JD Vance and Tim Walz faced off in the Vice-Presidential debate on Tuesday night, with five weeks to go until the election. Newsweek writers declare who won and why. You can have your say too—and vote for who won in our poll below.
Bethany Mandel—JD Vance
JD Vance’s performance at the Vice Presidential debate is exactly why he was chosen as Donald Trump’s running mate. He is the wonky and shrewd version of the former President; able to cooly deploy arguments with facts, accompanied by just the right amount of emotion. Sophie Vershobow, a liberal writer fumed during the debate on X, “Trump says crazy things in a crazy way and Vance says crazy things in a normal way.” Vance is an effective communicator for Trump’s messages and speaks to normal Americans in their language, and his opposition finds that terrifying.
Bethany Mandel is co-author of Stolen Youth
David Faris—JD Vance
JD Vance was an effective messenger for the narrative that Trump was incapable of delivering—that Republicans will take us back to 2019. Unflappable and often craven, Vance was relentlessly on message. Tim Walz came off as authentic—often authentically flummoxed—and relatable. He spoke movingly about reproductive rights and pinned the Dobbs decision and other disasters on Trump. But overall, he left too many opportunities to corner Vance on the table. Republicans must be wondering what the outlook of this race might be had they nominated a younger, saner person, like Vance, capable of making sense for 90 consecutive minutes.
Associate Professor, Roosevelt University
Daniel R. DePetris—Tie
On foreign policy issues, both candidates fell short of expectations. JD Vance claimed that Donald Trump delivered effective deterrence against Iran, yet conveniently failed to mention that Tehran struck two U.S. military bases in Iraq with ballistic missiles days after a U.S. drone killed Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani. Tim Walz blamed Donald Trump for having an affinity for dictators yet apparently fails to realize that interaction with unsavory people, moral scruples notwithstanding, is often a part of the job as commander in chief. On the most pressing issue of the day, the escalating violence in the Middle East, Vance and Walz chose to trumpet generalities over specific policies. Vance, for instance, needs to explain why he thinks it’s wise for the U.S. to provide unconditional support to Israel if it decides to conduct a preemptive attack on Iran—particularly when tens of thousands of U.S. troops in the region could receive the brunt of any Iranian retaliation that ensues. Similarly, Walz must explain what a potential Kamala Harris administration would do to put Iran’s nuclear program back in a box and what tough but necessary concessions it’s willing to offer to get there. I suppose we will all have to wait a little longer for actual plans.
Daniel R. DePetris is a Fellow at Defense Priorities
Doug Gordon—Tim Walz
Tim Walz, who is clearly more comfortable at a state fair then in a debate setting, more than held his own against a flood of lies and misinformation from JD Vance. The debate was substantive but likely will not do much to change the trajectory of this race. Vice Presidential debates rarely matter much, and I doubt tonight will be the exception to that rule. With the Harris/Walz ticket leading in the key metrics that matter at this stage—money, momentum and organization—tonight served its purpose for Democrats. Continued the momentum. A win for Walz and Democrats.
Doug Gordon is a Democratic strategist and cofounder of UpShift Strategies
Patrick T. Brown—JD Vance
JD Vance’s entrance to the national stage this summer was a bit wrong-footed, with viral falsehoods and controversial comments helping paint the picture of a “weird” conservative firebrand. His performance on Tuesday’s debate stage was a near-perfect reintroduction to the America people, showcasing his command of family policy, a strong answer on abortion and support for parents, and putting forward the strongest national case for the Trump agenda voters have heard to date. Walz started off nervously and never fully recovered, despite some friendly moderators. Republicans who want to see a positive, compelling vision for their party in a post-Trump era, whether that’s in January 2025 or beyond, should feel confident about Vance’s performance tonight.
Patrick T. Brown is a Fellow at The Ethics and Public Policy Center
