Introduction.
The recent vice-presidential debate between Senator JD Vance and Governor Tim Walz provided a glimpse into the state of American politics without the dominating presence of Donald Trump. Though the debate was civil, as expected, it also revealed critical truths about the candidates, their platforms, and what they represent for the future of our country. Let us unpack what we learned and why it matters.
Emotional Polls vs. Reality: Snap Reactions Do not Tell the Whole Story
Immediately following the debate, polls showed a near tie between Vance and Walz. However, snap polls often reflect emotional responses, not deeper analysis. JD Vance’s effort to appear composed and polite may have worked in his favor, but it does not erase the inflammatory and divisive rhetoric he has used in the past. His attempt to soften his image might be strategic, but voters should not be swayed by a single debate performance. Walz, on the other hand, scored points when he challenged Vance on key issues like January 6th and abortion, revealing who the real JD Vance is beneath the polished veneer.
Fact-Checking the Debate: Walz Stands for Honesty, Vance Deflects
I respect Forbes so I am going to provide their poll reviews in their article by Siladitya Ray, Forbes Staff, who happens to be the New Delhi-based Forbes news team. This article came out on October 2, 2024, at 8:21 am EDT, and here are comments from the article: “Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, faced off in a mostly polite yet policy-heavy vice presidential debate Tuesday night that was described by some as ‘midwestern nice,’ but polled viewers believed the Republican candidate narrowly best his Democratic rival.” Here are the poll results, which are mixed:
- CBS News, which conducted the debate, released a snap poll of debate watchers shortly after the even, in which 42% of the respondents thought Vance won, 41% gave the edge to Walz and 17% thought it was a tie.
- According to the CBS poll, both candidates received a favorability boost after the debate with Vance’s number rising from 40% to 49% while Walz jumped from 52% to 60%.
- The CNN poll also published showed a jump in favorability for both candidates, with respondents who view Walz favorably rising form 46% to 59% while Vance’s number rose form 30% to 41%.
- Likely voters surveyed by Politico/Focaldata’s snap poll were 50-50 on which candidate won the debate, although Independents gave Walz a 57-42.
Here is how the betting market Reacted: “The betting market declared Vance the winner of the debate. This is complete inversion from before the debate, when bettors gave Walz a 70% chance of being declared the debate winner.”
When analyzing the debate through the lens of fact-checking, Governor Walz emerged as the clear winner. His passionate defense of democracy and his focus on truth-telling stood in stark contrast to Vance’s evasions. While Vance may have presented himself as calm and composed, his statements were riddled with inaccuracies, from the situation in Springfield, Ohio, to his claims about Trump’s role in saving Obamacare. This highlights a fundamental question for voters: Do we want leaders who tell the truth or those who bend it to their advantage?
The January 6th Moment: A Damning No-Answer
The title of The New York Times article published on Wednesday, October 2, 2024, at 1:26 PM by Jess Bidgood is “It all seemed so conventional. And then came Jan. 6.” Here key observations he had:
- “Senator JD Vance of Ohio was trying to un-weird himself. Over the course of his debate, Vance did not directly repeat the most incendiary elements of the false and debunked claims he promoted last month about migrants in Ohio (which happens to be his state he supposedly represents) eating people’s pets. He did not have to talk about “childless cat ladies,” because Walz did not bring up the disparaging words that have come to define Vance in the minds of many in his party. As Walz skipped opportunities to attack Vance more forcefully, Vance seized the change to pitch a gentler version of himself.
- And then came Walz’s question about the 2020 election. Vance had just promised that Walz would have his prayers and best wishes if he and Vice President were elected. Walz asked him whether Trump, who finished well behind President Biden in both the Electoral College and the popular vote four years ago, had lost re-election. ‘I am focused on the future,’ Vance said, before trying to change the subject to censorship, which has long been a familiar target on the right.”
