The vice-presidential debate occurred in New York City on Tuesday night and began with little fanfare, going straight into the questions. Both men were noticeably nervous as one might expect. The first question involved foreign policy in light of Iran’s bombs falling on Israel earlier in the day. Quite obviously, and properly, both men supported Israel.

Interestingly though, J.D. Vance used at least half of his time to introduce himself. Whether it was appropriate or not is irrelevant. The fact is that Vance did it effectively. Most of the country doesn’t know him and the quick shift into an introduction was smart and made him sound relatable. This column will be fiercely neutral in the analysis and thus credit should be given to Vance. It was a bit of a missed opportunity for Walz – he could have pierced Vance’s pink cloud with some tough questions about Vance’s extremism in his past.

Walz did throw a zinger at Vance and Donald Trump by stating that just today Donald Trump responded to a the 2020 shelling of U.S. troops by minimizing the injuries as nothing more than headaches, a deep scar from the Trump administration reiterated again early the same day.

Vance lost a lot of momentum when asked about climate change. As a strange aside, he tried to have it both ways. He said that he would accept for the purposes of the argument that carbon emissions drove climate change and warmed the globe… Okay, but then he said that it relied on “weird science” to shift over to talk about bringing manufacturing things at home instead of China. He also said that we needed more energy in the U.S. Meanwhile, Walz effectively swatted the claim away by accurately stating that we’re producing more energy (mentioning natural gas specifically) now than ever before.

Walz delivered another zinger by stating that Donald Trump has joked about the rising seas occurring due to climate change. He referenced Trump’s comment that rising ocean levels created more “beach front property.” Trump is evidently unaware of the fact that making more beachfront property comes at the expense of using current levels that support our docks and infrastructure.

Yes, so that happened. Climate change is real and one of America’s largest oil companies knew it back in the 1970s. They chose to suppress the study and continue to drill away. The Guardian article calling the study remarkably accurate can be found here. Yes, “weird science, indeed – Exxon’s science.

See more “hoax” and weird science here.

It should be noted that both men are very respectful of each other. There are very few skirmishes and nearly no animosity directed at each other – it is refreshing to hear a primarily substantive debate. Having said that, Walz blew a big chance to bring up Vance’s many extreme comments in the past. None were mentioned in the past, nothing about cat ladies, nothing. Huge loss for Walz.

Vance did take a moment to argue with the moderator Nora O’Donnell in pushing forward to answer another question again. It got incredibly awkward and Vance did look like a bully for the only time in the debate and it came against… women moderators, not Walz.

Yes, in a mostly civil debate it was a very bad moment for J.D. Vance and for the first time in the debate he appeared a bit “Trump-like” getting bogged down and appearing overbearing.

Next up they covered taxes. Walz pushed the fact that Trump’s tax cuts went primarily to the rich and then said it was important to listen to experts on tax policy. Vance then very effectively shoved the “expert” issue aside by stating that the American people are experts in the matter and feel that tax policies don’t work for them.

Walz should probably have hit on the budget deficit much harder because the deficit grew far more quickly under Trump than it has under President Biden. To be fair, Trump had to absorb a lot of the costs of COVID but still managed to increase the deficit by nearly double over President Biden.

Vance continually and effectively continued to reference his family. He said that he had three children that he hoped were in bed, a light-hearted moment that was a nice. He has talked about his mother’s struggle with drug addiction bringing some reality home to the vaunted debate. He also brought up his wife who is an accomplished litigator.

Meanwhile, Walz spoke about his time as a teacher, and – even more effectively, brought up his time and experience as governor of Minnesota. The details about his home state left Vance with little to say as if he wasn’t quite prepared for such in-depth insights.

The debate them moved to women’s right to access abortions. As important as the issue remains, one that tears our country apart in red and blue, both seemed to present canned answers that followed the same old arguments that everyone understands. Neither moved the ball.

It got a bit more interesting in talking about the gun violence issue and in particular, shootings in public schools. Vance brought up the GOP line about issuing even more guns to resource officers while Walz talked about what such a policy would create in our schools. Walz then delivered one of his most effective lines of the night by bringing in suicides as part of the gun issue, something that truly bothers me. When it comes to suicide attempts, most fail because they are simply ineffective… except when a gun is used and those are near universally awful. Suicide are rarely brought up when discussing gun deaths but it needs to be central in my opinion.

