The vice presidential candidates faced off in New York on Tuesday night to debate their platforms and defend their respective running mates.
With polls indicating one of the tightest elections in history, and several major crises facing the country and the world in the days leading up to the debate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic Party‘s nominee for vice president and his Republican counterpart Sen. JD Vance clashed over foreign policy, economics, border security, abortion and the peaceful transfer of power.
Newsweek heard from analysts, experts in debate, and professors of political science, who have broken down which points they think landed, which points did not, and overall, who they believe walked away on top.
Matt Rourke/ASSOCIATED PRESS
What were the candidates hoping to get out of this debate going into it?
“I believe Vance was hoping to seem ‘normal’ rather than ‘weird,’ trying to improve his approval ratings. Walz needed to be specific about the Democratic ticket’s policies. Both seemed to want to portray a ‘bromance’ in order to calm the Trumpian waters and national divisions.” — Barbara A. Perry, professor and presidential historian at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center and Kennedy biographer.
“Vance wanted to make up for a poor Trump debate performance in Philadelphia and improve his job approval numbers, which remain underwater. Vance wanted to do a better job prosecuting the first term of the Biden/Harris administration and focus on issues where the campaign has an edge—the economy, inflation and immigration. Walz wanted to build upon the momentum Harris achieved for the ticket after besting Trump on the debate stage in her first ever presidential debate.He was put on the ticket to make inroads with blue collar moderate voters in the Blue Wall states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Walz can be an attack dog while doing it with a smile on his face and [using] folksy language.” — Aaron Kall, director of debate at University of Michigan.
“Walz and Vance are primarily hoping to help their primary Presidential leads gain traction in the polls. They want to gain any undecided voters that might remain in the public and they want to galvanize the partisans on their respective sides to be energized for their campaign.” — Ben Voth, professor of rhetoric and director of debate at Southern Methodist University.
“The expectations were fairly high for both of these candidates going into tonight’s VP debate. To the extent each campaign has a ‘good cop’ and a ‘bad cop,’ Vance plays the ‘good cop’ role on his ticket and Walz plays the ‘bad cop’ role on his. This dynamic had the potential to produce an incendiary match-up, but sparks did not fly. In the debate, both candidates were going out of their way at times to appear affable and agreeable with one another. At moments, the Midwestern vibe was seeping out of the TV and puddling on the floor.” — Jennifer N. Victor, associate professor of political science at George Mason University.
“Vance wanted to seem more presidential and less ‘mean’ and he mostly accomplished that goal. Walz wanted to emphasize his appeal to moderates, especially in Midwest swing states.” — Wendy J. Schiller, professor of political science at Brown University.
Who won overall?
“Walz won on a game-ending score with his responses to the question about Jan. 6. His ‘you’re no Jack Kennedy’ lowering of the boom was to tell Vance, who would not admit that Trump lost in 2020, he was no Mike Pence.” — Dr. Barbara A. Perry, professor and presidential historian at the University of Virginia’ s Miller Center and Kennedy biographer.
“I would give a slight edge to Vance. He had a much tougher assignment coming into tonight and delivered under pressure. He seemed more acclimated for the moment and came across as more thoughtful and sympathetic than currently portrayed. Vance had a much faster start to the evening and the early subjects of Iran, immigration and the economy were in his wheelhouse. Conversely, Walz struggled out the gate with several uncomfortable pauses and gestures. He was clearly nervous and the debate stage may not be his most favorable forum. Walz was best surrounding the final discussion of the 2020 election and January 6th. This came over 90 minutes into the evening and by then many viewers may have already tuned out. General impressions of political debates are usually formed in the first half-hour or so.” — Aaron Kall, director of debate at University of Michigan.
“I thought Vance won the first half of the debate and Walz won the second half. But in my overall scoring, Vance scored slightly higher than Walz. It was a rare occasion where both debaters scored in the “A” range of my methodology. — Dr. Ben Voth, professor of rhetoric and director of debate at Southern Methodist University.
“Ultimately, Vance won on style and Walz won on substance.” — Jennifer N. Victor, associate professor of political science at George Mason University.
“Vance won by not looking as extreme as his campaign trail comments and doing a bit of filibustering in his answers; Walz was not quite as sharp but he did take opportunities to tie Vance to Trump as much as possible. Each candidate essentially stuck to their respective campaign themes.” — Wendy J. Schiller, professor of political science at Brown University.
Who won which points?
“Vance won on inflation, immigration, China, and loss of American jobs. Walz won on abortion, reproductive health care, guns, ACA [Affordable Care Act], and democracy (Jan. 6). — Dr. Barbara A. Perry, professor and presidential historian at the University of Virginia’ s Miller Center and Kennedy biographer.
“Vance continued to excel over issues like the economy, inflation, and immigration. He did a better job of prosecuting the case against Biden/Harris inaction over the last several years. Vance reminded voters of what they liked most about Trump’s first term in office and pointed out there was less international turmoil during that time. He had faint praise for President Biden on the issue of trade tariffs, which is a big economic focus of the campaign. He’s done many interviews while on the campaign trail, even with adversarial media outlets. This recent experience proved quite helpful and contributed to a smoother and more consistent overall performance. Walz found his footing late in the debate over issues like democracy and the peaceful transition of power. It was a mistake for Vance to equate this subject to Facebook censorship and he remained defensive about what happened on January 6th at the Capitol. I also believe it was a mistake for Vance to criticize the moderators for fact-checking since their own journalistic ethics and those of the CBS Network may require it in rare circumstances.” — Aaron Kall, director of debate at University of Michigan.
