Tim Walz and JD Vance's 2024 VP debate

Notes:

        
  
## Insights from the 2024 vice-presidential debate between Tim Walz and JD Vance:

	1.	Middle East Policy: Walz highlighted the need for steady U.S. leadership in the Middle East and criticized Donald Trump for destabilizing alliances. He praised Kamala Harris for supporting coalition building and steady military intervention. Vance, in contrast, supported strong U.S.-Israel cooperation and emphasized Trump’s foreign policy as stabilizing, arguing for peace through strength.

	2.	Climate Change: Walz focused on a balanced approach, advocating for clean energy investments alongside traditional energy production, citing job creation and reduced emissions. Vance emphasized the importance of energy independence through increased American manufacturing and fossil fuel production, criticizing Harris’s climate policies as driving production overseas.

	3.	Immigration: Vance pushed for strict border enforcement, including a mass deportation plan and stronger action against drug trafficking from Mexico. Walz pointed to bipartisan efforts for immigration reform and highlighted Harris’s record on border security and transnational crime as Attorney General of California.

	4.	Gun Violence: Walz advocated for sensible gun reform, including red flag laws and background checks, while criticizing the NRA’s shift away from gun safety. Vance acknowledged the issue but focused more on securing schools and addressing mental health issues, suggesting that much of the gun violence stems from illegal firearms and drug cartels.

	5.	Economic Policy: Walz emphasized Harris’s economic plans to support middle-class families through housing assistance, tax credits, and investments in clean energy. Vance focused on Trump’s economic record, advocating for reduced regulation, energy independence, and tax policies that benefit the middle class.

	6.	Abortion: Walz supported a restoration of Roe v. Wade and argued for women’s autonomy over their healthcare decisions. Vance acknowledged the complexity of the issue, emphasizing the need for Republicans to regain trust with more family-friendly policies while advocating for states’ rights on abortion decisions.

	7.	Housing Crisis: Walz proposed federal support for building affordable housing and down payment assistance to make homeownership more accessible, citing successes in Minnesota. Vance criticized Harris for failing to address the housing crisis during her tenure and linked rising home prices to immigration and high energy costs.

These key takeaways illustrate the candidates’ sharp contrasts on foreign policy, domestic issues, and their respective economic and social platforms.

## Speaking Manner:

In terms of clarity and delivery, Tim Walz generally spoke in a structured manner, focusing on policy specifics and drawing from his own experiences as governor. He frequently connected his answers to concrete examples, particularly highlighting initiatives in Minnesota and Kamala Harris’s record. However, his answers were sometimes lengthy and he occasionally veered into broader narratives, which might have diluted the clarity of his points.

JD Vance, on the other hand, was often more direct and concise in his responses. He focused heavily on framing issues around Donald Trump’s past performance and the perceived failings of the current administration. Vance aimed to appeal to emotions, frequently referencing his personal background and invoking relatable stories, which helped him deliver his points in a clearer and more impactful manner.

Overall, Vance’s style was more concise and emotional, which might come across as clearer to some listeners. Walz, though detailed and knowledgeable, occasionally spoke in a more complex and verbose manner, which may have made him less immediately clear to the average audience.

## Agreements:

Tim Walz and JD Vance found some common ground, despite their overall ideological differences. Here are the notable instances of agreement:

	1.	Gun Violence: Both candidates expressed genuine concern over the gun violence epidemic, particularly in schools. While they differed on solutions, they agreed that protecting children is a priority and that the current situation is unacceptable.

	2.	Mental Health in Gun Violence: Vance and Walz both acknowledged that mental health plays a role in gun violence. They seemed to agree that addressing mental health issues is a key factor, although they had different perspectives on how to approach the gun violence problem overall.

	3.	Climate Change (Clean Energy): Both candidates appeared to agree that clean energy is important. Walz advocated for more investment in renewable energy, while Vance, although critical of current policies, acknowledged the importance of clean air and water, and agreed that clean energy production should happen domestically.

	4.	Economic Impact of Housing: Walz and Vance agreed that housing affordability is a critical issue in the U.S. While their proposed solutions differed, they both acknowledged that housing is foundational to the well-being of American families.

	5.	Support for Families: Vance and Walz both agreed that making it easier for families to afford childcare, housing, and other essentials is critical. Vance emphasized more family-friendly policies, while Walz pointed to existing programs that support families.

## Fact-Checking:

Moderators fact-checked the candidates a few times, though the fact-checking was relatively light and often led to clarification rather than deep scrutiny. Here are some instances of fact-checking or requests for clarification:

	1.	Tim Walz’s Visit to China (Tiananmen Square):

	•	Margaret Brennan fact-checked Walz regarding his claim of being in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, pointing out that media outlets reported he didn’t travel to Asia until later that year. Walz acknowledged the discrepancy but clarified his position.

	2.	Abortion Laws in Minnesota:

	•	JD Vance referenced a Minnesota law related to abortion, claiming it allowed doctors not to provide life-saving care to babies surviving a botched abortion. Walz disputed this claim, stating that Vance had misinterpreted the law and referencing a previous fact-check that supposedly debunked similar claims in the past.

	3.	Economic Plans and Deficit Projections:

	•	The moderators mentioned reports from the Wharton School analyzing the economic plans of both candidates’ running mates. They used this information to press both candidates on how they would manage the deficits their proposed policies could create.

	4.	Immigration and Executive Actions:

	•	Vance made claims about Kamala Harris’s immigration policies and their effects, including blaming her for enabling drug cartels and mismanagement at the border. Walz countered these claims, but the moderators did not intervene with explicit fact-checks, instead focusing on prompting further discussion.