Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz faced off Tuesday night in the first and only vice presidential debate of this election cycle.
The debate, hosted by CBS and moderated by anchors Margaret Brennan and Norah O’Connell, occurred three weeks after the Presidential Debate between Vice President Harris and former President Trump. It covered a wide array of key issues, ranging from abortion to rising housing costs. With only a little over a month until the presidential election, the debate serves as a final opportunity for both sides to cement their policies and potential strategies while in office.
Vice presidential debates are often called inconsequential, citing the lower viewership ratings and minimal effect on the overall outcome of the election. While the statistics on public opinion of them are true, they give voters an important view into the personalities, opinions, and rhetorical abilities of the president’s closest advisor, and allows the public to understand the policies of each side when spoken from a different mouth.
Outlets on both sides declared the debate a win for Vance and expressed a sense of relief at the cordiality of the debate. Outlets on the left praised Vance’s rhetorical strategies and collected manner, noting the contrast between his and former Trump’s manner of speaking. Outlets on the right focused on Walz’s performance on the debate stage, applauding his general affability but declaring him incapable of debating at Vance’s level.
A writer for The Guardian (Lean Left bias) wrote that “Vance was nimble, if smarmy, showing his background as a debater and a lawyer.” The writer concluded that “Vance saw his primary task as shaping Trump’s often nonsensical and entirely personally motivated ideas into a coherent, explicable political program,” adding, “Even his outrageous defense of Trump’s attempted coup was couched in soft, compromise-oriented language.”
A writer for the National Review Opinion (Right bias) called Vance’s performance “a master class in intelligent populist politics” and commended Walz for conducting himself “with notable decency, if not grace or visible comfort.” The writer believed Vance’s strongest point to be his passion, writing that he “wondered why neither presidential candidate could talk about their vision for America with one-tenth the conviction that Vance did.”
A writer for USA Today (Lean Left bias) found himself surprised at Vance’s performance, calling Vance “a better advocate for Trump than Trump himself.” The writer noted Vance’s ability to “speak to specific metrics to compare the two economies. Rather than simply asking Americans if they are better off than they were four years ago, he was able to point to exactly why they are not.” The writer then circled back to the debate as a whole, stating that “Tuesday’s debate showed that both are capable of selling the policy proposals of their running mates, which is invaluable. Most important for the country, they can do so without going for each other's throats.”
A writer for Fox News Opinion (Right bias) focused on the overall tone of the debate rather than who won, claiming, “The debate, in my estimation, was very important for a fundamental reason: it was civil, it was informative, and it included a surprisingly high degree of bipartisanship that has been noticeably absent from the 2024 presidential race.” The writer emphasized the necessity of this bipartisanship, stating that the debate proved to its audience that “we can do better as Americans, we can solve our problems and provide leadership as people who disagree, and sometimes vigorously, but have a broader purpose beyond our narrow partisan concerns.”
.png.webp)
