The vice-presidential debate aired on October 1st pitting Ohio Senator, JD Vance and the Democratic Minnesota Governor, Tim Walz, who gave the voters a clear preview of this year’s theme of Clear Divide. As members of the Republican and Democratic parties correspondingly, the two candidates discussed various topics of their contrast, such as abortion, immigration, housing, economy, and government spending, volatile responses that reveal their distinctive tactics and stances. One of the episodes that captured the audience’s interest and assertiveness most keenly arose when the candidates were discussing abortion. The Republican nominee, JD Vance, criticized Minnesota’s abortion law that was signed into law by Walz in 2023 after the ruling on the Roe v. Wade vaccine: Vance accused Walz of supporting a law that will let doctors deny affirmatively mandated treatment to infants who survive botched late-term abortions. Labeled as ‘barbaric,’ the provision made it seem as if the law was on the edge of liberals’ extreme view on abortions.
But Walz emphatically dismissed this assertion saying that Vance was misleading on that. As the governor of Minnesota noted the state’s law does not allow for killing of the newborns and noted correctly that the law mandates that all steps should be taken to ensure the survival of any infant that survives birth that medical practitioners reiterated. Although the Minnesota law deleted specific particular provisions as to preserving the life of an infant from the statute, it still legally requires the safeguard of infants as human persons. Walz dismissed Vance’s criticism as mere fear-mongering where Vance accused Democrats of actually endorsing extreme viewpoints on abortion, which Walz said could not be further from the truth. A similar episode unveiled that the underlying culture war trends in American politics are still going on. Nevertheless, the way that Vance presents the problem should be appealing to conservatives who have shifted their attention to socially conservative policies because of Roe. Walz, on the other hand, tried to strengthen his position by presenting himself as a true supporter of reproductive rights, saying that Republicans are seeking to delete women’s rights.
The other campaign issue that was central to the campaign was immigration and Vance was particularly unsympathetic to it. He blamed the increased scarcity of housing and increasing costs everywhere in the country for overcrowding by immigrants who he said were increasing the demands on resources in dense cities. Vance further said that if we were to stop immigration it would help reduce some of these pressures and hasten the stabilization of the housing sector.
Walz, for example, criticized his account by arguing that the housing crisis is caused not only by immigration. Walz attributed a lack of housing as a problem that is linked more to the credit crunch in 2008 and the subsequent slowing down of new home construction. Furthermore, future studies and knowledgeable people also have argued that demographic changes such as immigration are actually involved in the housing market but Vance overstated that immigrants are solely rationales for high house prices.
Walz emphasized that he had been dealing with housing problems in Minnesota, mentioning that he had invested in affordable housing and his administration tried to contribute to an increase in homeownership for the middle and working-class population. He claimed it was wrong to blame immigrants for the problems in the housing market, and said that proper housing deregulation should consist concerning the matters of the increase in the supply of houses and the role of the corporations in the housing market. This particular exchange evidenced the underlying culture war process that is still constitutive of American politics. The way Vance presents it is likely to appeal to conservative voters who have shifted more towards culture war policies in light of the Roe decision. While Walz tried to stay in the middle by expressing concern for women’s reproductive rights, the Republicans were determined to paint their enemy as a backslider seeking to undo all the gains made by women.
Immigration emerged as another contentious issue in the campaign; a significant one on which Vance was particularly unforgiving on. He also readily blamed the chronic scarcity of accommodation and rising prices across the country on the influx of immigrants who he said were overpopulating major cities as well as exploiting available resources. Vance went further and said that only when the immigration processes are restricted, will some of such pressures be relieved and housing be made affordable.
However, his explanation was interrupted coldly by Walz, who argued that housing shortages are not only caused by immigration. Walz credited the 2008 financial crisis and the slowdown in the construction of homes as the major contributing factors to housing scarcity in the US. Moreover, scholars have confirmed that demographic factors such as immigration influence the housing market but that Vance has gone overboard by blaming immigrants for push-up housing costs.
Walz also used his experience on how he solved the housing problem in Minnesota saying that he would work to ensure that more people have an opportunity to own homes in the state through lending programs which he said his administration supports for middle and lower middle income earners. He pointed out that it is wrong to shove immigrants out of the country when the lack of an increase in housing stock and corporate control of the housing market is a problem that needs to be solved.
That includes concern for government spending and national debt as part of the economic topics of the debate. Vance did not waste any time accusing Walz of advocating for higher taxes on the rich saying that idea would hurt economic progress. He presented it as the government debt problem and accused both parties Democratic and Republicans alike of being irresponsible in the way in which they let the government spending grow. Vance especially homed in on the Trump administration’s 2017 tax cuts, which Walz declared led to an $8tn addition to the national debt of the United States.
