particularly around Trump’s claims of a stolen 2020 election. When asked if Trump lost, Vance sidestepped the question and criticized supposed censorship by Kamala Harris, prompting Walz to label it a “damning non-answer.” He emphasized, “To deny what happened on January 6...this has got to stop. It’s tearing our country apart.” Walz pointed out that Mike Pence was absent from the stage because he certified Biden’s victory, leaving Vance with no solid response.

Two Distinct Approaches

Both candidates entered the debate with different strengths. Vance, familiar with contentious media exchanges, contrasted with Walz’s folksy campaigning style. In the debate, Vance was polished and consistent, often redirecting to criticize Democratic leadership, stating, “If Kamala Harris has such great plans...then she ought to do them now.” Walz initially struggled, particularly discussing foreign policy, but regained composure as the debate progressed. 

When discussing immigration, a Republican stronghold, Vance faced accusations about misleading claims regarding Haitian immigrants. He shifted focus to criticize Harris’s border policies, stating, “The people I'm most worried about in Springfield, Ohio are the American citizens who have had their lives ruined.” Walz countered by highlighting Trump’s opposition to bipartisan immigration efforts, asserting that Vance's alignment with Trump rendered discussions ineffective.

The conversation shifted to abortion, a key area for Democrats. Vance acknowledged the need for Republicans to regain voters’ trust, expressing a desire for a more family-oriented stance. Walz succinctly articulated the Democratic position: “We are pro-women. We are pro-freedom to make your own choice.” 

While Walz could have pressed harder on gun control, he chose to discuss background checks rather than pursuing more stringent measures, which might have disappointed some Democrats.

What’s at Stake?

Historically, vice-presidential debates have had little impact on overall election outcomes. For instance, despite a strong performance by Lloyd Bentsen against Dan Quayle in 1988, Quayle was still elected vice president.

This debate may also have minimal effect on November’s results, unless another debate is announced. Walz managed to avoid harming the Democratic ticket and showcased the midwestern charm that won him Harris’s endorsement. Meanwhile, Vance’s strong performance could energize the Republican base, reinforcing his potential as a prominent figure in conservative politics.