- ‘That is a damning no-answer,’ Walz shot back. It was a moment that laid bare a deep gulf between two men onstage who seemed not to want to be terribly confrontational. And it also made it clear that Vance, an ambitious political figure who may well be thinking about 2028 and beyond, will need a lot more than a fairly mild 90-minutes debate if he ever wants to fully soften his image. ‘America, I think you’ve got a really clear choice on this election,’ Walz said, ‘of who’s going to honor that democracy, and who’s going to honor Trump.’
Republicans vs. Fact-Checking: Resistance to Accountability
One of the most concerning trends we observed in the debate was Vance’s frustration with being fact-checked, a sentiment shared by many in his party. His claim that fact-checking was somehow unfair reveals a deeper issue within today’s Republican Party: a resistance to accountability and truth. Vance repeatedly made false statements about immigration, Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, and more, yet refused to accept responsibility when called out. This growing trend of fact-resistance is alarming, especially when the facts involve fundamental issues like democracy, immigration, and healthcare.
The Washington Post On Wednesday, October 2, 2024, at 4:44 PM entitled by Amber Phillips, “The 5-Minutes Fix: Republicans increasing resistance to being fact-checked presented this information:
- “The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check, said Vance. That’s a memorable and revealing line form Republican vice-presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance (Ohio) during Tuesday’s vice-presidential debate. He was the more composed candidate onstage, and yet he was responsible for most of the falsehoods in the 90-minute debate, says The Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler.
- Vance greatly misstated Haitians’ Immigration status: Vance’s complaint about being fact-checked came as he falsely said schools and hospitals are overwhelmed and housing is unaffordable in Springfield, Ohio, because of illegal Haitian immigrants. (There are thousands of Haitian immigrants in Springfield, most of whom are there legally, as Glenn explained. Also, it’s a non sequitur to argue that deporting illegal immigrants will drive down housing costs, argues former Clinton administration immigration official Doris Meissner.)
- He described Trump’s attempts to stay in power after he lost in 2020 as peaceful: Vance argued that because Trump actually left office when President Joe Biden was inaugurated, the 2020 election was peaceful. But asserting that required him to ignore pretty much everything that happened before that moment, such as Trump’s attempts to undermine the results in states he lost, trying to interrupt Congress’s certification of the elections, as well as the attack on the Capitol by Trump supporters. Trump is facing federal charges alleging he conspired to overturn the 2020 election results.
- Vance suggested Trump worked to improve Obamacare: ‘He saved the very program,’ Vance asserted of Trump. But Trump actually spent much of his presidency trying to repeal Obamacare, not save it.
By contrast, Democratic vice-presidential nominee Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz falsely said Project 2025 will force women to register pregnancies, Glenn explains.
- It’s not just Vance: In a span of 24 hours this week, Trump and other Republicans, including Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), distorted facts on everything from Trump’s crowd sizes to the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States with criminal records, as the Post’s Aaron Blake documents.
The most detailed “Fact-checking the VP debate between Vance and Walz,” was provided by The Washington Post, on October 2, 2024, at 1:56 AM EDT by Glenn Kessler is fascinating, since you will see this comment by Walz’s fact-checking statements, ‘This is largely accurate.’ The multitude of comments by Vance statements were followed by “This is false” and then statements about what the truth was concerning the particular situation.
JD Vance: The Making of Trump 2.0
Throughout the debate, Vance made it clear that he is, in many ways, a more polished version of Donald Trump. He champions the same policies, echoes the same falsehoods, and yet presents himself as a composed, Ivy League-educated leader. This duality—being Trump-like while attempting to soften his public image—was on full display. Yet, for all his efforts to distance himself from Trump’s more outrageous behavior, Vance remains deeply tied to the former president’s agenda, especially when it comes to undermining democracy and restricting reproductive rights. As the debate showed, Vance is Trump 2.0: a candidate willing to distort the truth to win.
