Vance and Walz discussed multiple topics in the final debate of the 2024-25 election. Photo courtesy of NPR.
JASPER PILARZ | NEWS EDITOR | lpilarz@butler.edu
LILY O’CONNOR | ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR | lkoconnor@butler.edu
Sen. JD Vance (R) and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) met on stage for the only vice presidential debate in this election season on Tuesday, Oct. 1 . This was the last debate before the presidential election on Nov. 5, as former president Donald Trump declined Vice President Kamala Harris’ invitation for a second presidential debate.
With only 34 days until the election, the Harris-Walz ticket led in national polls by 2.6% before tonight’s face-off between Vance and Walz. A CBS News poll shows that many voters consider the debate a draw with no clear winner.
There were 10 questions posed to the candidates, and they both received two minutes to respond to each. They also were allowed a one-minute rebuttal to the opposing candidate’s response to each question.
While there were disagreements and direct attacks from both candidates, there were also many times when they agreed with each other. Walz and Vance were able to find some common ground on topics such as illegal immigration, while also maintaining their opposition to each other’s presidential running mates.
Sophia Mendez, a sophomore mechanical engineering and economics dual major, was grateful that there was a more respectful discourse between the candidates than in previous debates.
“I really [enjoyed] this debate,” Mendez said. “It’s not as vicious as the [debate between Harris and Trump]. People are actually getting to hear what they have to say. It encourages discussion in a non-hostile environment; I really appreciate that.”
During this debate, moderators had to turn off the candidates’ microphones one time. Vance interrupted CBS anchor Margaret Brennan to accuse her of fact-checking him on his statements on immigration policy, as live fact-checking from the moderators was not allowed during this debate. Brennan proceeded to try to move on to the next question when Walz jumped into the conversation, resulting in both candidates’ microphones being cut off.
Kennedy Gronhke, a sophomore marketing and finance double major, felt that the moderators helped keep the debate civil.
“I feel there’s points where the candidates weren’t super respectful to moderators,” Grohnke said. “So it was a power move, turning their mics off.”
Immigration
Vance advocated heavily for stricter management of the United States border with Mexico, claiming Vice President Harris is to blame for an influx of immigrants from Central America.
Walz concurred that the country needed higher border security and supported legislation posed by Republican senators to do so. However, Walz also claimed that Vance’s position vilified immigrants instead of actually addressing the purported crisis at hand.
Economy
When asked about the current state of the economy, Walz emphasized that his ticket highly values middle and lower-class Americans. Harris has supported an “Opportunity Economy” where everyone has a chance to compete and succeed, and promised tax breaks as well as more federal support for middle-class workers and small businesses.
On the other hand, Vance repeatedly called for a return to “common sense practices,” denouncing Harris’ plan and insisted that if the vice president wanted to see these changes implemented, she should have used her position to do so. Vance also denounced the opinions of “professionals with PhDs” and insisted Trump’s policies will better the U.S. economy.
Abortion
When asked if he supports abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy, Walz denied the claim. He stated that since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, people have been losing their reproductive rights and — in some cases — their lives. He advocated for protecting women, children and medical providers by legalizing abortion federally.
Vance claimed that he never supported a national ban, and that he only wants limitations on late-stage abortions. He supports leaving abortion laws up to the states and providing more options for women to make it easier to afford to have children. He stated that both he and Trump are pro-family.
Gun violence
Both Walz and Vance supported U.S. citizens’ right to possess firearms in accordance with the Second Amendment but took disparate stances on addressing gun violence in the nation.
Vance supports increased security to defend against gun violence. He called for an increase in defending schools — specifically through additional resource officers and stronger doors — and cited America’s mental health crisis as a cause for reckless gun use.
Walz called for a more proactive approach to lowering gun violence. As a gun owner, Walz acknowledged the citizens’ right to defend themselves. Walz also referenced Finland, where gun ownership is high but gun violence is much lower than in the U.S. Walz believes there is more for the federal government to do than simply banning guns or increasing defense. Walz also called for more research into the causes of gun violence, disagreeing with Vance’s claims regarding mental health’s contributions.
Housing costs
When asked how Harris’ plan to increase federal spending will lower housing, Walz stated he believed in treating housing as a right, where it is currently a commodity. By implementing Harris’ model in Minneapolis, high investment in housing has seen beneficial results, and Walz believes this solution can be utilized on a national level. By providing support for affordable housing, Walz intends to allow Americans to generate more saveable income and increase generational wealth.
Vance, on the other hand, believes that consolidating American federal spending will be the best approach to lowering housing costs. Vance called for the use of non-national park, federal land as space to build housing, as well as lowering the cost of energy to increase the affordability of said housing.
Overall, the vice presidential debate spanned a myriad of topics, most of which sparked lively discussion while remaining orderly, potentially signaling a return to the decorum of the past.
