Who won the vice presidential debate — JD Vance or Tim Walz?

Inquirer Opinion writers evaluate the candidates’ performance Tuesday night in New York City.

Republican vice presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, left, and Democratic vice presidential nominee Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz shake hands as they arrive for a CBS News vice presidential debate Tuesday in New York.Julia Demaree Nikhinson

The Philadelphia Inquirer Opinion Team

Published Oct 1, 2024

Welcome to The Inquirer Opinion Desk’s commentary on the vice presidential debate between Republican JD Vance and Democrat Tim Walz.

In this special feature, Inquirer Opinion writers rank the candidates on a scale of 1 to 10. A 1 means the candidate was a complete disappointment, while a 10 is an unquestionable win. Here’s what our columnists, editorial writers, contributors, and Opinion editors thought about the debate.

JD Vance | Average score: 4.4

Jenice Armstrong
Staff Columnist
He’s a good talker all right. But what I’m going to remember about this debate is that Vance got asked about the 2020 presidential election and he refused to admit that Trump lost. He knows he did, but isn’t honest enough to be truthful with the American public. (4/10)

Will Bunch
National Columnist
Vance’s slick used-car-salesman shtick was almost working until CBS News moderator Margaret Brennan called out his lie that Haitian arrivals in Springfield, Ohio are here illegally. “The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check,” a flustered Vance blurted out. Maybe that’s because aggressive fact-checking would have caught his cascade of untruths about climate change, manufacturing jobs, and so much more. CBS News spoke for all of us when they cut off JD’s microphone. (3/10)

Luis Carrasco
Deputy Opinion Editor
Vance misrepresented, misdirected, and straight out lied, yet he sounded so certain, so civil, and measured — and was so rarely held to account — that he walked away with the debate. For anyone who wondered what Trump’s politics of cruelty will look like without Trump, it was a stomach-turning performance by a smiler with the knife. (8/10)

Paul Davies
Opinion Editor-at-Large
Vance started less creepy and unlikeable than at his campaign rallies. But his score went down as the night went on. Vance seemed childish when whining about getting fact checked about his lies about immigrants eating cats in Springfield. Unlike Trump, Vance can speak in complete sentences, but he speaks without saying much. Building Trump’s unfinished wall is not a solution to immigration. Turning schools into gated prisons is also not a solution to mass shootings. Vance repeatedly blamed Vice President Kamala Harris for various issues during the Biden administration, but everyone knows vice presidents have little control over setting policy. Vance gets extra points for maintaining a straight face while trying to present Trump’s chaos and incompetence as “common sense.” At the end of the day, it remains hard for Vance to outrun the shadow of felonious Trump’s corruption, hate and anger. Vance’s retelling of Trump’s one term conveniently left out the mismanagement of the pandemic that caused thousands of needless deaths, two impeachments, four indictments and criminal conviction, and a treasonous attempt to overturn the election. Vance showed his true dishonest and dangerous colors when he twisted Trump’s role in spurring the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection into a game of three-card monte over censorship. (3/10)

Solomon Jones
Contributing Columnist
JD Vance sounded almost reasonable. He emphasized the points where he and Walz agreed, and dodged questions with the skill of a matador. He was asked about reproductive rights and talked about growing up in a working class neighborhood. He was asked about how migrants increase housing prices and referred viewers to a study that would be posted online. He was asked about Trump’s “concepts of a plan” and claimed that Trump was all about better health care. But when Walz asked him if Trump lost the 2020 election and Vance dodged that question, Walz said, “That was a damning non-answer.” I agree with Walz, and if you believe in democracy, you should, too. (5/10)

Devi Lockwood
Commentary and Ideas Editor
From the jump, Vance seemed a lot more confident and comfortable on the stage. But he’s a slippery fish, flip-flopping on abortion and amplifying skepticism on climate change, an insult to the more than 150 people who have died as a result of Hurricane Helene. He kept trying to make the point, like a tired high school debater, that if Harris wanted to solve a problem (housing, climate, etc.), she’d have already done something about it. Vance said he wants to make the Republican Party “pro-family in the fullest sense of the word.” I can’t help but wonder, would he support LGBTQ families? Vance lost when he couldn’t say that Biden won the 2020 election. (3/10)

