Last night, CBS hosted the only debate of the election season between vice-presidential candidates Tim Walz and JD Vance, covering a broad range of topics across domestic and foreign policy. The format remained largely the same as that of their running mates’ bout three weeks ago, with the candidates speaking in studio facing the moderators, but still without a live audience, which was customary pre-COVID. Unfortunately, the format and moderation did not do much in the way of elevating the discourse or keeping the viewers at home informed on the issues being discussed.
The debate began with a question on the events currently unfolding in the Middle East, as Iran launched barrages of missiles into Israel yesterday. This is in response Israel’s stated policy of “escalating to de-escalate” its conflict with Lebanon, which so far has involved attacking the country across their northern border using exploding pagers (a tactic that many experts have said amounts to terrorism) followed by heavy bombing that has so far killed over 1,000 people, marking the deadliest conflict between the two states since 2006. As of yesterday, Israel has also pushed forward with a “limited” ground invasion.
In this context of a broadening conflict sparked by the war in Gaza – which the White House and experts have universally warned against as the worst outcome – moderators Nora O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan thought it appropriate to ask not what either candidate might do to de-escalate the rapidly worsening situation, but instead if either candidate would be willing to “support a pre-emptive strike by Israel on Iran.” Neither candidate steered away from the presumption of belligerence baked into the question, as Walz sidestepped it by reaffirming Israel as an “absolute fundamental necessity” to American interests, while Vance stated that he would defer to Israel’s judgment. Despite the apparently little daylight between each camp’s policies on this issue, Trump leads Harris in most polls when it comes to foreign affairs.
ANSA/EPA
Even as the discussion shifted to climate change, some surprising similarities remained between the candidates. There were differences on a basic level, as Walz repeatedly stated that “climate change is real,” while his opponent stopped short of that to instead reiterate that his campaign “support[s] clean air and clean water.” Walz drew on his experience as a governor working with farmers in his state to navigate increasingly erratic weather, and Vance responded by questioning the sincerity of his opponents’ belief in climate change, claiming that if it were a real concern of theirs, they would be more committed to “reshoring” manufacturing and adding “more energy production” domestically. The Minnesota governor sought to outdo Vance on this last point, insisting that our country is “producing more natural gas than we ever have, we’re producing more oil.” Walz also touted advances in solar energy production, but both candidates seemed ignorant of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s calls for “immediate greenhouse gas emissions reductions in all sectors this decade” to mitigate its worst effects.
The Senator from Ohio took every possible opportunity to denigrate immigrants, stating repeatedly that what’s needed is to “stop the bleeding,” and drawing connections between them and various societal ills. Vance linked immigration to the flow of fentanyl from the southern border, even though data from the federal government indicates that drug cartels mostly use American citizens as mules for drugs, not migrants. He did the same with the rising cost of homes, and while studies have shown some minor correlations between home prices and immigration in some areas at the local level, Walz correctly rebutted by emphasizing the much greater effect of “Wall Street speculators” on the real estate market.
Vance also blamed immigrants for high healthcare costs and crowded schools that are “overwhelmed,” but here as well, evidence to back up his claims is scant. There are instances of schools seeking funds to accommodate the extra students and their needs, but nothing at a level one would call “overwhelmed.” Regarding healthcare, undocumented migrants use up 0.2% of Medicaid costs, which amounts to significantly less than what they contribute in taxes.
When the discussion shifted to guns, the Harvard Law graduate claimed that “Kamala’s open border” allowed a “massive influx” of illegal guns from Mexico leading to crime here, when all available data indicates exactly the opposite, as thousands of American guns cross into Mexico to be used by the cartels every year. He went on to criticize our system for naturalizing asylum seekers (like the Haitians in Springfield, Ohio), whom he claimed receive legal status “at the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand.” Walz noted that the asylum process is based on laws that go back to the 1990s, and the resulting discussion eventually led to the debaters’ microphones being cut before moving on.
Vance did concede to some weaknesses in his party’s politics, stating flatly that when it comes to abortion, his party has “got to do so much better of a job” at regaining women’s trust. There was little beyond this admission to back that up, as he proposed childcare programs and fertility treatments, and had no answer when Walz pointed to maternal mortality “skyrocket[ing]” in Texas since Roe v. Wade was overturned.
The lack of fact-checking from moderators meant that a great deal of JD Vance’s spurious claims went by unchallenged outside of the few occasions Tim Walz was able to point them out himself. The one time the moderators tried to correct the record on Vance, when he called the Hatians in Springfield “illegal,” the Senator bristled: “the rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check.” Unfortunately for voters watching at home, Nora O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan did not break that rule more often.
