Table of Contents
Senator JD Vance and Governor Tim Walz met face to face for the first time Tuesday night in a heated debate hosted by CBS News.
The two vice presidential hopefuls argued about abortion, immigration and the economy.
They also criticized each other for different foreign policy approaches, as the Middle East is on the brink of all-out war after Iran launched nearly 200 ballistic missiles at Israel.
A standout moment occurred when CBS debate moderator Margaret Brennan fact-checked JD Vance, 40, live about his comments about Haitian immigrants living in Springfield, Ohio.
That prompted an angry response from Trump’s running mate, who responded and then had his microphone cut off, sparking outrage from viewers who accused CBS of “bias.”
Walz, 60, also revealed that his own 17-year-old son witnessed a shooting at a school community center, in a heartbreaking story about gun violence across the country.
The two vice presidential hopefuls clashed over abortion, immigration and the economy.
It sparked a rare moment of consensus on behalf of both candidates, who agreed that schools should be safe havens for American children.
And social media users swooned over Vance’s “beautiful blue eyes” as he addressed questions posed by the moderators.
DailyMail.com spoke to several political experts to find out their conclusions on who emerged victorious:
Jonathan Bronitsky: Walz didn’t do… anything
Vance destroyed Walz, according to Bronitsky, former chief speechwriter for Trump Attorney General Bill Barr and co-founder and CEO of ATHOS.
The “nervous and disjointed” Minnesota Democrat “ran headlong into a buzzsaw” into Vance.
Vance and Walz shook hands at the start of the CBS News debate in New York City.
“He didn’t make any glaring mistakes, but he didn’t really do… anything.”
Meanwhile, Bronitsky said Vance “showed the country” why Trump chose him.
“If you’re a progressive, you’re probably sweating at the undeniable reality that Vance is a formidable force.”
In particular, he said Vance, whom he called a “breath of fresh air,” thrived by correcting “misinformation” from CBS moderators, particularly on the issue of immigration.
“He also deftly navigated his question, acknowledging that his previous criticisms of Trump arose from indulging in mainstream media distortions and fabrications.”
David Litt: Vance exceeded expectations
Former President Obama’s top speechwriter, David Litt, told DailyMail.com that Donald Trump’s poor performance in the debate against Kamala Harris a few weeks ago gave Vance an advantage.
“Donald Trump did his running mate a big favor: By losing so badly in his debate with Kamala Harris, he made it easier for JD Vance to exceed expectations.”
He said the “low standard” helped the Republican succeed and embrace the role of a “slick, polished politician” rather than a “creepy podcast bro.”
“He didn’t make any glaring mistakes, but he didn’t really do… anything,” Bronitsky said of Walz.
Democratic vice presidential candidate Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and his wife Gwen Walz greet moderators Margaret Brennan (far left) and Norah O’Donnell.
Litt said Walz’s performance was “less polished” and let Vance off the hook for some of his more outlandish claims.
“But when it mattered most, Walz sounded like a normal person and emerged victorious. Debates revolve around big moments, and the biggest by far was Vance smugly refusing to acknowledge that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. I would love for all the undecided voters to be able to watch this debate just to see that exchange.”
He went on to say that Trump is the “biggest loser” of the night for continuing to avoid further debates with Harris.
Kevin Madden: The winner won’t matter
Madden, a Republican strategist and former Romney presidential campaign aide, admitted that the debate did not go as “we expected.”
He said “controversial” campaign rhetoric was largely thrown out the window and replaced with “Midwestern friendliness.”
Although Vance executed his plan of attack better, the strategist told DailyMail.com that the debate will not “change the trajectory of the campaign for either side.”
“I doubt that within 48 hours this will be registered by many voters.”
Jessica Anderson: Vance is a leader Americans can count on
Jessica Anderson, president of the conservative Sentinel Action Fund, said the debate showed how “radical” the Harris-Walz ticket is.
She told DailyMail.com that Walz’s responses revealed that he will “expand his extremism beyond Minnesota as Kamala Harris’s unapologetic sidekick.”
Former President Obama’s top speechwriter David Litt told DailyMail.com that Donald Trump’s poor performance in the debate against Kamala Harris gave Vance an advantage.
He went on to say that Americans want “forward-thinking” leaders, and Vance proved that he is that candidate.
The debate is especially timely given the growing tension in the Middle East, he noted, an issue that was raised from the beginning of the debate.
“Voters are looking for leaders they can count on to defend Israel and protect the United States and our interests abroad.”
“Republicans are ready to deliver and lead, but we must continue to mobilize voters with a strong ground game to take back the White House and the Senate.”
Alfredo Ortiz: Kamala’s bad judgment in choosing Walz on display
Ortiz, who runs the conservative advocacy group Job Creators Network, said the debate demonstrated Harris’ “poor judgment” in selecting Walz as her running mate.
In particular, he said Walz hid behind his “folkly demeanor” to mask his more “extreme” policies.
These include his tax increase for “ideological reasons” and also strict Covid lockdown policies that closed small businesses.
Gilmore, the former governor of Virginia, told DailyMail.com that Vance seemed “very reasonable.”
James Gilmore: Vance softened attacks on Trump
Gilmore, the former governor of Virginia, told DailyMail.com that Vance seemed “very reasonable.”
“Coming into the debate, they had attacked Vance a lot. I think those things go away now. I thought Vance seemed very capable and very good.
He went on to say that the CBS moderators were “biased” and “pretty horrible.” Especially when they cut off Vance’s microphone in response to the question about migrants.
Gilmore went on to say that Walz appeared to be “running for re-election as governor of Minnesota.”
He added that his answer on China was not very good, saying: “For some reason, Walz decided he had to explain why he was pro-Chinese.”
In a baffling moment, Walz attempted to explain why he lied about being in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests in June 1989, trying to dismiss his comment as a product of being a ‘fool.’