Daniel Pearson
Editorial Writer
Vance lied through his teeth all night long. But he did so effectively, and neither Walz nor the moderators were capable of keeping up with his claims. The most audacious moment came when he said he knows women who have had abortions and loves them. He also provided an extreme contrast to his running mate, who can no longer string a sentence together. He was polite to Walz. The only bad moment was when he complained about the fact checking. (7/10)

Trudy Rubin
Worldview Columnist
He lied, shifted, and misspoke but was a more glib, experienced speaker. (5/10)

Helen Ubiñas
Staff Columnist
You know what, I’m done playing this game … we should all be done playing this presidential political horse race game. Who cares if JD Vance at times played the part of a thoughtful, tolerant, unbiased, evolved American citizen. This isn’t a pageant or the Emmys, so, no, Vance will not be getting the Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Dystopian Drama Award tonight. He is a slick, shape-shifting sycophant who once (rightly) called Trump a “moral disaster” and compared him to Hitler. Being able to better deliver the same kind of dangerous lies as Trump just makes him potentially more dangerous. He refused to admit that Trump lost the election. That’s it. That’s all we need to know to say: No. Never Trump (again) and Never Vance. (1/10)

Sabrina Vourvoulias
Senior Editor for Commentary, Ideas, and Community Engagement
I wish I could give him a zero because the man lies and lies and lies — and when he isn’t lying, he’s saying reprehensible things (usually about immigrants). Unfortunately, he’s very slick, and so much better spoken than Trump that he makes their egregious distortions of fact sound almost palatable. IMO, that makes him even more dangerous than Trump. (5/10)

Tim Walz | Average score: 6

Jenice Armstrong
Staff Columnist
Walz found his rhythm after a shaky start and did a fair job using his folksy charm to try and win over more voters. Was it enough? (6/10)

Will Bunch
National Columnist
Walz got off to a slow start, looking slightly dazed by the bright lights and haltingly answering a question about the fraught, complicated situation in the Middle East. But he got a lot better as he appealed to America’s better angels and even quoted Scripture in pleading for compassion as part of the solution around immigration. On domestic issues, he sounds like a governor — which is a compliment. If flubbing the dates on a China trip 35 years ago is the worst thing he did, America will be fine with Walz in the West Wing. (7/10)

Luis Carrasco
Deputy Opinion Editor
Walz, who looks so affable and energetic on the campaign trail, seemed nervous and shaky on the debate stage. At least initially, he came off as mildly frazzled and didn’t hit his stride until his answer on abortion (and really came alive when Vance tried to deflect on Trump’s election denial). But what should have been easy knocks against the GOP ticket mostly fizzled. Vance repeated several times that he and Walz agreed that America needed to do better on a host of issues. Unfortunately for America, Trump’s policies would leave the country worse off. Unfortunately for Walz, he couldn’t effectively point that out tonight. (6/10)

Paul Davies
Opinion Editor-at-Large
Walz’s Midwestern nice demeanor is not a strength on the debate stage. He needed to be much tougher, not folksy, in prosecuting the case regarding the danger of allowing a 78-year-old raging felon back in the White House. Walz was strong in defending Obamacare and attacking Vance’s world salad about Trump’s lack of a health-care plan. A big miss came during the climate change portion of the debate when Walz failed to mention that Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord and will likely do it again if elected. He fumbled the China travel question. While the media will likely turn that into a big issue, it doesn’t amount to a molehill in the mountain of concerns facing voters. Walz’s common sense response to gun safety was particularly strong. His high note came at the end of the debate when he talked about Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Vance couldn’t answer when Walz asked him if Trump lost the election. It underscored how Trump is still litigating his 2020 lie and has no vision for the future. (5/10)

