Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said he believes his rival for vice president, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, wants to solve the nation’s immigration crisis, but he questioned whether former President Donald Trump really does.
Vance acknowledged that Walz wants to solve the problem, too, but he questioned whether Vice President Kamala Harris really does.
Walz agreed with “a lot of what Sen. Vance said” about Americans’ not trusting Republicans on abortion. Vance said he and Walz “probably agree that we need to do better” on addressing gun violence. And Walz conceded that he was “in agreement” with much of what Vance had said about decades of trade policy that enabled manufacturing jobs to move overseas.
On and on it went at Tuesday night’s debate between Walz and Vance, who met in person for the first time and put on a textbook performance of Midwest nice: feints at consensus serving as rhetorical fig leaves that often gave way to more cutting, though politely delivered, attacks.
The running mates — Vance a right-wing Republican, Walz a progressive Democrat aiming to appeal to moderates — used the words “agree” or “agreement” or “I don’t disagree” more than a dozen times to describe the common ground they share.
“I believe Sen. Vance wants to solve this, but by standing with Donald Trump and not working together to find a solution, it becomes a talking point, and when it becomes a talking point like this, we dehumanize and villainize other human beings,” Walz said in the midst of criticizing both Republicans for spreading debunked claims about Haitian immigrants’ abducting and eating pets in Springfield, Ohio.
With early voting underway in several states and Election Day precisely five weeks away, Tuesday’s faceoff, hosted by CBS News, was an opportunity for Vance and Walz to make their campaigns’ closing arguments. Barring a change-up from Trump, who has resisted the idea of debating Harris a second time, it could be the last widely broadcast prime-time moment of the race.
But a TV audience expecting to see ferocious vice presidential attack dogs instead saw a couple of puppy dogs seeking affection. The debate in some ways was reminiscent of the cordial clash 24 years ago between vice presidential hopefuls Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman. Cheney, who at the time was as loathed on the left as much as Vance is today, escaped harsh scrutiny. He and Republican George W. Bush won the first of two terms that fall.
“I think it’s healthy,” Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., told NBC News of the unexpectedly civil tone. “I think Tim Walz agreed with JD Vance significantly more times in this debate. I think the memes on social media of him nodding in agreements are going to be out there if they’re not out there already.”
Perhaps the most profound disagreement of the night came from inside the Democratic Party, where some found Walz too nice.
“It was more congenial than I thought it would be, for sure,” Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, told reporters in the post-debate spin room.
Wajahat Ali, a progressive podcaster and pundit, blamed the team that prepared Walz for the debate.
“They told him to be nice to Vance, who is one of the most unpopular VP candidates in history,” Ali posted on X. “This is only normalizing his extremism and his hate against women. Dumb. Dems playing scared for no reason.”
Symone Sanders, an MSNBC host and former Harris aide, criticized Walz for “not prosecuting the case” but, rather, running a “nicefest.”
“If you agree with Vance on so much then why should we vote for you?” Sanders posted on X.
Others gave Walz a pass.
“Look, I’ve known Tim Walz 16 years, and that’s who he is,” Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat working the postdebate spin room, told NBC News. “It’s very important to be authentic in these kinds of settings and in all settings. And Tim Walz is a nice guy, a kind guy and a respectful guy, and I think what he showed tonight is that he’s ready to serve along Kamala Harris as her partner in moving our country forward, rather than backward to the chaotic days of the past with Donald Trump and JD Vance.”
Vance turned in his own moments of kindness. After Walz recalled the time his teenage son witnessed a shooting, Vance offered a compassionate response.
“Tim, first of all, I didn’t know that your 17-year-old witnessed a shooting. I’m sorry about that,” he said, promoting a note of appreciation from Walz.
“Christ have mercy,” Vance added. “It is awful.”
Beneath the overwhelming niceties, substantial differences of opinion were on display.
Vance repeatedly attacked the “Harris administration” — essentially erasing President Joe Biden, who decided this summer against seeking a second term and elevating Harris as the person chiefly responsible for the problems the country faces. Vance, for example, blamed Harris for the situation in Springfield, where an influx of Haitian immigrants — who are in the country legally under the Temporary Protected Status program — has caused socioeconomic concerns.
“The people that I’m most worried about in Springfield, Ohio, are the American citizens who have had their lives destroyed by Kamala Harris’ open border,” Vance said. “It is a disgrace, Tim, and I actually think I agree with you. I think you want to solve this problem, but I don’t think that Kamala Harris does.”
Walz repeatedly blamed the problems of today on Trump’s four previous years in the White House.
“Donald Trump had four years,” Walz said during the exchange on immigration, calling back to Trump’s pledge to make Mexico pay for a border wall. “He had four years to do this, and he promised you, America, how easy it would be.”
Co-moderator Margaret Brennan asked both candidates about previous statements they have made that might speak to their “personal qualifications” and “leadership qualities.”
Walz was asked about recent news reports scrutinizing his claims that he was in Hong Kong in May and June 1989, preparing for a teaching job in China around and at the time of the deadly Tiananmen Square protests in Beijing.
“I’ve not been perfect, and I’m a knucklehead at times,” Walz said, initially dodging a direct question about the discrepancies.
Pressed further by Brennan, Walz admitted that he “misspoke.”
Vance, once known for his raft of Trump criticism before he aligned himself with Trump as he sought elected office, was asked about private messages, reported last week by The Washington Post, in which he expressed doubts about Trump as recently as 2020. In the messages, Vance criticized Trump, writing that he “so thoroughly failed to deliver on his economic populism” and predicting that he would lose to Biden.
“When you screw up, when you misspeak, when you get something wrong and you change your mind, you ought to be honest with the American people about it,” Vance responded Tuesday night.
“I’ve been extremely consistent that I think there were a lot of things that we could have done better in the Trump administration the first round if Congress was doing its job. I strongly believe … that Congress is not just a high-class debating society. It’s not just a forum for senators and congressmen to whine about problems. It’s a forum to govern.”
Toward the end of the debate, Vance demonstrated his lockstep loyalty to Trump by downplaying the violence on Jan. 6, 2021, when Trump’s refusal to accept his election loss to Biden sparked a riot at the U.S. Capitol.
“Remember, [Trump] said that on January the 6th, the protesters ought to protest peacefully,” Vance said. “Now, January the 20th, what happened? Joe Biden became the president. Donald Trump left the White House, and now, of course, unfortunately, we have all of the negative policies that have come from the Harris-Biden administration.”
The answer drew a rebuke — polite, of course — from Walz.
“I’ve enjoyed tonight’s debate, and I think there was a lot of commonality here,” Walz said, before he called Vance’s response “troubling.”
“The fact is, is that I don’t think we can be the frog in the pot and let the boiling water go up. [Trump] was very clear,” Walz added. “I mean, he lost this election, and he said he didn’t.”
