Takeaways from the vice presidential debate between Vance and Walz

In a vice presidential debate that is unlikely to alter the presidential race's trajectory, the running mates maintained a cordial tone, directing their criticisms at the top of the opposing tickets and focusing on policy differences. Vance criticized Vice President Kamala Harris on border security, while Walz attacked former President Donald Trump on abortion rights. Vance, representing the Republican ticket, presented a younger and more polite demeanor compared to Trump. He correctly pronounced Harris' first name and referred to his opponent by title, avoiding complaints about the moderators—a contrast to Trump's behavior on his Truth Social platform. Vance also refrained from delving into Walz’s personal history.

Walz appeared less comfortable initially but found his footing as the debate progressed. He portrayed Trump as a liar who disregards expert advice and rejects inconvenient truths. The debate centered almost entirely on domestic issues; although it began with a question about the Israel-Iran conflict, it did not address U.S. support for Ukraine in its war with Russia.

The debate concluded with an unusually civil moment: candidates shook hands, chatted off-microphone, and lingered as their wives joined them.

Here are seven takeaways from this vice presidential debate:

1. Vance Dodges January 6: The starkest divide emerged when Walz pressed Vance on the January 6 insurrection and Trump's false claims about winning the 2020 election. Vance avoided directly answering whether Trump lost in 2020, instead focusing on future issues and comparing Democratic reactions to Russian interference in 2016.

2. Walz’s Direct Challenge: Walz emphasized Trump's refusal to accept his loss in 2020 and highlighted the violence against police officers during the Capitol riot, stressing that democracy is more important than winning an election.

3. Vance’s Redirection Attempts: Vance tried to shift discussions towards social media censorship but was repeatedly countered by Walz, who argued that Trump was preparing to reject future election results if he loses again.

4. Midwestern Civility: Reflecting typical American debates over contentious issues, both candidates avoided personal attacks and focused on agreeing that certain issues like housing crises and gun violence need addressing.

5. Policy Over Personal Attacks: Both candidates largely stuck to policy discussions rather than personal jabs, maintaining a level of decorum not often seen in recent political debates.

6. Domestic Focus: The debate was heavily centered on domestic policies despite briefly touching upon international conflicts at its start.

The debate between Vance and Walz was marked by a surprising level of civility, despite their efforts to portray each other's presidential candidates as divisive. On abortion, Walz criticized Vance's running mate's stance, while Vance acknowledged some merit in Walz's ideas but emphasized Kamala Harris's political experience. 

Springfield pet-eating claims feature in immigration clash

During a debate over immigration and border security, Walz brought up Vance's false accusations about Haitian immigrants eating Springfield, Ohio residents' pets. "There are consequences for this," Walz said, noting that Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, sent state troopers to Springfield to secure the safety of children following a series of bomb threats. Vance shot back, “The people I care most about in Springfield are the American citizens.”

According to Vance, as a result of the surge of migrants, "you've got schools that are overwhelmed, hospitals that are overwhelmed, and housing that is totally unaffordable" in the Ohio city and others. 

What Vance did not state was that the 12,000 to 15,000 Haitian migrants in Springfield are legally present in the United States. However, Walz did not fact-check Vance on that point. When he didn't, CBS moderator Margaret Brennan clarified the immigrants' legal status.  The Springfield standoff occurred during a lengthy debate over immigration policy. Vance often referred to Harris as President Joe Biden's "border czar," a reference to her 2021 mandate to address the core causes of Central American migration. Walz also chastised Trump for his involvement in obstructing a bipartisan border security bill earlier this year, claiming the previous president did so to keep immigration alive as a campaign issue. “We could come together and solve this if we didn’t let Donald Trump continue to make it an issue,” Walz said.

Walz says he ‘misspoke’ about his presence at Tiananmen Square

Prior to the debate on Tuesday, Walz had stated that he had visited China "about thirty times." However, recent research by Minnesota Public Radio News and APM Reports cast doubt on this assertion. Reports refuted those assertions, particularly with regard to the governor of Minnesota's presence in Hong Kong in 1989 during the Tiananmen Square protests. Further details about Walz's assertions were also covered by CNN earlier on Tuesday. Speaking to reporters regarding the reports and the difference, a Harris campaign spokesman stated that it was "probably closer to 15" times. 

 Additionally, Walz avoided direct questions during the debate by first discussing his background and ascent to prominence in political politics before acknowledging that he occasionally acts like a "knucklehead" and that he "misspoke."

Vance mentioned Walz's concession in a different question immediately after, but he didn't try to take advantage of it directly. He said, "When you misspeak, you ought to be honest with the American people about that." 

