I Watched the Debate So You Wouldn’t Have To: My Take on the 2024 Vice Presidential Face-off
The 2024 Vice Presidential Debate is in the books, and I tuned in so you wouldn’t have to. What we witnessed wasn’t just a simple policy exchange between Republican JD Vance and Democrat Tim Walz; it was a reflection of the stark divide shaping our nation as we head toward the most crucial election in recent memory. Throughout the night, I saw moments of candor, calculated political posturing, and a glimpse into the contrasting visions each party holds for America’s future. Now, let’s break down what happened, who stood out, and why this debate is so vital to understanding the bigger picture for our democracy.
The Debate’s Setting and Overview
The 2024 Vice Presidential Debate brought together Republican Senator JD Vance of Ohio and Democratic Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota for a lively discussion on key national issues. Although the focus was meant to be on the vice presidential candidates, it quickly became clear that both men served as representatives for their running mates: Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.
Both candidates largely kept a level of decorum, even sharing moments of apparent camaraderie. However, the debate remained pointed, with each man defending his party’s policies and taking swings at the opposing ticket. While the tone was less combative than what Americans have come to expect from recent political debates, the underlying clash of ideologies was unmistakable.
The Tone and Tactics
Governor Walz aimed to connect with viewers from the outset by criticizing Trump’s international leadership. He characterized Trump’s approach as “fickle” and lacking the necessary steadiness for global diplomacy. Walz further targeted Trump’s stance on climate change and the economy, making efforts to separate himself and his running mate, Kamala Harris, as the more stable and forward-thinking alternative.
JD Vance, on the other hand, positioned himself as the composed and strategic counterpart. While avoiding outright attacks on Walz, he often redirected questions back to Trump’s policies, casting them as beneficial to American interests. When challenged about mass deportations or Trump’s handling of the Affordable Care Act, Vance sidestepped or reshaped the narrative to place Harris and the Biden administration under scrutiny.
Climate Change, Immigration, and Health Care
The debate touched on climate change, with Walz criticizing Trump for previously labeling it a “hoax” and making light of its consequences. Vance countered by arguing that Trump’s approach prioritized American manufacturing and energy independence. He claimed that the Democrats were not doing enough to address climate concerns effectively.
On immigration, Walz and Vance acknowledged the complexities and difficulties of finding a solution to border issues. However, Vance notably dodged how Trump would achieve mass deportations, opting instead to accuse Harris of being ineffective in her role. Both candidates expressed an apparent willingness to collaborate, though their fundamental approaches to the border remained in stark contrast.
Healthcare was another battleground, with Vance lauding Trump for allegedly “salvaging” the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, this was a distortion of reality. The Trump administration’s actions sought to dismantle the ACA, rolling back its provisions and reducing support for individuals seeking coverage. The Biden-Harris administration, in contrast, worked to reinforce ACA policies and increase enrollment, making health care more accessible.
Confronting the Past and Embracing the Future
An intriguing moment in the debate came when Walz was challenged on his false claims of being in Hong Kong during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. Initially deflecting, Walz eventually admitted to “misspeaking,” calling himself a “knucklehead.” While this acknowledgment was a low point for the Democratic candidate, he regained his footing as the debate progressed, showing vulnerability but also a willingness to own up to past mistakes.
Meanwhile, Vance was well-prepared to address his flip-flopping on Trump, having once criticized the former president as potentially “America’s Hitler.” He reframed his change of heart as a recognition of Trump’s effectiveness, blaming the media for his initial misconceptions and highlighting the successes of Trump’s policies. Nonetheless, this moment also revealed Vance’s tactical political repositioning, shifting to align with Trump when it became advantageous.
The Essential Question: Who Won the 2020 Election?
The debate crescendoed with a pivotal exchange that laid bare the ideological chasm between the two candidates. Walz confronted Vance directly, asking him to affirm whether Trump lost the 2020 election. Vance’s refusal to answer this question directly and his pivot to criticize censorship on Facebook revealed a stark loyalty to Trump and an unwillingness to acknowledge the former president’s defeat. Walz pointed out this avoidance as a “damning non-answer,” underscoring a fundamental issue in the debate: the refusal to confront the truth of the 2020 election results.
Vance’s refusal to acknowledge Trump’s loss cast a shadow over his claims of supporting democracy. This noncommittal stance spoke volumes, indicating a prioritization of political allegiance over democratic principles.
Reactions and Fact-Checking
The debate drew reactions from politicians on both sides. Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and Senator Tina Smith celebrated Walz’s points, with Smith accusing Vance of “mansplaining” and asserting that undecided voters would find Walz trustworthy. Meanwhile, Republicans like Congressman Tom Emmer hailed Vance as the clear winner for staying on message about American issues.
Fact-checking from NPR and CBS News exposed discrepancies in Vance’s portrayal of Trump’s climate, immigration, and economic policies. For instance, Vance’s claims about the U.S. border being overrun with fentanyl due to Democratic policies were debunked; the reality is that most fentanyl enters through official border crossings by U.S. citizens. Moreover, Vance’s revisionist view of Trump “saving” Obamacare contradicted the record of Trump’s administration actively working to dismantle the ACA.
A Closing Reflection: The Stakes in 2024
The debate offered a microcosm of the stark differences between both parties: one side emphasizing democratic norms, transparency, and a willingness to collaborate; the other side, characterized by a desire to reframe history and remain unwaveringly loyal to Trump. Walz’s victory in the debate lay in his commitment to truth, democratic principles, and a vision for a more united America.
The upcoming election will be a defining moment for American democracy. As a moderate Democrat, I believe the stakes are incredibly high. The refusal to acknowledge Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election threatens the very foundation of our democratic process. With initiatives like Project 2025 on the horizon, the risk to our democratic values and institutions is more pronounced than ever. Kamala Harris must be elected to protect our nation’s democratic fabric and to ensure that our government remains by the people and for the people.
