The October 1, 2024, vice-presidential debate, with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz representing the Democratic ticket led by Vice President Kamala Harris and Ohio Senator JD Vance on the Republican side, gave voters a detailed look into where the candidates stand on critical issues like abortion, democracy, immigration, and healthcare. Moderated by CBS anchors Norah O'Donnell and Margaret Brennan, the 90-minute debate at the CBS Broadcast Center in New York City laid bare the sharp ideological divides between the two candidates, particularly on reproductive rights and the future of American democracy.

The debate over abortion highlighted a sharp contrast. Governor Walz, faced with a false claim from Donald Trump that he supports abortion in the ninth month, forcefully rebutted the accusation. In one of his strongest moments, Walz brought attention to the personal stories of women who faced life-threatening health crises or died due to restrictive state abortion bans, like Amber Thurman. “In Minnesota, what we did was restore Roe v. Wade,” he said. “We made sure that we put women in charge of their health care.” His response underscored his commitment to protecting reproductive rights and putting healthcare decisions in the hands of women.

JD Vance, on the other hand, faced scrutiny over his evolving stance on abortion. During the debate, Vance stated, “I never supported a national ban.” However, this is a lie. In 2022, while running for his Senate seat in Ohio, Vance said on a podcast, “I certainly would like abortion to be illegal nationally,” and expressed sympathy for the idea of a national ban to prevent women from traveling across states to obtain an abortion. 

In 2023, Vance pivoted to supporting a “minimum national standard” for banning abortion, which he reiterated during the debate. Yet his stance on abortion during the current campaign has been more aligned with Trump’s position that states should determine their abortion laws. Despite his past remarks, Vance attempted to present himself as an advocate of state-level decision-making, further confusing his position.

One of the most defining moments of the debate came when Walz challenged Vance to admit that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. Walz pointed out that Trump's refusal to concede the 2020 election had incited the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, leading to violence and the deaths of multiple officers. "The democracy is bigger than winning an election," Walz remarked.

Walkz asked Vance if Trump lost the election. In response, Vance dodged the question by stating he was “focused on the future,” a non-answer that Walz quickly called out as “damning.” The Ohio senator’s refusal to unequivocally acknowledge Trump’s loss mirrored the broader Republican Party’s unwillingness to break from Trump’s false claims of election fraud. Vance’s hesitancy to confront the past election could influence voter perceptions, as it ties directly into concerns about the potential for further undermining American democracy in 2024.

Immigration emerged as a highly charged issue during the debate, particularly when Walz confronted Vance over false claims the Ohio senator made regarding Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. Vance had previously suggested that Haitian migrants were responsible for eating residents’ pets—an inflammatory and widely debunked statement. Despite the fact-check from the moderators confirming that the Haitian migrants in question were in the U.S. legally, Vance continued to frame immigration as a burden on local communities.

Vance’s rhetoric about overwhelmed schools and unaffordable housing due to migrant influxes echoed familiar anti-immigrant talking points, drawing a clear line between his hardline stance and Walz’s more balanced approach. Walz criticized Trump for obstructing a bipartisan border security bill earlier this year, accusing the former president of keeping immigration alive as a divisive campaign issue. The exchange became so tense that the microphones had to be muted.

While both candidates acknowledged the rising tide of gun violence, the solutions offered during the debate were far from aligned. JD Vance’s approach to gun violence felt more like an afterthought than a serious policy proposal. He blamed the issue partly on “Kamala Harris’ open border,” a confusing statement that seemed to have no direct connection to the gun violence epidemic in schools. 

Walz quickly refocused the conversation, cutting through Vance’s evasions. “Sometimes it just is the guns,” Walz said bluntly, making it clear that without addressing the availability and accessibility of firearms, no meaningful change could happen. While acknowledging the complexities surrounding gun violence, Walz stressed that the proliferation of guns in America cannot be ignored if the country is serious about preventing further tragedies.

But Vance’s comments on school safety really took center stage for their shallowness. “We have to make the doors lock better. We have to make the doors stronger. We’ve got to make the windows stronger.” His remarks prompted a strong reaction from Walz, who questioned the logic of transforming schools into impenetrable fortresses. “Do you want your schools hardened to look like a fort?” Walz asked, pushing back against the idea that simply making schools more secure would solve the problem of mass shootings.

Walz also highlighted the danger of stigmatizing mental health, cautioning that conflating mental illness with violence could lead to harmful stereotypes. “This idea of stigmatizing mental health – just because you have a mental health issue doesn’t mean you’re violent,” he said, urging a more thoughtful approach to the complexities of gun violence that does not rely on scapegoating the mentally ill.

Vance’s proposals, including his suggestion to “strengthen windows,” revealed the hollowness of his approach. By focusing on superficial solutions rather than the real issue of gun accessibility, he dodged the harder conversations necessary to address the crisis. Meanwhile, Walz’s emphasis on gun control and caution against stigmatizing mental health offered a more nuanced and thoughtful perspective, even if his proposals would likely face resistance in the current political climate.

With only 34 days until Election Day and Kamala Harris leading the ticket as the presidential nominee, the vice-presidential debate offered voters a glimpse into two competing visions for America. JD Vance sought to present himself as a champion of family values and state autonomy. Still, his evasions on critical issues like abortion and the legitimacy of the 2020 election revealed inconsistencies in his stance. In contrast, Tim Walz came across as a passionate advocate for reproductive rights and democracy, using personal stories and fervent rhetoric to connect with voters. As the campaign heads into the final stretch, these sharp differences are poised to shape how voters assess the future of healthcare, democracy, and personal freedoms in the country.

Clay Cane is a SiriusXM radio host and the author of the New York Times bestseller The Grift: The Downward Spiral of Black Republicans From the Party of Lincoln to the Cult of Trump.