A dividing line over abortion

Rights of the State or Human Rights? That became the basis of the abortion rights discussion between Walz and Vance.

Of course, each contender was ready to address the matter. However, what was remarkable was the clarity on both ends.
Vance contended that rulemaking ought to be as decentralized as possible, back to the states, because the US is such a diverse nation in so many respects.

Vance expressed a position that Trump hasn't been entirely clear about, saying, "We have a big country and it's diverse and California has a different viewpoint on this than Georgia." (Trump stated on social media that he would veto a federal ban on abortion, confirming what he had wavered on in his own debate.)

"The states will make this decision; what is appropriate in Texas may not be in Washington. That's not how this operates, according to Walz. "These are fundamental human rights. Since the limits went into place, we have witnessed a sharp increase in maternal mortality in Texas that has outpaced many reports worldwide.

Vance, though, who played the majority of the game on the front foot, was more circumspect in this exchange. Aiming directly at the concerns of swing voters, he stated that the Republican Party has to do a better job of promoting "pro-family" measures, such as cheap housing and access to fertility treatments, as many opponents of abortion have pledged.

Trump repeatedly asked Walz to respond to his false assertion that the Minnesota governor supports abortion in the ninth month. The personal stories of women who faced health crises or died due to state abortion bans were brought up by Walz in one of his stronger moments.

We restored Roe v. Wade in Minnesota, Walz said. Women were in charge of their health care, we made sure.

The governor made a mistake when he said the Trump campaign and the conservative Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 would create a "registry of pregnancy announcements." Data on abortions would be required by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Vance was asked if the Trump campaign wants to establish a federal pregnancy monitoring agency, referring to another past claim by Walz. “Certainly we won’t,” Vance said. 

Conversation on gun violence

Regarding gun violence in America, Vance and Walz had a discussion that was akin to productive dialogue. They both agreed that the problem is serious, is growing worse, and requires attention, particularly in schools. This is significant because it shows how ineffective previous Democratic-led attempts to halt the murderous flow have been. Though there were pleasant gestures between the two onstage, the question of how to handle it remained unanswered. At one point, Vance went so far as to say that the extent and duration of the problem made the present administration's border policy—or, in his words, "Kamala Harris' open border"—a non sequitur. He did concede, though, that it was a more nuanced matter. “ 

Walz mostly agreed with that sentiment but fought to keep the conversation from turning into a stalemate. When Vance pointed to mental health and drug use as another cause of gun deaths, Walz sought to refocus the conversation. “Sometimes it just is the guns,” Walz said. “It’s just the guns.” The Minnesota governor agreed that lawmakers “should look at all the issues” but stopped there to add a line of caution. “This idea of stigmatizing mental health – just because you have a mental health issue doesn’t mean you’re violent,” Walz said. The candidates also shared concerns over how schools were responding to the threat of active shooters. Again, though, Vance treated the issue as something more like a force of nature than a policy question.  

“I unfortunately think we have to increase security in our schools,” he said, acknowledging that it was not a pleasant prospect. “We have to make the doors lock better. We have to make the doors stronger. We’ve got to make the windows stronger.” Walz agreed, in part, but, in urging tighter restrictions, asked viewers, “Do you want your schools hardened to look like a fort?”

Scrutinizing Trump’s ‘concepts of a plan’ on health care

Vance was forced to explain the "concepts of a plan" that Trump had stated in his last debate to replace the Affordable Care Act, as well as whether or not he could ensure that Americans with pre-existing diseases wouldn't have to pay more for health care under his proposal.

“Well of course we’re going to cover Americans with pre-existing conditions,” Vance said.

But Trump has never said how he would alter the core features of the Affordable Care Act, including as the requirement that insurance providers cover people with pre-existing diseases and the continuation of parental insurance for children up to the age of 26.

Furthermore, Vance stated he is "not going to propose a 900-page bill standing on a debate stage," declining to give into specifics about any aspect of Trump's proposal. Everyone would become bored and cry. The give-and-take of bipartisan negotiation is a part of this, so it wouldn't really signify anything, he added.

Walz immediately launched an attack, drawing attention to Trump's 2016 promise to abolish former President Barack Obama's flagship statute. Walz highlighted that this attempt might have been successful if the late Senator John McCain hadn't delivered the swing vote against a repeal.

“Go back and remember this: He ran on — the first thing he was going to do on day one, was repeal Obamacare,” Walz said. “What that means to you is, you lose your pre-existing conditions. If you’re sitting at home and you’ve got asthma? Too bad. If you’re a woman? Probably not. Broke your foot during football? Might kick you out. Your kids get kicked out when they’re 26.”