The United States vice presidential debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz offered Americans a chance to see each parties’ perspective on key national issues from a new mouthpiece that wasn’t the presidential nominee. Both candidates showcased their visions for America’s future throughout the debate, highlighting not only the nominees’ differences in intended policy, but distinct political philosophies.

JD Vance, representing the more conservative viewpoint of the Republican party, focused on  the need for economic deregulation and national security. “We cannot allow our country to be held hostage by bad trade deals and foreign dependence,” Vance argued, stressing the importance of energy independence through domestic oil and gas production. He tied this back to his broader belief in reducing government intervention, stating, “The best thing we can do for the American worker is to get government out of the way and let businesses thrive.” Vance framed his approach as one that would protect American jobs, bolster national security, and return to what he called “common sense solutions” to economic challenges.

In contrast, Tim Walz took a more progressive stance representing the Democratic party. During the debate, he advocated for government action to address social inequalities and climate change. “We cannot stand by while families struggle to pay for healthcare and basic necessities,” Walz said, making a case for expanding access to affordable healthcare. He also highlighted the urgency of addressing environmental issues, declaring, “Investing in renewable energy is not just about the planet—it’s about creating jobs and securing our future.” Walz argued that government intervention–particularly in areas like healthcare and climate policy–would lead to long-term benefits for both the economy and society.

One of the more heated moments came when foreign policy was discussed. Vance was critical of international organizations and global trade deals, saying, “We need to stop putting America second in these global agreements.” He framed globalism as a threat to national sovereignty, while Walz countered with “Strong partnerships and alliances keep us safer and help us compete on the world stage.” This exchange represents their differing perspectives on America's role in international affairs.

Despite their disagreements, both candidates remained relatively civil, focusing on the issues rather than personal attacks. To viewers and political commentators alike, their civility was seen as a fresh departure from more recent political media appearances. Vance’s message resonated with voters seeking less government interference, while Walz appealed to those looking for systemic reform. “At the end of the day,” Walz concluded, “it’s about building a country that works for everyone, not just the wealthy few.”

One of the more awkward moments during the debate was when Vance complained that CBS news reporter Dana Bash kept fact-checking him, but not Walz. During a contentious interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, JD Vance accused her of unfairly interrupting him and being biased in her treatment of Republican versus Democratic guests. At one point, he challenged her, saying, "Dana, would you like to ask me questions and then let me answer them, or would you like to debate me on these topics?" He further criticized her for giving Kamala Harris and Tim Walz "multiple choice answers" during their interviews, adding, "If you're going to interrupt me every single time that I open my mouth, then why am I even doing this?"​

Bash also pressed Vance on claims that Haitian migrants were "eating pets" in Springfield, Ohio, and questioned whether his claims had contributed to bomb threats of Haitians in Springfield. Vance called this line of questioning "disgusting," asserting, "There is nothing that I have said that has led to threats against these hospitals," and added that "we condemn all violence and threats of violence"

However, not everything was clear-cut. Later in the debate, Walz pointed out that Trump was still claiming he didn’t lose the 2020 election and asked Vance, "Did he [Trump] lose the 2020 election?" In response, Vance avoided giving a clear answer, instead deflecting by saying, "I’m focused on the future," and pivoted to criticizing Kamala Harris on other issues. Walz called Vance’s response "a damning nonanswer.”

Both candidates offered compelling arguments, and the debate provided voters with a clear understanding of the ideological divide. Whether it was Vance’s call for economic freedom or Walz’s vision of a government-supported future, the debate allowed viewers to assess which administration’s goals align more closely with their own values from a fresh perspective. As Vance put it, “This election is about the future of our country,” and indeed, the debate gave voters much to consider about what kind of future they want that to be.

Information retrieved from CBS News, BBC News, NPR, AP News, and PBS.