VP Debate 10/1/2024

By Eric McMath

In the race for the White House, pairing is crucial as the Vice President must complement the presidential candidate at the top of the ticket on policy and be a chief advocate of their agenda. While private disagreements may happen, publicly, being on the same page is essential for maintaining Executive Branch solidarity and political effectiveness on the campaign trail and if successful, once in office. 

The VP’s role is important for several reasons, yes, they are the President of the Senate prepared to cast a tie-breaking vote when the Senate is deadlocked. They additionally serve as close advisors to the President on foreign and domestic affairs. The Vice President’s role is most paramount in my eyes as they are first in the Presidential Line of Succession. If the President dies, resigns, or is incapacitated, the VP assumes the role of President. I have always looked at the VP candidates and ask myself, “could this person be a good President.” 

There have been 9 Vice Presidents that assumed the office of President in U.S. history. Here are the last three. 

Harry S. Truman (1945) – Took over after President Franklin D. Roosevelt died of a stroke during his fourth term. The two term limit now in place for the presidents’ office was formalized in 1951 with the ratification of the 22nd amendment. 

Lyndon B. Johnson (1963) – Became President following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy who was fatally shot in Dallas, Texas.

Gerald Ford (1974) – Assumed the presidency after the resignation of President Richard Nixon, who stepped down in the wake of the Watergate scandal. Ford is the only Vice President to become president due to a resignation.

Each of these Vice Presidents stepped in due to unforeseen events, maintaining the continuity of leadership in the United States.

In Chinese culture, the number two is considered a lucky number. It’s associated with harmony, balance, and good things coming in pairs.

The Vice Presidential debate took place last night between Democratic Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota and GOP Senator JD Vance of Ohio. This showdown had several key elements that were note worthy as the number twos took the stage in New York City in what was an overall civil discourse that cemented each in U.S. VP debate history. 

Both candidates shook hands and came out swinging, playing the attack dog role as expected. Walz started off shaky, then got really comfortable as the debate continued. Vance was as smooth as can be but fumbled several questions along the way. He told good stories and is clearly a good public speaker. Surprisingly, (surely planned) Vance didn’t come across as smug, polarizing, and bombastic as he normally is but told multiple lies while gaslighting along the way.

Vance took a strong stance on reducing government spending and securing the U.S. border, reflecting his alignment with the Republican ticket’s broader platform. Walz, meanwhile, quickly reminded everyone, that one of the toughest bipartisan immigration bills was totally completed, but Trump told members of Congress to vote against the bill so that he could campaign on that issue – and they did. #facts. Walz also emphasized expanding healthcare access and tackling climate change, attempting to rally Democratic support around progressive causes. Walz did a good job talking about things that were successful at the (micro) level in Minnesota and how some of those same policies could be broaden to a (macro) level to cover the entire U.S.

With a presumed level of sincerity, Vance went on to highlight Trump’s leadership abilities and what he did while in office. However, his own prior statements that he used against Trump – saying that he was unfit to be president and was a threat to democracy were hard for the senator to disassociate himself from these remarks. He avoided controversial topics like the January 6th attack on the Capitol where five people died, including a Capitol police officer and over a hundred law enforcement officers were injured. This issue was definitely Vance’s weak point of the night – he simply didn’t have a rebuttal. Instead of answering most of the question directly, Vance went after Harris on almost every issue.

Walz criticized Trump’s chaotic presidency and seemed to have a firm command of other key issues that were covered included immigration, abortion, gun control, and climate change. Only a small portion of the night was on foreign policy, particularly what’s going on currently with Iran/Israel and the potential for an escalating conflict with potential U.S. involvement. Walz fumble of the night was he’s answer about him being in Tiananmen Square (Beijing China) during the violent protest that took place in the spring of 1989. Although he has made several trips to the region exposing kids to the part of the world, he was not there during the protest and he struggled to just come clean and say that he misspoke about the dates.

Last night there were know major gaffes or standout moments likely to shift the dynamics of the race significantly. Both candidates aimed to portray themselves as empathetic and solutions-focused – they both accomplished their missions.

I don’t think either candidate delivered a knockout blow, and the debate likely reinforced existing support rather than swaying large numbers of undecided voters.

We are now in the home stretch with only 34 days until election day. It should be an interesting final leg…

Thoughts?