On Oct. 1, the recent vice presidential debate between Senator J.D. Vance and Governor Tim Walz took part, intending to highlight many key differences between the two VP candidates. In a surprise to many, the debate’s tone was far different from the earlier presidential debate, with Vance and Walz agreeing on many points as well.
Climate change
One of the first significant subjects of the debate, as well as a relevant one in light of Hurricane Helene, was climate change. Both Vance and Walz expressed sympathy for the victims of the hurricane, lamenting the American lives lost in the tragedy. Vance criticized the Biden-Harris administration for relying on foreign energy production.
“We need more manufacturing and energy production in the United States of America,” said Vance, specifically focusing on natural gas and nuclear energy.
In contrast, Walz praised the administration’s investments in eco-friendly policies.
“They have created 200,000 jobs across America,” said Walz, emphasizing that reducing environmental impact involves creating more jobs for Americans.
Immigration
Directly afterward, the subject shifted to immigration, with the two candidates being particularly divisive. Vance argued for strong enforcement of the border, advocating for mass deportations and re-implementing his running mate and former President Trump’s border policies.
“We have to stop the bleeding,” Vance said.
Walz responded by stating the need for bipartisan solutions and responding to allegations by Vance that the Harris administration let drugs into the United States by stating that the opioid crisis has seen improvement in a ‘30% decrease’ in opioid deaths.
Economy
Next, the candidates discussed their respective economic policies – a top concern for voters. Vance criticized Harris’s economic strategies, claiming they have led to higher costs for food and housing.
“Her plans are undercutting her appeal to the middle class,” Vance said.
In response, Walz defended Harris’s approach, emphasizing benefits for the middle class, including a proposed $6,000 child tax credit.
Walz also criticized Vance’s running mate, saying “Donald Trump was the guy who created the largest trade deficit in American history with China.”
Abortion
Reproductive rights was discussed, another pivotal and divisive topic for voters. Walz defended Minnesota’s abortion law, rejecting claims by Vance that he supported abortion in the ninth month. He then highlighted the dangers of restrictive laws, citing a story of a woman who nearly died due to a lack of medical care due to a pregnancy complication.
“This is about healthcare,” Walz said. “We trust women. We trust doctors.”
In response, Vance said he and Trump are focused on lowering the costs of starting families and for moms to afford to have babies.
“Pro-family in the fullest sense of the word,” said Vance, stating his and Trump’s priorities regarding abortion.
Gun control
With the second segment of the debate beginning, candidates discussed a subject that is especially important in schools across America, gun control. To start, Vance acknowledged the influx of gun violence in America, especially in schools.
“We have to increase security in our schools,” said Vance, proposing his answer to the question of how to protect the children of America inside schools. “We have to make the doors lock better. We have to make the doors stronger.”
Walz started through a personal account, sharing that his 17-year-old son witnessed a shooting and recalled a meeting with the parents of children in the tragic Sandy Hook school shooting.
“Their 7-year-olds were dead and they were asking us to do something,” Walz said. “You can still keep your firearms, and we can make a difference. We have to. Do you want your schools hardened to look like a fort?”
My take
Overall, the debate provided a useful metric for voting Americans to assess which candidates’ policies aligned with their beliefs. In the last two major political debates, namely Biden-Trump and Harris-Trump, there has been a significant margin between which candidate was believed to have “won.”
In the aftermath of the Biden-Trump debate, various news reports stated that Trump emerged as the clear victor, with various polls reflecting the change. Resulting after the Harris-Trump debate, more news outlets reported Kamala as the victor. However, the results of this debate broke away from this pattern, with a majority of polls being split down the middle, with just a couple percent margin of error.
Throughout the 2024 campaign, there have been many instances of less-than-respectful interactions between figures, such as the recent presidential debate, which left many audiences disappointed with the state of respect in American politics. This debate served not only as a measure of policies but also as a hopeful sign for the future of American politics in terms of respect and understanding, and I hope that we can follow the precedent created by this pleasant surprise in politics.
Follow Hamza (@hamza_a_zakir) and @CHSCampusNews on X.
