Twelve Recommendations for Debates after the Walz-Vance Vice Presidential Debate

Tuesday 1st of October, 2024, was the last of the 2024 presidential race debates featuring the Ohio Senator JD Vance and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. This debate allowed both candidates to present their stances, for major questions while trying to walk through the different aspects of their partners, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President, Donald Trump. It was characteristic of politeness during the discussions and that was quite different from the ones which were held earlier. Below are the main findings from this important political undertaking.

Civility and Decorum

Two noteworthy features had been embedded in the recent debate and both were related to the friendly collaboration between the two pairing opponents. This produced a civil debate with Vance and Walz tackling main substantive issues without hostility and personal attacks seen in previous debates . They started with shaking hands and ended up thanking each other as well as the crowd present in the occasion. Still, this respect was clearly seen and heard also during debates of controversial issues.

For instance when talking about the gun violence Walz had to recount his son witnessing a shooting incident. To this Vance mildly said, “Well I am so sorry that you had to learn that your 17-year-old witnessed a shooting and I admit that I was not aware.”

Focus on Policy

There were meaningful policy arguments in the contest spanning through health, immigration, climate, and abortion policies.

Health Care: Vance questioned Trump’s motility on the so-called ACA repeal and replacement to the bill. He said that current laws give support to preexisting conditions but declined giving additional details about how his measures would enhance the availability or the cost of health care. His claim on Trump as having bolstered the ACA was received with much disdain due to its falsehood

Housing and Child Care: Walz supported Harris’s plan to construct three million new homes in an effort toward decreasing housing expenses and increasing intergenerational wealth. That is why he underlined the fact that such essential expenses as housing and child care remained very costly for American families.

Climate Change: The candidates were questioned on climate change regarding the recent acts of extreme weather owing to Hurricane Helene. In this race, Walz was clear that he believes in climate change is “real” while Vance termed it as “weird science” during the campaign. Thus, this exchange proved how they had contrasting ideas about environmental policy.

Abortion: Vance also opposed the Equal Rights Amendment in question-answer sessions, uncharacteristically conceding in a change from previous commentaries that Republicans need ‘to retake the trust’ on these and related pregnancy issues although they have not adequately explained themselves to date. He backed away from advocating a national ban on abortion while he was once in support of such a law. On the other hand, Walz discussed more state-level limitations to women’s health since the downfall of Roev. Wade places these change on Trump’s judicial appointments.

Responsibility for Previous Remarks

Both candidates were pressed to address their previous statements and positions:

Vance's Critique of Trump: The moderator asked Vance why he earlier called Trump a man who was unfit to be in office much like Hitler. Tone change Vance tries to justify by saying that maybe he was mistaken about Trump but he knows now that Trump is a great president. This response left people questioning his capacity for deliverance, and the validity of his words which gives them a right to question his ability to lead them in the future.

Walz's Misstatement on Tiananmen Square: Walz had to be questioned about his visit to the Tiananmen Square massacre even though he claimed to be in Hong Kong. He was dismissive of his alleged absence during that period, indicating he had “speaking incorrectly”, but, parading it as a process of his world touring which enhances his knowledge about the world.

Election Integrity Concerns

As the debate progressed, questions arose regarding election integrity:

Vance's Indirect Responses: When asked whether he would concede the 2024 election regardless the governors’: Vance rather evade such question and talk about censors of the tech companies and Harris’s administration. This evasion raised Walz’s worry over persisting denialism on the election results.

Walz's Call for Unity: What with Vance still not publicly endorsing election results, Walz centred on the importance of coming together after the elections, stressing that whoever ‘wins’, becomes the winner… Calling for an end of bitter political rancor that has characterize American political landscape since 2020.

Immigration Debate

Immigration emerged as another contentious topic during the debate:

Vance's Claims About Haitian Migrants: Old statements made by Vance regarding Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio played in the headlines again. While he did not repeat lies which he told during the debate, he did press on with calling legally entitled migrants as ‘illegals’. This position earned Walz’s criticism because he said that it reduces people seeking asylum to mere objects.

Community Safety Concerns: Vance again raised issues about the Illegal immigrants as being responsible for the rising cases of crime as well as coup up in housing crimes in Springfield. However, local law enforcement has been very quick to dismiss these claims affirming that there is no incidence to support Vance’s allegations regarding crime attributed to Haitian migrants.

Conclusion

The Walz-Vance debate let both participants state their goals as well as discuss a number of national topics with a significant lack of aggressive demeanor. On issues even mundane as health care, global warning, abortion, casting doubts on the elections and even immigration policies, one notices how both Kamala and Mike have keen eye on the legacies of both Joe Biden and Donald Trump while at the same time trying to chart own reckoning paths.

This debate may stand as an important time in voters’ preparation for the upcoming election to see how the two candidates emphasize their contrasting views and at the same time, similarities that coincide in a world that is coming to be more divided between two extremes in politics.