On October 2, 2024, at 9:27 AM EDT, by Philip Bump in The Washington Post, “JD Vance is Trump 2.0.” Here is a comment: “The senator from Ohio and Republican vice-presidential nominee presented himself as this upgraded Trump during Tuesday night’s debate. All of Trump’s policies were there, as were various falsehoods about what Trump had done or promised to do as president. But it was packaged as a Yale Law School graduate, someone who exuded the mannerisms and satisfaction of an experienced academic debater. “
Vance established a pattern over and over again in the debate. Vance was asked to explain things that he or his running mate had done or promised, and he parlayed the questions into the things he wanted to talk about instead. We have already heard his response when “a question about health care evolved into a ridiculous claim that Trump saved Affordable Care Act as president.”
Where Vance stumbled the most “obviously was when he was presented with a position he couldn’t dodge. He is Trump’s running mate in part because he’s been willing to parrot and champion Trump’s claims about questioning the validity of the 2020 election and how it should have been addressed.” The problem of being Trump 2.0 is “Vance is still tied to Trump’s idiosyncrasies.
I think Vance reveled to all of us what is the clearest recognition of the Republican ticket, and this is a party that is out of step with the American people on a major issue—Abortion. Often, I read that 63% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Abortion is hardly the only issue where Vance attempted to offer a softer view and yet his statements showed the distorted perception of what Americans want.
One of my favorite articles is by The Washington Post on September 29, 2024, at 5:28 PM EDT entitled “I’m from Springfield. What Trump did to us should be a warning,” which is letters to the Editor. “You know who is not afraid to go out and about in Springfield? Proud Boys, Neo-Nazis. People handing out Ku Klux Klan fliers. Some of these people paraded swastika flags and rifles during our jazz festival. Their pressure, and a torrent of threats, forced local officials to cancel the annual Culture Fest celebration of diverse food, arts and music. These far-right groups clearly feel as though they have not just permission, but encouragement, from Republican candidates. It is unsettling to live in this menacing atmosphere. Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance hope to make every town Springfield, where the angry are emboldened by lies and the people they seek to punish live in fear. As someone who has lived through this transformation, trust me: You don’t want to live in Trump’s America.
Conclusion: The Vance-Walz debate revealed much about the candidates, but even more about the future of American politics. On the one hand, we have Tim Walz, who stands firmly for democracy, truth, and transparency. On the other, we have JD Vance, who, despite his attempts to seem more moderate, continues to embrace Trump’s falsehoods and divisive policies. As voters reflect on this debate, they must ask themselves: Do we want leaders who uphold truth and democracy, or those who twist the facts for political gain? In the end, this debate was about much more than two candidates—it was about the future of the country itself.
References:
- Forbes, by Siladitya Ray, Forbes Staff, October 2, 2024, at 8:21 am EDT, “Who Won ‘The VP Debate Last Night? Here’s What Snap Polls And betting Markets Say.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2024/10/02/who-won-the-vp-debate-last-night-heres-what-snap-polls-and-betting-markets-say/
- The New York Times article published on Wednesday, October 2, 2024, at 1:26 PM by Jess Bidgood is “It all seemed so conventional. And then came Jan. 6.” (Contact The New York Times.)
- The Washington Post On Wednesday, October 2, 2024, at 4:44 PM by Amber Phillips, “The 5-Minutes Fix: Republicans increasing resistance to being fact-checked presented this information.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/newsletters/the-5-minute-fix
- “Fact-checking the VP debate between Vance and Walz,” by The Washington Post, on October 2, 2024, at 1:56 AM EDT by Glenn Kessler. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/02/fact-check-vp-debate-vance-walz/
- October 2, 2024, at 9:27 AM EDT, by Philip Bump in The Washington Post, “JD Vance is Trump 2.0.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/02/jd-vance-is-trump-20/
- The Washington Post, September 29, 2024, at 5:28 PM EDT entitled “I’m from Springfield. What Trump did to us should be a warning,” which is letters to the Editor. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/09/29/springfield-immigration-haiti-germany/