J.D. Vance Vice Presidential Debate analysis

The debate between vice presidential candidates Tim Walz and J.D. Vance has come to its conclusion. To cut to the chase, Vance had a great night when it came to working with the cards he was dealt.

Up until now, Vance has often come across rather rude or aggressive in interviews where he is not dealt softball questions. He has also seemed rather awkward in non-scripted campaign trail showings, such as his impromptu walk-in at Holt’s Sweet Shop in Valdosta.

However, whether it was due to ample debate preparation or a spiritual awakening of sorts, Vance presented relatively well as a reasonable and down-to-earth speaker with his constituents in mind.

Vance looked neither overly aggressive (most of the time) nor in discomfort and seemed in control of the debate throughout the night.

Vance made a key point to hearken back to his humble beginnings, showing sympathy for those with relatives or who struggle with drug addiction, and reminding the working and middle class that he was the candidate for them.

Vance also stated that housing should be more affordable and that the root of many of the economy’s problems is illegal immigrants. It is important to note the similarities of this mantra with that of Ronald Reagan’s condemnation of ‘welfare queens”

The rhetoric is racist, tired and unproven, but continues to run rampant even in the highest levels of government.

Regardless, throughout the night Vance showcased a more unified vision for the country and only on occasion dabbled in fear-mongering. Instead of blaming illegal immigrants for every issue facing the country, he only blamed them for half.

Vance keyed into current voter dissatisfaction with the Biden administration by highlighting Kamala Harris’ role in what Trump and Vance consider to be a failing economy.

“She isn't just causing high prices. She's undoing the incredible work that Donald Trump did to rebuild American manufacturing,” said Vance.

“Kamala Harris not only wants to allow the Chinese Communist Party to build factories on American soil. She wants to pay them to do it with our tax money.”

A bold claim when measured up against Trump’s administrational history with outsourcing jobs (while in office, Trump outsourced over 200,000 jobs to other countries and awarded some $425 billion in federal grants to the corporations involved after running on a campaign statement to bring jobs back to the U.S.)

Nevertheless, claims of Chinese infringement on American prosperity, however hypocritical, have proven to be a tried and true political tool over the years. Points for Vance.

One innovation Vance showcased on stage was his ability to cross party lines and agree with his opponent, stating agreement with Walz on issues of affordable housing, gun violence and accessible reproductive care for women in need.

It presented an image of Vance being quite reasonable, and someone who can look past partisanship in the interests of the American people.

However, the proverbial mask of reasonability did falter on occasion.

Vance struggled to adhere to debate rules and had a full-on meltdown when one of the moderators clarified the status of Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio to be under temporary protected legal status.

“The rules were that you guys weren't going to fact-check, and since you're fact-checking me, I think it's important to say what's actually going on,” said Vance, visibly flustered and perhaps noticing how poor his conduct appeared as the words left his mouth.

Amidst calling for a strengthening of the southern border and an “empowerment” of border officials to do their jobs, Walz countered with how Trump made calls to Senators to shut down a bi-partisan border bill, to which Vance had no response.

Vance did a remarkable job of packaging campaign promises into sounding a lot more fleshed out than has thus far been communicated.

One would be hard-pressed to take what was said by Vance on proposed healthcare overhauls, but at least the way he spoke about it sounded pretty.

Vance took it upon himself to address how Republicans have fared in elections following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court: “We’ve got to do so much better of a job [sic] at earning the American people’s trust back on this issue where they, frankly, just don’t trust us.”

How exactly, one may ask? That was left unanswered, with Vance solely claiming that “this is one of the things that Donald Trump and I are endeavoring to do.”

In likeness with his running mate, Vance would switch the subject when he recognized the answer was not one that would resonate well with the American public.

Perhaps no example represents this better than when Vance addressed concerns on election certification, particularly as it exists for his running mate’s 2020 election:

“Tim, I'm focused on the future.”

Vance has walked into a campaign with too many skeletons in its closet to blindly support the statements and actions of the man at the top of the ticket without looking disingenuous.

Despite this, Vance displayed ample amounts of charisma on the debate stage, and that is just about all one needs to satisfy the median voter.

Polling has thus far not reflected a meaningful impact from the debate.

Trip Tagle is a second-year majoring in digital and print journalism. To contact them, please email tnt5403@psu.edu.