The VP debate has just concluded and, thus, the final chance for either campaign to make their case to America. Normally, the doings of Vice Presidents mean very little to the grand scheme of the presidential campaign, but in a race that is tied both nationally and in the critical swing states, any slight bounce can make all the difference and give the candidate the boost to win this election.
This Vice Presidential debate wasn’t filled with the pomp and “one-liners” in stark contrast to the first Presidential Debate in September, but it certainly wasn’t uneventful. Now, with just 30 days until election day, the final Debate State of the Race is upon us as we examine the performance of both Senator Vance and Governor Walz.
JD Vance
With only a month left to etch a lasting mark in the upcoming election, JD Vance had to pull complete political artistry to save face for the Republican Party- particularly, its patriarch Donald J. Trump, loosely lagging behind the seemingly spontaneous Harris-Walz campaign. Faced with this great task of restructuring American trust and domestic security, Vance takes a swift approach to showing his full capability during this pivotal debate.
Much like the structured nature of his debate responses, his assertive composure within this debate created consonance within his own party and their notorious efforts thus far in the election. Concerns of Trump’s age, acuity, and his forceful reputation among the nation are 3 factors among many that leave voters weary of his re-election– Vance, this perfect harmony to Trump’s shortcomings, was the perfect recipe for the party’s social balance; perhaps, sitting behind Trump’s shadow might have been exactly the plan. With JD Vance’s warm welcome to many American families at the national debate set the stage, the idea of him carrying the Republican party to tip scales once again not only solidified fitness as a running mate, but a new vital asset to the Trump-Vance campaign.
Senator JD Vance has prepared his entire career to execute his argument; with his background working his way up to being a poor country boy to Yale Law graduate, attorney, and bestselling author, he brought together his expertise to create a compelling case, poking holes into the Democratic Party in hopes to secure national victory come election day- all of his colors overlapping on debate night, painting a brighter future for the Republican Party.
Opening of Debate
With foreign policy first on our national agenda, Vance addressed the greater crisis brewing in the Middle East- especially during heightened tensions due to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict and the abruption of Iranian airstrikes launched towards Israel earlier that day. Backing the unpopular opinions shared within the Republican Party, Vance demonstrates his national support for Israel’s sovereignty and defense- calling for increased international diplomacy, while also criticizing the Biden- Harris administration for not previously interfering with foreign threats- not “establishing effective deterrence” as he exemplifies Trump’s presidency.
As for our domestic issues, moderators swiftly addressed the recent developments of the deadly natural disaster, Hurricane Helene, devastating North Carolina and its greater ties to our nation’s role in acting upon the impending climate crisis- in which JD Vance backs Trump’s traditional stances. Future U.S. Plans to combat our detrimental environmental state were provided as effects from prioritizing American industry- a “sustainable” (and convenient) detail positioned at this debate’s juncture, seemingly “debunking” commonly held assumptions about carbon emissions and sustainable output towards making the U.S. a greener nation. Essentially boosting prior plans to boost American production, infrastructure, and nuclear power plants, mirroring Trump’s outspoken sentiments within the last 4 years. This take, which typically would have caused great social division about the climate crisis, created more middle ground for Americans watching the debate as Vance provided a “win-win” approach in boosting American labor, wages, and inherent climate protection following critiques of Harris-Walz’s commitments to rely on foreign produced energy and labor.
Another key takeaway that led to Vance’s compelling debate performance was his steadfast commitment to Trump’s vision of tighter and restrictive immigration policies, a core issue that defines their campaign. Though unpopular, Vance makes the case following Trump’s alleged vision to carry out the biggest mass deportation missions in American history, promising domestic citizens increased security and opportunity that far extends the “neglect” left by their opposition. Similarly claiming that the Trump-Vance campaign must clean up the mess of mediocre border policies fostered by the Harris-Walz campaign, Vance opens up the discussion by pointing out inadequacies and political deterrence within Harris’s 3 and a half years in executive office- being particularly mindful about not blaming the whole of the Democratic Party or the left and praising Walz’s personal drive to come to a close about this pressing issue; a type of political correctness and unity that leaves a sweet taste against Trump’s objectively bitter demeanor towards his opponents. Leaning into his rationale, Vance structured his controversial remarks on illegal immigration on a problem-solution basis by honing in on nuanced topics of increased fentanyl diffusion and family separation circumstances correlated to border control – in comparison, a more productive stance than criticizing marginalized groups as Trump’s sensationalized remark about Haitian immigrants in Springfield Ohio.
Starting from the Bottom, Republicans Work Up
What usually leaves audiences captivated by Trump’s performances aside from his reality TV demeanor in politics is his contributions towards the U.S. economy. Vance stands behind Trump’s reiterated economic advice as he upscores Walz’s argument over what seems to be the Democratic party’s “concepts of a plan”- their “Opportunity Economy” based on mere promises to the American middle class and revitalize small business. With a haphazard structure, no paved roads have yet to reach this idealistic objective; it’s clear that Walz’s delivery of this idealized economic structure didn’t do their party justice in this aspect of the debate. Instead, Vance recurrently ties back to Trump’s economic policy lead by promoting aforementioned American energy and praising numerous tax cuts previously enacted within Trump’s last presidency. He provides America with an alternative: defending the claim that the Harris-Walz campaign would increase the national deficit by a whopping 4 trillion; silencing any flippant retaliation from the opponent and weaving in a timely discussion about China’s role in our domestic production and national profit.