There was an echo of typical Republicanism in Vance’s position where he made claims to dismantle government and pursue the reduction of the tax to facilitate more efficiency in the economy. He painted Walz and his Democratic buddies as big spenders who would bring increased looming debt for future generations. Nevertheless, this fired up Walz who noted that most of the additional debt during Trump’s tenure results not only from the tax cuts but also from other measures approved by both Democrats and Republicans such as pandemic relief measures and others. He assured that if given the chance to lead the country, he would fund key social projects, all the time keeping an eye on the balance sheet.
Walz focused on the allegations of housing shortage in Minnesota, mentioning his experience in introducing affordable housing legalization and supporting initiatives to increase the availability of homeownership for the middle and working population. Consequently, he contended that the housing deficit can be effectively resolved if housing reforms go for the supply side and the corporate dimension of housing and eschew immigrants.
It also focused on economic areas of concern such as governmental expenditure national budget and other allied questions. When Walz supported the raising of the taxes to the rich, Vance did not take the time to condemn the vice as unhealthy for the economy. He conventions it as the national debt, blaming federally funded Democratic as well as Republican administrations for overspending. Vance paid special attention to the Trump administration’s 2017 tax cuts, which Walz said led to a record $8 trillion in national debt.
Vance’s position was consistent with the election campaign mantras of the Republicans: smaller government, lower taxes, and growth. He accused Walz and his Democratic partners of being irresponsible to wish for huge future debts. Walz quickly fired back that most of the debt increase during the tenure of Trump was not solely because of the tax cuts but because of the bipartite spending on pandemic relief and other emergencies. He pointed out that his administration, if given a chance to govern, would support significant social projects of concern, with emphasis on balanced budgeting.
Although there wasn’t a clear victor of the debate, it gave an idea about the stark policy and ideological differences between the candidates. Vance was able not only to adhere to the general conservative agenda of simplification of government, social politics, and immigration requirements but also to present himself as its primary defender. Therefore, when he claimed that all the problems the nation was experiencing including the housing crisis and debt, could be traced back to progressive policies then his mission was to intensify the support of Trump-oriented Republicans.
By way of comparison, Walz was skillful in presenting himself as a practical progressive interested in actual issues and their solutions on the ground via policy changes. He defended his record as a governor in Minnesota, the state that he said he brought forward increased access to healthcare, more investments in education, and an attempt to fight climate change. To win the seats and gather support from as many voters as possible Walz focused on the positive outcomes his administration delivered in the past few years in such spheres as housing and reproductive rights that many suburban women, young people, and progressive voters consider a priority after Roe v. Wade was eliminated.
The language of the dispute — adversative but rather procedural — echoed the increased severity of the 2024 election. Voters are being asked to choose between two starkly different visions for the country: One camp that desires a retreat to pre-2020 populist, nationalist approaches, and Another camp that strives for progressive change from climate to healthcare to social justice.
The responses of the media toward the debate have been as diverse as the stances that were assumed by the candidates themselves. Conservative media admired Vance for standing firm on immigration and abortion and described his performance as assertiveness that makes Republicans happy. Conservative pundits also joined Vance’s criticism of Walz’s policies on immigration and spending, saying that the governor was simply out of touch with the American people.
At the same time, liberal commentators praised Walz for restraint on his tweets, especially considering the amplification of what they called Vance’s hyperboles regarding abortion and immigration. Thus, liberal sources stressed Walz’s support for reproductive justice, as well as economic initiatives that would help the lower income brackets. A few claimed that they could see how Vance’s so-called economics of lower taxes and immigration restrictions could be perceived as out of touch because of the effects of the housing debacle and the search for affordable health care.
Surveys carried out after the debate revealed that the impact of the debate was to barely change or at all engage those voters who are already predisposed to a given candidate. But for those voters who had not made up their minds, the debate offered them an insight into policies that Louisiana’s two vice-presidential candidates stood for. This is even more apparent where the race is tied and both parties are campaigning aggressively, for instance the swing states of Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia, the debate may have swayed a small but significant bloc of the vote.
Indeed, the recent VP debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz showed numerous fundamental differences between the Republicans and Democrats. With regard to topics like abortion, immigration, and the economy, the candidates presented two different ideas that exist within the society in America. This disagreement will, however, probably be remembered as a typical example of the many culture wars and policy disputes that characterize the contest for the presidency. Although it remains unclear whether the debate had any permanent influence on the elections, what is certain it meant was the best clear choices of the voters as they prepared to vote.
Comments