The vice presidential debate happened Tuesday and helped explain the platforms that both parties are running on and prove to us that we can still return to civil and formal political debates.
J.D. Vance, the Republican vice president candidate, and Tim Walz, the Democratic vice president candidate, debated over a range of topics similar to the presidential debate. The difference between this debate and the previous presidential debate was that the candidates were leagues ahead with formality compared to the presidential candidates.
Before you get into the meat of the debate, you have to first consider how each of the candidates acted. Vance and Walz seemed to be respecting each other over every issue they had. Both of them agreed on issues with various topics but they both said the other had separate approaches. Both of the candidates were even civil with the moderators for the most part which cannot be said for our presidential candidates. They both respected the allotted time given to them by the moderators mostly, attempted to not speak over one another other than a few instances, provided points on policy and addressed issues with sincerity and logical responses.
Vance and Walz stunned me with how they acted. Since 2016, the change in political norms during debates, social media and even in office has seemed less formal and less professional. This debate helped remind the watchers that these formal customs, thought to be lost to time, are still present within our politics.
Getting into the heart of the debate, the major issues discussed included immigration, abortion, healthcare, the economy, gun violence and addressing statements that candidates have made in the past.
With each topic, we already had an idea of where each campaign was sitting, but the vice president candidates surprised us anyway. Vance and Walz actually agreed on some issues like gun violence and abortion. Overall, the answers were on par with the candidate’s platforms except for some of the responses given from Vance.
Vance surprised the viewers by presenting a more moderate view on topics compared to his previous statements or even to Trump. Vance discussed needing to stop gun violence, providing resources for women to support children and trying to fix the housing crisis. These responses were shocking to hear from Vance, showing that he was willing to reason when it came to these topics.
The overall debate was great to watch. Both candidates did a great job at presenting their positions on topics, answering questions and staying formal and civil to one another. Vance seems to have done a better job in this debate compared to Walz, due to him maintaining his reactions and emotions in contrast to Walz, who seemed panicked at times. Although Vance ‘won,’ Walz was still a great competitor.
Debates like this are what need to become the norm. Both of the candidates did a great job of persuading the viewer using personal stories, being rational and trying to relate to the struggles of voters. The candidates rarely argued with one another and allowed for a clean debate where after the debate, both candidates shook hands and exchanged friendly remarks with one another.
This is what is needed to be seen in modern politics. Everyday, people care less and less about politics because of the train wreck they tend to become. This debate showed we can still return to better times. The vice presidential debate may not be the most important part of the election cycle, but this debate should set a new precedent for how our politicians should act.
