The vice-presidential debate between Tim Walz, Democratic governor of Minnesota, and JD Vance, Republican senator from Ohio, highlighted deep divisions over key political issues in the U.S., including foreign policy, immigration, the economy, and reproductive rights. Walz, with a focus on stability and inclusion, contrasted sharply with Vance’s more aggressive stance, relying on rhetoric of “peace through strength” and a return to Donald Trump’s policies.
Middle East crisis and foreign policy
The debate opened with the growing tensions in the Middle East, particularly following the ballistic missile attack by Iran on Israel. Tim Walz seized the opportunity to advocate for a foreign policy rooted in “steady leadership,” reflecting Kamala Harris’s ability to manage crises with firmness and empathy. He emphasized the need for thoughtful leadership in times of global instability, criticizing Donald Trump for being unpredictable and risky, arguing that this kind of behavior endangers the world.
JD Vance, following the traditional Republican line, pushed for “peace through strength,” suggesting that Trump’s intimidating presence was enough to maintain global stability. However, Walz skillfully pointed out that tensions in the Middle East, including recent attacks, had escalated during Harris’s administration, emphasizing the necessity of a more diplomatic and collaborative approach for lasting peace. Unlike Vance, Walz demonstrated a deep understanding of the complexities of international relations and the importance of solid global dialogue.
Immigration and the U.S.-Mexico border
Immigration was another central theme of the debate. Tim Walz strongly criticized Donald Trump’s failure to deliver on his campaign promise to build a wall along the Mexican border. Walz directly noted that less than 2% of the wall was built and that Mexico never paid for it, as Trump had promised. He used this example to illustrate the previous administration’s failure to address real immigration and border security issues.
Vance, on the other hand, insisted on reviving Trump’s policies, such as building the wall, but failed to offer practical solutions for the immigration crisis. Walz seized the moment to highlight that, rather than solving the issue, Republicans have vilified immigrants, creating unnecessary divisions within society. He cited an example from Vance’s home state of Ohio, where false allegations amplified by Trump and Vance about Haitian immigrants had heightened social tension. Walz’s approach was clear: immigration requires a fair and humane solution, not divisive rhetoric.
Economy and job plans
The economy was another key topic, and Walz underscored how Kamala Harris’s policies offer an inclusive path forward for all Americans, focusing on job creation and sustainable growth. He criticized the Trump-Vance approach as benefiting the wealthy, reminding viewers that Trump hadn’t paid federal taxes for 15 years, while ordinary Americans continued to shoulder the tax burden.
Walz also highlighted the negative economic impact of Trump’s policies, pointing out that, even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the country was facing an industrial recession that had left millions unemployed. Vance, meanwhile, repeated promises to cut taxes for large companies and suggested penalizing firms that outsource jobs overseas, but failed to provide a detailed plan for helping the American workforce. Walz emphasized the importance of an economic system that works for everyone, especially the workers hit hardest by Republican policies.
Reproductive rights and abortion
When it came to reproductive rights, Tim Walz was clear in his defense of abortion rights and his criticism of Donald Trump’s role in overturning Roe v. Wade. He pointed out that the repeal of this landmark ruling represented a direct attack on women’s rights and argued that when Roe v. Wade was in place, policies supporting families functioned more effectively. Walz advocated for a broader focus, ensuring that, beyond protecting reproductive rights, society also provides children with access to food, education, and quality healthcare.
JD Vance, on the other hand, tried to soften his stance on abortion, avoiding his previous comments that had positioned him as a staunch opponent of abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. Despite attempting to present himself as a “compassionate conservative,” Vance’s rhetoric on reproductive rights did not fully address concerns about the far-reaching implications of Republican policies for American women and families.
Debate impact and Vice-Presidential Candidates
This debate was crucial, especially given that polls show a tight race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Tim Walz successfully articulated a vision of the future for the U.S. based on stability, inclusion, and social justice. By defending Kamala Harris’s policies, Walz presented a platform that offers real solutions to the economic, social, and international challenges facing the country.
JD Vance, on the other hand, remained loyal to Trump’s policies but failed to provide convincing answers to voters concerned with issues such as immigration, reproductive rights, and the economic crisis. His defense of Trump and his attempt to adopt a moderate stance on certain topics appeared superficial, especially when contrasted with Walz’s more pragmatic and detailed approach.
The vice-presidential debate reaffirmed that on critical issues such as foreign policy, immigration, the economy, and reproductive rights, Tim Walz and JD Vance represent two vastly different futures for the U.S. Walz demonstrated that Kamala Harris and the Democratic ticket are committed to building a more just and stable country, while Vance and Trump continue to push an agenda that favors the wealthy and perpetuates social divisions. With a balanced and well-grounded approach, Walz effectively highlighted the advantages of inclusive and progressive leadership, which could be decisive in swaying undecided voters.
Tim Walz stood out in the debate by leveraging his experience as the governor of Minnesota, using it to demonstrate practical knowledge in public policy. He emphasized tangible accomplishments such as improvements in infrastructure, education, and public health, positioning himself as a candidate focused on delivering concrete results. This administrative expertise lent him credibility when addressing complex domestic issues, resonating with voters who prioritize effective governance.
Moreover, his moderate and composed demeanor appealed to undecided voters seeking less political polarization. Walz advocated for a collaborative, bipartisan approach, promoting dialogue and cooperation in leadership. This strategy helped him connect effectively with the audience, showcasing his ability to offer pragmatic solutions to the country’s challenges
