We explain the why the debate offered a snapshot of another era.
Last night’s vice-presidential debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz was calmer — and more typical of the pre-Trump political era — than the presidential debate last month. That calmness often made it easier to understand the policy differences between the two campaigns.
In today’s newsletter, we’ll walk through four big differences, as well as tell you about key moments from the debate and offer a selection of commentary about how Vance and Walz did.
The two campaigns are each making a core argument about foreign policy, and Walz and Vance began the debate by laying them out.
Kamala Harris’s campaign argues that Donald Trump is too erratic to be the leader of the free world; he is too self-centered and too willing to coddle dictators like Vladimir Putin, which explains why so many U.S. allies fear a second Trump term. “Look, our allies understand that Donald Trump is fickle,” Walz said. The world can’t afford that unpredictability, Harris and Walz argue, especially when the Middle East, Europe and Asia are all in turmoil.
Vance countered by asking voters to compare the amount of global turmoil during Trump’s presidency and Biden’s presidency. On President Biden’s watch, Hamas attacked Israel, Putin invaded Ukraine, and China became even more aggressive in its region. On Trump’s watch, no major new conflicts began. “Ask yourself at home,” Vance said. “When was the last time that an American president didn’t have a major conflict break out?” Vance was effectively arguing that Trump’s unpredictability had contained America’s enemies better than Biden’s diplomacy has.
Both Harris and Trump have a big weakness on immigration, and the two vice-presidential candidates went straight at them.
