By Antonio Ancaya
Opinion
(Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (left) and US Senator J.D. Vance (R-Ohio). Image source: Boston University)
The Vice Presidential debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz that took place on October 1st demonstrated two distinct visions for the future of our nation. While the debate maintained a relatively civil tone, it highlighted clear ideological divides, with both candidates tackling controversial topics like the 2020 election, healthcare, and gun control.
Moderator Bias
One point of contention during the debate was the bias of the moderators against JD Vance. In particular, the moderators stated at the beginning of the event that they would not fact-check either candidate, but went ahead and broke their own rule. JD Vance called out this inconsistency, setting the record straight. During one exchange, the moderators attempted to clarify that Springfield, Ohio, has a significant number of legal Haitian immigrants. Vance responded by explaining that the Biden-Harris administration created an application called CBPOne, which allows illegal migrants to apply for asylum and be granted “Legal Status” at the wave of a Kamala Harris win. This moment highlighted a contentious point between the candidates and the moderators, raising concerns about impartiality and how immigration policies are being implemented.
Walz, however, used the immigration topic as a way to steer the conversation back to what he called "real issues" facing voters. By doing so, he attempted to shift attention away from the specifics of immigration policy to a broader argument about maintaining a welcoming and lawful process for migrants.
Moreover, several times throughout the event, the moderators pushed Vance on his stance regarding the legitimacy of the 2020 election, while Tim Walz used this opportunity to frame Vance’s responses as evasive. When asked directly if Donald Trump had lost the election, Vance opted to sidestep, saying he was focused on the future. Walz seized on this, calling Vance’s response a “damning non-answer” and continued to hammer home the idea that “America has a choice between honoring democracy and honoring Donald Trump”
Economic Downturn During COVID
During the debate, Tim Walz attempted to blame Donald Trump for the economic downturn that followed the COVID-19 lockdowns, claiming that Trump did not listen to the “experts” and failed to manage the crisis effectively. While Walz acknowledged that the experts themselves were inconsistent in their guidance, he doubled down, arguing that Trump mishandled the information available at the time. JD Vance countered by pointing out that Walz was ignoring the fact that the Trump administration delivered stimulus checks, increased take-home pay, and provided small business relief, which helped keep many businesses afloat during the lockdowns. Vance also noted that these relief programs were ended by the Biden-Harris administration, contributing to ongoing economic struggles. Walz was then forced to defend Kamala Harris’s record, despite rising costs of groceries, gas, and increased small business operating expenses that have squeezed the middle class.
Healthcare Plans and Candidate Strategies
Healthcare policy was a major point of contention between JD Vance and Tim Walz, with each candidate presenting starkly different views. While Walz attempted to defend the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the law has faced widespread criticism across the political spectrum for its negative impact on healthcare costs and choice. Many Americans—both conservative and liberal—have voiced frustration over rising premiums, high deductibles, and limited options for coverage. Critics have argued that the ACA has driven many insurance providers out of the marketplace, creating monopolies in some regions and leaving patients with few or no viable alternatives.
JD Vance seized on these criticisms, condemning the ACA as a fundamentally flawed system that has led to soaring costs without delivering on its promises of affordable, quality healthcare. He argued that its regulations have hurt small businesses, led to job cuts, and restricted economic growth, all while failing to provide comprehensive solutions. Vance advocated scrapping the ACA entirely and replacing it with market-driven reforms that prioritize patient choice and competition—such as expanding Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines to promote competition.
In contrast, Tim Walz maintained that while the ACA is not perfect, it remains a necessary framework to ensure basic healthcare coverage. He suggested expanding its provisions, rather than dismantling it. This exchange highlighted not just the stark policy differences, but the broader ideological divide on how to approach healthcare reform. Where Walz sees the ACA as a foundation to build on, Vance views it as a failed experiment that needs to be completely overhauled for the benefit of American patients and businesses alike.
Closing Thoughts
Ultimately, the debate highlighted not only the policy differences but also the competence and leadership styles of the candidates. JD Vance presented himself as a principled conservative, standing firm against media bias and articulating clear alternatives to current policy failures. He emphasized practical, market-driven solutions and exposed the weaknesses in Tim Walz’s positions on key issues like healthcare, the economy, and school safety. Vance was effective in calling out Walz’s defense of the Affordable Care Act and the Biden administration’s handling of the economy, which he argued has left the middle class struggling under rising costs and burdensome regulations.
On the other hand, Walz’s attempts to shift blame for economic mismanagement onto the Trump administration seemed unconvincing and out of touch with current realities. His defense of the Harris administration’s record, especially on issues like inflation and small business hardships, failed to address the real frustrations many Americans are facing today. Walz’s unwillingness to acknowledge the failures of the ACA or the adverse impacts of Biden-Harris policies only served to reinforce criticisms that he is disconnected from the everyday challenges of working families and small business owners.
In the end, this debate was a decisive moment for voters, who saw Vance stand his ground against the establishment narrative and advocate for policies that promote economic growth and personal freedoms. The contrast could not have been clearer: while Walz doubled down on defending a status quo that has failed many Americans, Vance put forward a vision that seeks to reverse the damage done and restore prosperity and choice to the people.
Bình luận