The debate moved to healthcare – one of the most gainful areas for Democrats in this partisan era. Trump’s promise to do away with the ACA often sends shudders down people’s spines, especially when it comes to coverage of pre-existing conditions. Trump promised and then never delivered a new plan to replace the ACA. Only John McCain’s courageous “thumbs down” vote saved the ACA. Americans remember.

This goes without mention about the Biden administration’s reductions in the price of insulin – which Walz did bring up, Vance did not:

Another area that Democrats own is the needed paid family leave issue. Walz was all over it, Vance spun it. Additionally, both covered the individual mandate which requires all Americans to be insured either by their private plans or the ACA. Walz lost some momentum in wrapping his answer around the more “wonky” answer regarding the risk pool. Bad move.

In a debate in which both candidates were fighting for perhaps – at most – two million independent votes spread across all states and much fewer spread around the swing states, the issue of contesting the election as happened in 2020 slammed down. Vance tried to argue that contesting an election was normal and referenced Hillary Clinton’s statements about Russia post 2016 but no one would be fooled. Trump urged an attack on the Capitol and Walz sprung to action.

Vance salvaged some good-will by saying that if the Harris campaign is successful he would support Walz and wish him well.

Vance then spiraled out of control by refusing to admit that Biden won the 2020 election. Notably, Vance did not say that Trump won, nor did he say that the election was stolen, thus avoiding a provable lie. Walz jumped on the non-answer. This was probably the most crucial moment of the debate.

Yes, Walz’s best moment, pointing out that Vance did not answer the question. Most Americans, especially the independent voters, remember January 6th with both fear and rage. Vance had absolutely no choice but to dodge the answer. If he said that Biden won, he would infuriate Trump. If he said that Trump won he would infuriate independents. He had nowhere to go.

The debate drifted into control of social media which is a tough issue for Democrats because most of the public believes that social media somehow infringes on First Amendment rights. The first amendment covers free speech on public property (town squares and such). Any regulation of free speech on platforms would have to come through Congress and would likely have to name specific companies. It will not happen. However, disinformation on social media will be an ongoing problem that ultimately will likely need to be solved by the platforms themselves without government mandates.

Walz’s closing statement was given with a “Minnesota-nice” tone, noting that Harris’s support runs from Dick Cheney to Taylor Swift s hugely effective line because it demonstrates Trump’s extremism that hardcore conservatives and wide-eyed progressives support Biden. He then said that Donald Trump made Americans afraid, a very effective line in order to set up a positive note by discussing a promising future.

Vance then again referenced his family very effectively noting that his grandmother had to turn down the heat on cold winter nights because it was expensive. he then stumbled into a more wonky answer about energy policy. Vance moved into Harris’s biggest inherent weakness. Harris has put forth a broad vision of the future but she’s had four years in this administration teeing up a perfect response: “Why now, why not in the last four years” and even though the Vice President has very little power, it is a very effective question.

To review. Both candidates did very well. It was a civil debate where neither candidate got off script with fire and absurdity. Both were very disciplined. Vance is extremely smart and he carried himself as such. His worst moments all centered around non-answers and dodging the questions, notably on healthcare and the last election. Walz is very down-home and he wins people over with his sensibility and oozes with the “guy next door” feel. His worst moment came when he fumbled an inaccurate answer about his trip to China – which was sort of a non-issue because he got the months wrong but some people may see it as a major gaffe. He was corrected by the moderators, a big no-no.

Neither candidate moved the needle. Both sides will claim a victory but this debate was substantive and largely well-handled. My prediction is that neither will really have a big impact on the general election. Vance comes across as a very smart new star. Walz is the seasoned veteran who people can trust.

Thus it was, as seen by an attempt at neutrality.

God Bless: I can be reached at [email protected]

Help keep the site running, consider supporting.

3 COMMENTS

  1. What needle? One is a lying nazi supporter fighting for his tax cut as a member of the ultra rich and the other an honest socially concerned man supporting a woman who will finally break the glass ceiling and help the rest of us who aren’t rich. Geez America…what’s your phucking problem? I have to ask: ARE YOU STUPID OR WHAT?

    2

    • Let’s hold back on the Nazi label as it cheapens the holocaust that so many Jewish people paid the ultimate price. I prefer to leave the label to history and use other examples of fascist states.

      1

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here