Solomon Jones
Contributing Columnist
Tim Walz came out nervous. For the first few seconds, he didn’t look like he was ready for the moment. He also stumbled later when he was asked about a false statement that he made about being in China during the Tiananmen Square uprising. But when Walz spoke about reproductive rights, he was passionate, eloquent, and believable. When he talked about emergency management as a governor, he was knowledgeable. When he talked about Trump killing the border bill, he was effective. When he talked about the things JD Vance said while criticizing Trump, Vance had no answer. His most effective line of the night was when he asked Vance if Trump lost in 2020. Vance’s non-answer to that key question gave Walz the win in this debate. (8/10)

Devi Lockwood
Commentary and Ideas Editor
Walz took a while to get into his stride, with answers that were in turns meandering, halting, and circuitous. He was strongest on gun violence — when he said that our first responsibility is to our kids — and when he brought up Amber Thurman’s avoidable death after Georgia’s abortion ban. Walz isn’t an A+ debater (he dedicated too much time, for example, to trying to find commonality with Vance), but I’m confident in his ability to represent the best interests of the American people. (5/10)

Daniel Pearson
Editorial Writer
Walz had a hard time keeping up with the Yale-educated lawyer and best-selling author. He consistently struggled to cut through Vance’s lies and make his own points at the same time. He did rally at the end, however, when he challenged Vance to answer who won the election, and he refused. He needed to do things like that all night. (5/10)

Trudy Rubin
Worldview Columnist
Walz is a poor, inexperienced debater who let Vance get away with a lot of easily refutable lies and appear reasonable. But Walz was effective in putting forward his policy successes in Minnesota. He was also strong on health care, he showed a spirit of bipartisanship, and he was very effective on abortion rights and the importance of preserving democracy. In response to a question from Walz, Vance refused to say Trump lost in 2020 and lied BIG about Trump peacefully turning over power. But Vance was allowed to sound solid when he was actually weak. (5/10)

Helen Ubiñas
Staff Columnist
Walz started out a little nervous, and it was actually refreshing to see because there is a lot on the line here — and, spoiler alert, it’s not really who did a better job during the vice presidential debate tonight. It was Walz — even if he did fumble that Tiananmen Square question, but really at issue here is preserving our democracy. Walz did well on keeping on message and talking policy. But what he did best is insert Trump’s name every chance he got to remind Americans of what an agent of chaos he is. A little advice: While I appreciate his Minnesota nice, there is just a little over a month left before the election. So gloves off. There is way too much at stake. (A 5 to CBS, whose moderators did a pretty good job of seamlessly fact-checking Vance, who whined “the rules were you guys weren’t going to fact check.”) But we had two men debating women’s rights on tonight’s stage, and two white women asking questions about immigration and the dangerous lies told about Black and brown undocumented immigrants and migrants. With so many women journalists of color who could have been tapped, who should always be tapped in these conversations, that was a disappointing omission. (8/10)

Sabrina Vourvoulias
Senior Editor for Commentary, Ideas, and Community Engagement
I wish I could give Walz a better grade than I gave Vance, but he seemed off-balance from the first and struggled with answers throughout (even reproductive justice, for crying out loud). He misspoke at times (confessing that he gets “caught in rhetoric” for example) and had problems tapping into the folksy charm that had so endeared him to people before this. He only really shone toward the end, in his passion when discussing Jan. 6, and in his closing statement. (5/10)

Jenice Armstrong (@JeniceArmstrong) is a staff columnist at The Inquirer.
Will Bunch (@Will_Bunch) is the national columnist at The Inquirer.
Luis F. Carrasco (@lfcarrasco) is deputy opinion editor at The Inquirer.
Paul Davies is opinion editor-at-large and senior editorial writer at The Inquirer.
Solomon Jones (@solomonjones1) is a contributing columnist at The Inquirer.
Devi Lockwood (@devi_lockwood) is commentary and ideas editor at The Inquirer.
Daniel Pearson (@DPearsonPHL) is an editorial writer at The Inquirer.
Helen Ubiñas (@NotesFromHeL) is a staff columnist at The Inquirer.
Sabrina Vourvoulias (@followthelede) is senior editor for commentary, ideas, and community engagement at The Inquirer.