US Senator and the vice presidential running mate for Republican Donald Trump JD Vance, faced off against Minnesota governor Tim Walz, the Democratic choice of Kamala Harris, in a high stakes debate on Tuesday. With the November 5 election approaching, this debate may mark the final opportunity for both candidates to address voters directly.
Here are the key takeaways from the event:
Visible hesitation on the Middle East
The debate commenced with a question regarding the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, specifically whether either candidate would support a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran to thwart its nuclear ambitions.Both candidates exhibited reluctance to directly address the issue.
A visibly nervous Walz sidestepped the question, redirecting the focus to a critique of Trump’s presidency. “What’s fundamental here is that steady leadership is going to matter,” he said, highlighting that Trump’s age and recent debate performance suggested he was unfit for the moment.
Vance, in response, seemed to mock Walz’s avoidance but later discussed his own background before eventually stating that a second Trump administration would support Israel’s decisions regarding Iran. He defended Trump’s foreign policy, characterising it as a period of unprecedented peace, deterrence and stability.
Reflection on past misstatements
Both candidates faced scrutiny over previous statements that questioned their credibility. For Walz, the challenge came from reports revealing he was not in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square uprising, despite previously claiming he was there. His meandering response included a confession of his imperfections: “I’ve not been perfect, and I’m a knucklehead at times.” When pressed further, he admitted, “I got there that summer and misspoke on this.”
Vance, meanwhile, was confronted about his prior criticisms of Trump, including comparing him to Adolf Hitler. Acknowledging his past mistakes, he stated, “I was wrong about Donald Trump,” and noted that Trump had delivered on many issues he previously doubted.
Targeting the candidates’ running mates
Throughout the debate, both Vance and Walz chose to direct their criticisms more towards their running mates than each other. This tactic underscored a strategic approach: most voters typically focus their attention on the presidential candidates rather than their vice presidential picks.
Walz criticised Trump for failing to fulfill his promise of constructing a complete barrier along the US-Mexico border, claiming, “Less than 2% of that wall got built, and Mexico didn’t pay a dime.” Vance, echoing this focus, suggested that Walz was more interested in solutions than Harris, stating, “I think that you want to solve this problem, but I don’t think that Kamala Harris does.”
Domestic approach to climate change
In the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, both candidates tackled the subject of climate change with a focus on domestic issues. Vance linked climate change to jobs and manufacturing, suggesting that increasing domestic production would be the best way to combat it, while sidestepping Trump’s previous dismissal of global warming as a “hoax.” He positioned the US as having the world’s cleanest energy economy.
Walz, in a similarly domestic-oriented response, highlighted the Biden administration’s renewable energy investments and the record production levels of oil and natural gas, saying, “You can see us becoming an energy superpower in the future.” His perspective presented an optimistic outlook on a daunting global challenge.
Blame game on immigration stalemate
Both candidates acknowledged the issue of illegal immigration but placed the blame for the current stalemate squarely on their opponents. Vance echoed Trump’s rhetoric by labeling Harris the “border czar” and claimed she had rolled back Trump’s immigration restrictions, resulting in negative consequences such as an influx of fentanyl and increased housing costs.
While Harris was never officially designated as the “border czar,” she was tasked by Biden to address the root causes of migration. In contrast, Walz argued that Trump had single-handedly derailed a bipartisan Senate effort to enhance border security and improve immigration processing. He noted that Republican backing for the deal diminished after Trump criticized it as inadequate.