A concise, genial, risk-averse, smooth-clumsy VP debate

Opinion editor’s note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Minnesota Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.

•••

As far as political cage matches go, Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate was genteel. Pundits of all stripes instantly labeled the encounter mostly cordial. Both the Democrat, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, and the Republican, U.S. Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, fulfilled their primary missions to elevate the candidate at the top of their respective tickets and, most crucially, do no harm.

Both men provided carefully scripted responses to questions they were eager to answer, while attempting to spin away from those they deemed quicksand. Topics raised for discussion included the environment, the Middle East, immigration, reproductive rights and the economy, providing both candidates the opportunity to reach voters who remain undecided.

With less than five weeks to the election, here is how members of the Minnesota Star Tribune Editorial Board viewed what is likely be the last face-to-face encounter between the two tickets.

•••

A transition 20 minutes in defined the tone. Walz finished a thought and stopped speaking, only to be told: “Governor, your time is up.”

Well, thanks.

See, the moderators weren’t prepared for a courteous, efficient discussion. They should’ve been. It’s what we tend to get from two-person debates in which Donald Trump is not on stage, especially the vice presidential ones.

Vance won on style. He blew smoke and shifted shapes with articulate confidence. That works for many people. One wonders what kind of political force he might be one day as a rider of his own horse.

It was good to see a dialed-down Walz, more representative of his ways in Minnesota than the image he stokes on the trail. Still, he was halting at times, defensive at others, and missed opportunities to make himself clear.

I’d still like to see a debate format with no moderators nor audience, just two candidates conversing.

You wouldn’t hear about every issue, or even many, but you can get that elsewhere. What you’d see is how they reason. A missing element in most modern campaigns, though we caught a glimpse on Tuesday.

DAVID BANKS, assistant commentary editor

•••

Until last night, the campaign had mostly showcased Walz’s strengths.

A former teacher and a coach, Walz is clearly at home working the crowds when stopping by a small-town café or school. Vance has struggled in the same settings.

But Tuesday’s debate put Vance in his natural habitat. He’s a Yale-educated attorney and has formidable rhetorical skills. He put an unnerving polish on dubious policies, such as widescale deportations, while glibly spinning a brazen mistruth. I’ve long covered health care, and his claim that former President Donald Trump saved the Affordable Care Act left me speechless. In reality, Trump tried to kill it in 2017, with U.S. Sen. John McCain’s “no” vote derailing that effort.

Walz still won the debate with the knock-out blow at the very end, correctly noting Vance’s chilling non-answer about whether Trump lost the 2020 election. But until then, Walz struggled to land a punch, with rambling answers that circled the point instead of making it memorably. Walz has spoken to this Editorial Board many times over his long career and these overcaffeinated all-over-the-board responses too often are an unforced error in his ground game.

Vance’s smooth patter, meanwhile, could have won over some undecided voters who have Trump misgivings.

Walz also had a cringeworthy moment when he was asked about whether he was in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests. A brief “I misspoke and I apologize” would have sufficed, advice he should take to heart.

JILL BURCUM, editorial writer

•••

Kamala Harris was in the White House Situation Room on Tuesday as Iran launched at least 180 missiles into Israel. The next vice president will likely find himself there, too, contending with conflicts spanning the Middle East, Eastern Europe, East Asia and beyond.

But remarkably and regrettably, only the Mideast was really referenced at the debate, with the first question whether the candidates would support or oppose a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran. Walz, wobbly at the beginning, didn’t answer directly, instead pivoting to tout Harris’ “steady leadership” compared to Trump’s “fickleness.” Vance backed up his answer to make room for his backstory before backing Trump by claiming he “actually delivered stability in the world.”

Eventually getting to the moderator’s (and an anxious world’s) question, Vance said that “it is up to Israel what they think they need to do to keep their country safe. And we should support our allies wherever they are when they’re fighting the bad guys.”

An essential follow-up would have been America’s involvement in Israel “fighting the bad guys,” and if the ethos of supporting allies extends to Kyiv, especially given Vance’s previous statement that “I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.”

Yet unfortunately, Ukraine’s existential fight against Russia wasn’t discussed. Neither was the specter of China invading Taiwan, the threat posed by the Beijing-Moscow-Tehran-Pyongyang axis of authoritarianism, nor other grave geopolitical dynamics that will keep the Situation Room occupied.

JOHN RASH, editorial writer

•••

On presentation and conduct, Walz and Vance did this region proud. The interaction between the two Midwestern dads was a generally cordial, civil exchange during which several areas of agreement and empathy were expressed. Our home-state governor got off to a shaky start, appearing uncharacteristically nervous in response to a question about the Middle East, while Vance was more polished and comfortable.

But Walz warmed up after a few minutes, and sharp contrasts were laid bare as he and Vance discussed major differences on the economy, foreign policy, immigration, abortion and reproductive rights, and health care. The Harris/Walz campaign generally approaches the issues in a more humane and compassionate manner and would expect taxpayers to pay their ”fair share“ to fund spending plans.

Who could work behind the scenes to help the president pass legislation? Which one would use that Senate tie-breaking vote to move the nation in the right policy direction? And who would be best prepared to step into the top job if necessary? Based on his congressional and executive experience and the debate responses, that person is Walz.

Tuesday’s exchange between the two will likely not change many American minds, as post-debate polling decisively confirmed. But the debate did give some insights into why Walz would be better at that No. 2 position, including working with Congress to get things done.

DENISE JOHNSON, editorial writer

•••

I waited for the inevitable Springfield, Ohio, pet question that could lead to a rapid descent in the decorum.

Somehow, the candidates almost navigated the question, with Vance offering only a tepid defense of his running mate’s baseless claims of illegal Haitian migrants eating cats and dogs. When a CBS debate moderator fact-checked Vance stating that Springfield has many Haitian migrants with legal status, Vance and Walz animatedly began speaking over each other.

Both candidates’ microphones were temporarily muted. At that moment, I thought about another public servant, Ohio’s Republican Gov. Mike DeWine. A short story:

DeWine and his wife, Fran, built a school in Port Au Prince, Haiti, in 1998, after their daughter, Becky, was killed in a car accident at the age of 22. That’s how they honor her memory. They have visited the country regularly and paid out of their own pockets for the education of thousands. The school has shuttered off and on in 2024 due to gang violence and imminent threat of civilian death. The DeWines remain committed to the school — not to mention the defense of American asylum-seekers who simply wish to live.

We will need multiples of our better angels in the coming days.

PHIL MORRIS, opinion editor