Democracy Always Speaks
Coming to a near close in the debate, Americans are primarily concerned with history repeating itself, with core values of democracy threatened after the January 6th riots in the U.S. Capitol. At this time, Vance did blunder his performance by his most significant margins by dodging clear and concise responses towards the national crisis, cushioning Trump’s stance on the real winner of the 2020 election- fighting back against Walz’s rebuttal over safeguarding integral elections and party sincerity. This led Vance to take a cheap stance on “censorship” towards the severity of this event- an inevitable blunder on his end.
Tim Walz
Coming into the debate, the Governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, had set a high burden upon himself to not “disappoint” his running mate Kamala Harris, and he went on an intense regiment of preparation; veteran staffers and White House officials all aided Walz in his effort to gain a better grasp on the issue, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg stood in as JD Vance and veteran Biden White House alumni Rob Friedlander and Zayn Siddique ran the operations for the debate. Through mountains of preparation and effort to prepare the Governor, senior sources acknowledged that Walz was a “bad debater” and went against the polished ivy-league Senatorial stature of JD Vance. Thus, the strategy wasn’t to defeat Vance on the issues but rather introduce Walz as the “folksy next-door neighbor” by emphasizing both his teaching and coaching experience to compensate for a more superficial understanding of the issues: in a way, the Walz effort succeeded, but only towards the latter half of the debate after numerous early stumbles by Walz.
Opening of the Debate
Foreign policy dominated the beginning of the course of the debate, focusing on the crisis in the Middle East. In lieu of the recent strikes against Israel by Iran, Governor Walz attempted to pin the blame of Iran’s closeness to acquiring a nuclear weapon upon the Trump administration, to where Vance then turned to blame Harris over the Biden administration’s record over the past four years. The debate quickly shifts thereafter to the response to Hurricane Helene and its repercussions linked to climate change; JD Vance acknowledged the need to tackle “extreme weather events” and then proceeded to cast doubt upon the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate change itself. More significantly, when Walz linked climate change to the effects upon Minnesota farmers and their “corn, wheat and squash’: there’s the folksy angle, but the layup issue for the Republican campaign then proceeded to ensue.
The border has proven to be the Achilles heel for the Democratic party, and Walz launched into an attack against Trump for “sinking” the toughest border control bill, but there was an air of civility almost where Vance remarked that he believed that Walz was genuine in wanting to fix the border problem but that Kamala Harris was not; the altercation then turned ugly when the moderators asserted that the migrants in Springfield, Ohio were legal after Walz lambasted Vance and Trumps’ controversial remarks of illegal immigrants, and in the case of Trump, him stating the illegal immigrants were eating the “cats and dogs” of residents. Vance attacked the hosts for fact-checking and “breaking the rules” the two campaigns agreed upon before the debate.
A Stumbling Middle
The fork in the road came during the economy discussion; Walz articulated the Harris plan rather choppily and speedily with the overall premise of making the economy fair for everyone with an expansion of the child tax credit and aid given to potential first-time homeowners. Vance articulated the tax policy position in an extremely polished way, defending the Trump tax cuts and defending against the statistic by the Wharton School of Economics that stated that his plan would add 4 trillion to the national deficit by stating that the same experts advised that “America become less self-reliant,” as to which Walz agreed with Vance’s sentiment about how manufacturing leaving the US for China has decimated many towns; on the subject of China, the conversation turned for the worse when Walz was confronted about conflicting reports as to his whereabouts during the Tiananmen Square Massacre.
The moderators then shifted to asking about abortion rights; Walz remained staunch in his support for abortion while Vance gambled it off as a “religious issue” where Harris was imposing abortion upon christians, but the most striking thing that Vance stated was that he acknowledged that the Republicans had been too hard on this issue and that they had to gain the confidence of voters back. Vance’s position is stark compared to the hardline he took on abortion rhetoric during the 2022 Ohio Senate primary where he favored a national abortion ban.
Fiery End
Walz stumbled and looked nervous throughout the debate prior to the last 30 minutes of the debate, but he became rather alive towards the latter end of the debate. After more issue discussion relating to gun violence and a particularly touching moment where Vance gave Walz condolences when he stated that his daughter had witnessed a mass shooting. The candidates found more common ground on the housing issue where the main issue being discussed was what to do with federal lands and how according to Walz you can’t drill and build housing on federal land simultaneously. But when prompted about the issue of election integrity, the debate took its most fiery turn.
When prompted by the moderators as to whether JD Vance thought whether or not Biden won the 2020 election: he refused to give a concrete answer. Vance avoided the 2020 question by saying that him and Trump were focused on the future. Vance continually dodged questions about election denial and asserted the real “election interference” was the “censorship” engaged by social media companies against conservatives.
Leave a Reply