The VP Debate was a breath of fresh air in the tumultuous election cycles we have recently witnessed. Following a chaotic Presidential Debate, viewers witnessed a display of civility and substantive policy discussion between JD Vance and Tim Walz. The contrast between the two events highlighted the importance of respectful political discourse in shaping public opinion and informing voters. It was easier to digest the key aspects that both candidates discussed. Between the civil discourse, the constructive approach to addressing crucial topics, and the positive reactions from viewers, Americans were reminded what a debate was supposed to be like. The debate’s immediate impact on the election was setting a new standard for political discussions in the U.S.
Contrast to Presidential Debate
While the first presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump was marred by personal attacks and frequent interruptions, Walz and Vance was more impressively done. The Republican Senator from Ohio and the Democratic Governor of Minnesota addressed each other politely, even finding moments of agreement on issues like child care and housing. This marked a significant departure from the divisive rhetoric that has exhausted much of the 2024 election campaign. Even when they disagreed, the candidates did so without raising their voices or resorting to inflammatory language.
Focus on Policy
Rather than only being the center of memes, the audience was able to hear the wide range of policy issues they have been dying to hear. These topics included the economy, immigration, healthcare, and foreign policy. Walz and Vance offered contrasting visions for the country, with the Democrat emphasizing the need for greater government investment in social programs and the Republican advocating for lower taxes and reduced regulation. That is where they split and stand the most far a part.
However, both candidates also found some common ground, expressing support for bipartisan efforts to address challenges like the housing crisis and the high cost of child care. They agreed it needs to be prioritized, but with different principles and methods. Whether the debate had produced a clear winner or not, it did offer a model for how political discussions can be conducted in a way that was refreshing, and more akin to how debates used to be.
Economy and Jobs
On economic issues, Vance championed the “Made in America” populist platform that he and Trump have run on, hailing the former president for imposing sweeping tariffs on China and bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States. “For the first time in a generation, Donald Trump had the wisdom and the courage to say to that bipartisan consensus, ‘We’re not doing it anymore. We’re bringing American manufacturing back,'” Vance said.
Walz, while agreeing on the need to “derisk” the U.S. economy and support domestic manufacturing, defended the Biden-Harris administration’s record on job creation. He attempted to build his case to the hundreds of thousands of jobs created by the Inflation Reduction Act’s investments in clean energy manufacturing. This is where Walz struggled as inflation remains resilient. With inflation a highlighted discussion, the audience got to see its direct correlation of making childcare more affordable. Walz suggested bolstering the paid Medical Family Leave Act, while Vance argued that Republican tax cuts would ultimately increase middle class take home pay therefore making childcare more accessible.
Healthcare
The debate over healthcare centered on the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and protections for individuals with pre-existing conditions. Vance claimed that Trump “salvaged Obamacare” and worked in a bipartisan manner to ensure Americans had access to affordable care. However, Walz countered by reminding viewers of Trump’s repeated efforts to repeal the ACA during his presidency. When pressed on the details of Trump’s healthcare plan, Vance declined to provide specifics, saying he would not propose a “900-page bill” on the debate stage. Walz seized on this, warning that without the ACA’s protections, individuals with pre-existing conditions could lose coverage or face higher premiums.
America won tonight.
— End Tribalism in Politics (@EndTribalism) October 2, 2024
The Vance/Walz debate is everything political debates are supposed to be.
The amount of times the words “I agree with just about all of that but..” were said tonight was beautiful.
Both men were cordial, both men made great points, both men respected one… pic.twitter.com/GxMTthbsQS
Media reactions after the JD Vance vs. Tim Walz debate.
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) October 2, 2024
Geraldo Rivera: JD Vance won the debate.
NBC: Does Tim Walz have a problem with the truth?
Chris Cuomo: JD Vance fact-checked the moderators and he was right.
CNN's John King: Vance carried the important issues.
CNN's… pic.twitter.com/5rICMSivUC
Foreign Policy
Although there were many foreign policy discussions focused primarily on the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, the audience didn’t hear much about Ukraine. When asked if they would support a preemptive Israeli strike on Iran, Vance stated that the United States should support its allies “wherever they are when they’re fighting the bad guys.” Walz, while reiterating Israel’s right to defend itself, criticized Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal. The candidates also addressed U.S.-China relations, with Vance praising Trump’s tough stance on trade and tariffs. Walz, while agreeing on the need for fair trade practices, highlighted the record trade deficit with China during Trump’s presidency.
Voters’ Positive Reactions
Whether scrolling through social media or watching the post-debate analysis, the consensus was that it resonated with viewers, who expressed appreciation for the substantive exchange of ideas. According to a CBS News poll conducted immediately after the debate, an overwhelming majority of viewers felt the tone of the debate was positive. This sentiment reflects many on social media jokingly wishing those two were the Presidential candidates. These insights into the candidates’ stances will help inform those crucial undecided voters. By presenting their views without the chaos America has recently witnessed allows everyone to think more clearly.
The growing frustration with the divisive nature of contemporary politics has snapped us back to civil discourse. People in America have become too emotionally invested in the people running and their personalities, rather than what would be implemented in office. Overall, this debate left an impression of hope, rather than spiteful hate for the opposing candidate. As the election season enters its final stretch, the impact of this debate on voters’ perceptions may have been more impactful than anticipated.
Submitting the Ballot
The point of this was not to analyze who won or if the moderators were bias. Instead, it was to highlight a new standard for political discussions. The candidates humility and focus on policy issues was an approach that gave voters a clearer understanding of the candidates’ positions and let voters to do their own research. The debate’s success shows that 2024 will be the last of this chaotic era. As the election nears, this event serves as a reminder of the value of civil discourse in shaping public opinion and informing voters.
Leave A Comment