David Faris, a politics professor at Roosevelt University and contributing writer for Slate, breaks down the recent debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz. He explores their contrasting visions for government and America. The discussion highlights key topics like abortion, gun control, and the candidates' personal narratives, which shape public perception. Faris critiques a missed opportunity for voter connection on gun violence and examines deeper issues around election legitimacy and communication strategies within the parties.
The congenial atmosphere of the debate allowed both candidates to emphasize empathy and understanding despite their stark political differences.
Vance's personal anecdotes on abortion offered a relatable perspective, contrasting with Walz's hesitance on foreign policy, particularly regarding Israel's nuclear threat.
Deep dives
The Tone of the Debate
The vice presidential debate was characterized by an unusually congenial atmosphere, with candidates Tim Walz and J.D. Vance attempting to connect with each other despite their political differences. Instead of resorting to aggressive attacks, both contenders focused on presenting themselves as empathetic and understanding. For instance, Vance referenced personal experiences relating to women's reproductive choices instead of adopting a confrontational stance, which deviated from typical expectations of such debates. This shift in demeanor marked a return to a style of discourse reminiscent of pre-Trump debates, showing a potential change in approach for appealing to undecided voters.
Handling of Controversial Issues
A key highlight of the debate was how both candidates navigated challenging topics, particularly foreign policy and abortion. Walz appeared tentative when addressing a tough question regarding Israel's potential nuclear threat, though it was acknowledged that such questions are complex and laden with historical implications. Conversely, Vance managed to present a nuanced discussion on abortion by sharing personal stories that framed the issue in a relatable manner, allowing him to resonate with voters while also showcasing the need for trust in Republican messaging. This approach surprised many given his history and contributed to a perception of him as a more relatable candidate.
Moments That Left an Impact
Several moments stood out in shaping the debate’s narrative, particularly concerning accountability for the January 6th events. Walz effectively challenged Vance when the latter evaded a direct question regarding whether Trump lost the 2020 election, showcasing his ability to clarify the historical context without resorting to hostility. This moment not only elevated Walz's credibility but also highlighted Vance's struggle with the defined party line on relevant issues. Additionally, the lack of effective rebuttals from Walz during discussions on gun control and misinformation suggested missed opportunities to solidify his stance and appeal to a broader audience.
The second, and likely final, debate of this presidential election was between JD Vance and Tim Walz, two Midwestern men with two very different visions of what government should do—and perhaps what America is.
Guest: David Faris, politics professor at Roosevelt University and contributing writer for Slate.
Want more What Next? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen.
Podcast production by Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme and Rob Gunther.