“I thought the biggest mismatch was on the first question where Walz appeared a bit confused and almost like a deer in headlights. He seemed to miss or be unwilling to specifically answer whether Israel should be allowed to do a preemptive strike. Vance’s answer seemed quite strong in saying Israel should decide its own security interests. In the first half of the debate I thought Vance was exerting more effective control over the answers and refutation. I thought his counter against CBS fact-checking was a good move for him especially with regard to his base and I would have advised more of that. I thought Walz became quite strong in the middle of the debate as the discussion turned toward abortion. He appeared to win Vance to his side which is something that rarely happens in political debates. I thought Walz was looking strong on questions such as the 2020 election and Trump’s position. I think Walz in that part of the debate was relatively strong in dissociating Vance from defending Trump.” — Dr. Ben Voth, professor of rhetoric and director of debate at Southern Methodist University.
“Vance’s responses were articulate, smooth, confidently delivered, and assertive. While I suspect the fact-checking is going to be brutal on his performance, anyone who watched this debate on mute or in a noisy bar, probably saw Vance as the winner. He never got rattled. His answers were disciplined and sharp. Regardless of the question posed, he routinely answered by coming back to his primary talking points about illegal immigrants posing a threat and Kamala Harris being to blame—even though both of those claims are false, this is the main message of the Trump-Vance campaign. Walz’s last 30 minutes were his strongest –– on child care, health care, and democracy. Walz directly called Vance out for avoiding the question about Trump losing the 2020 election and the exchange got testy in a way that gave Walz the advantage. Vance claimed that democratic quality was more about censorship than about election denial, but Walz did not let that answer stand and made his most memorable moments of the night by correcting the record on Trump lying about the 2020 election outcome. Unfortunately for Walz, this biting monologue was delivered well after 10 p.m. on the East coast and I suspect the audience was thin at that point. But I bet those clips show up in Harris ads in the next few weeks.” — Jennifer N. Victor, associate professor of political science at George Mason University.
“Vance was strong on border security failures in the Biden administration as well as the high costs of housing and inflation and reminding voters about Trump’s economic record. Walz scored some points on Trump’s unpredictability and how it makes the world less safe, abortion, defending the Affordable Care Act, and his January 6th point about voting for allegiance to the democracy or voting for allegiance to Donald Trump.” — Wendy J. Schiller, professor of political science at Brown University.
What could have gone better for each candidate?
“Vance, who is an effective speaker, presumably from his Yale Law and podcast experiences, seemed to be running out of steam by the end, and his comments on J6 were ludicrous (Trump left office peacefully on Jan. 20!). Walz needed a bit more energy at the beginning and less frowning. The question to him about his trips to China was unnecessary, but he was awkward in answering. Couldn’t the moderators have asked Vance about the lies told daily by Trump?” — Dr. Barbara A. Perry, professor and presidential historian at the University of Virginia’ s Miller Center and Kennedy biographer.
“It would have helped Tim Walz if some more favorable terrain and topics were covered earlier in the night. This could have helped him get off to a faster start and provide some much-needed momentum during his first debate at this top level. Kamala Harris benefited from several instances of timely fact-checking during the Philadelphia debate. Walz was aided by this just once and tonight the candidates were largely left to fend for themselves in this department. An extended discussion on abortion wasn’t ideal for Vance, as well as closing on the topic of January 6th. These are tough issues to rebut, but continually come up in these important debates. This was one of the most civil political debates in recent memory and Vance probably benefited from this the most. Walz may have benefited more from the combative and testy debate we saw in Philadelphia.” — Aaron Kall, director of debate at University of Michigan.
“Walz needed a stronger start and a better sense of foreign policy. Walz’s answers on immigration did not seem strong. Vance may have compromised too much on issues such as abortion and child care, making himself less appealing to a conservative base. It is possible that Vance’s adaptations attracted moderate voters more than it hurt his conservative partisans.” — Dr. Ben Voth, professor of rhetoric and director of debate at Southern Methodist University.
“Vance hammered his talking points to the point of nonsense in a few places (the environment and housing responses come to mind). But answering the question you want to rather than the one you’re asked is a good debate strategy and Vance is a polished performer, so many of these came off as strong answers. Walz does best when he is in his folksy, smiling, lovable mode and a debate stage just isn’t the venue for that demeanor. The guy who won over a lot of people with his hearty laugh spent most of the night wearing a deep frown on a very serious face, which was appropriate for the situation, but not a vibe that helps him win voters.” — Jennifer N. Victor, associate professor of political science at George Mason University.
“Vance’s performance was very polished and I am not sure he could have improved anything. Walz was not as smooth and could have jumped in more aggressively to interrupt Vance and challenge him when Vance was attacking Harris. I did think that Walz’s close was better than Vance’s in trying to generate positive support for Harris.” — Wendy J. Schiller, professor of political science at Brown University.