The 2024 Vice Presidential Debate: The Meaningless Showdown
Special Edition 009
Vice Presidential debates have always struck me as a bit of a circus. After all, the role of Vice President is essentially a high-profile virtue signal—aka, pretty much meaningless. But this election cycle, a virtue signal could hold a lot of weight. The debate last night featured two relatively fresh faces on the national political stage: Ohio Republican Sen. JD Vance and Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz. And this is likely the last debate we’ll see before the election. Trump has flatly rejected Kamala Harris’s plea for a rematch—can you blame him? After getting trounced on national TV, I’d dodge a debate too.
With the race so tight, you’d think this vice presidential showdown could actually matter. Thank goodness it doesn’t.
Hosted by CBS News, there was a glaring difference from the presidential debates: moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan didn’t live fact-check the candidates. Instead, they presented a QR code linking to a fact-checking page that updated at a pace reminiscent of dial-up internet—glacial.
Neither candidate had what you’d call a stellar night, and both campaigns might be breathing a sigh of relief that this debate won’t carry much weight. Let’s dive into five key takeaways from the debate and grade their performances. Spoiler alert: it’s not pretty.
#1. Same Text, Different Font
“On this point, I think Tim Walz and I agree.”
— Ohio Senator JD Vance
Last night was yet another display of the Democratic Party’s right-wing posturing, particularly on issues like the border and foreign policy regarding Israel’s actions in the Middle East. Honestly, every time Vance or Walz said “I agree with you,” a little part of me died.
We already knew Vance was a trainwreck, but it was even more disappointing to see Walz play nice and parrot the same tired Democratic talking points wrapped in a cute blue donkey bow. Both parties are in lockstep when it comes to letting Israel do as it pleases—even if that means flirting with nuclear war. They also align on tightening up border policies, differing only in the degree of their hateful rhetoric. As I’ve said before, our nation is essentially controlled by one party with two faces. The notion of a bipartisan democracy? Just a comforting lie.
#2. Tim Walz is Not a Secret Somali
“Israel’s ability to be able to defend itself, is fundamental.”
— Minnesota Governor Tim Walz
If you’re not as terminally online as I am, you might not get this joke—and frankly, I envy you. There was a time when far-right corners of the internet, 4Chan, claimed that “Timmy Somali” changed the Minnesota flag to resemble Somalia’s. When Walz was named the Democratic Party’s vice presidential candidate, this conspiracy flared up again, suggesting he somehow supports Palestine in the ongoing “Israel-Gaza conflict.”
I held out hope that maybe there was something to it, but last night, the Tim Walz I know and love was nowhere to be seen. After the initial buzz of his announcement as Kamala Harris’s running mate fizzled, his campaign effectively sidelined him, and he adopted Harris’s Israel defense talking points. It feels like he’s been swallowed whole by the Democratic Party’s hawkish moderate stance, leaving behind the politician he once was.
#3. Vance Tried to Make a Moderate of Himself
“The rules were you guys weren’t going to fact check”
— Ohio Senator JD Vance
Last night’s debate was practically a playground for confident liars. With the rules allowing moderators to refrain from real-time fact-checking, the stage was set for Vance to twist the truth. When even the moderators equated Walz’s minor gaffe about a trip to China with Vance’s outrageous claims about immigrants eating cats and dogs in Springfield, it was clear the Ohio Senator had a leg up.
Vance didn’t just benefit from the lax rules; Walz’s constant agreeability and failure to press him—unlike how Harris handled Trump—allowed Vance to bask in Walz’s favorability. This gave Vance the opportunity to present himself in a more moderate light, despite the fact that it was all smoke and mirrors. Essentially, he used Walz to humanize himself while peddling a stack of lies.
#4. They Should’ve Just Gone with Josh Shapiro
“Let's keep in mind where this started. October 7th, Hamas terrorists massacred over 1400 Israelis and took prisoners.”
— Minnesota Governor Tim Walz
If the Dems were intent on neutering any momentum from Walz’s vice presidential selection and going full pro-Israel while tightening the border, they might as well have picked Josh Shapiro. At least he would’ve been a better debater.
With Kamala Harris’s talking points on the border and Israel weighing him down, it was clear that Tim was shackled by her all-over-the-place record and the Democratic Party’s centrist (often right-leaning) stance. It was like Walz was defanged, and it was only made even clearer when Tim was questioned on policy where the Democratic Party’s national stance is left-leaning, like reproductive rights. On those issues, he came alive, but for the rest of the debate? He was dead behind the eyes.
What the party once gained from adding Walz to the ticket is now lost. So at this point, if they weren’t trying to secure the left wing of the party, Shapiro might have been a better fit. Honestly, who knows? I’d be disappointed either way.
#5. The Republican Playbook is to Lie and Blame Migrants
“You’ve got housing that is totally unaffordable, because we have brought in millions of illegal immigrants to compete with Americans for scarce homes.”
— Ohio Senator JD Vance
Surprise, surprise: JD Vance lied. Like his running mate, he rambled, spun tales, and somehow managed to link everything back to the border. Vance couldn’t resist blaming “illegal aliens” for just about everything—climate change, housing shortages, you name it.
With no live fact-checking from the moderators, he was free to spew whatever he wanted. Sure, the moderators caught his lies and redirected questions at Walz to address them, but it just didn’t have the same punch as the real-time fact-checking we saw in the ABC presidential debate. Ultimately, I’m not sure this will have many implications; the American audience is pretty well-versed in the far right’s habit of not going more than 10 minutes without telling another lie.
I Know It Doesn’t Mean Anything, But I Hated It
I’ve already said that vice presidential debates are pretty inconsequential, but that doesn’t mean I can’t walk away feeling a sense of hopelessness. Let’s just be real: this debate SUCKED. Walz may have even done more harm than good by humanizing Vance—the absolute worst thing you can do.
And I kept getting this feeling that they were both ready to drop the top of their tickets and run together. Because of that, this debate is unlikely to move the needle, and that’s bad news for the Democrats. All momentum for the Democrats have stalled since the DNC and polls have largely remained unchanged and too close to call. Plus, there was nothing even remotely entertaining about this debate—it was an utter waste of time.
Performance Scores
👎 Tim Walz: 3.5/10
Great guy overall, but not exactly a skilled debater. He was way too nice at times—he was missing the backbone needed to stand up to a fervent liar like Vance. Walz shines when discussing issues he cares about, but he just couldn’t go on the offensive. I hate to say it, but he needed to channel a little more Kamala Harris. Seriously, where was the “they’re weird” line of attack? This debate made me nostalgic for the Tim Walz before he joined the Harris ticket.
👎 JD Vance: 4/10
JD Vance is a disgusting, vile, lying attack dog. It’s what makes you hate him, but it also makes him effective in a debate—especially when moderators can’t fact-check him live. In a bizarre twist, he even came off looking better than Trump. That nervous “please like me” energy was still there, but muted enough that those looking for an excuse to like him wouldn’t be completely turned off. However, despite the favorable format, he struggled to drive his points home, often skirting the questions and defaulting to lies while blaming everything on migrants.