Gov. Tim Walz and Sen. JD Vance took the stage Tuesday night in the one-and-only vice presidential debate of the election season, discussing hot-button issues and the peaceful transition of power post-election. 

CBS’ Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan moderated the debate, which some called a battle of the “Midwest nice” candidates, at the CBS Broadcast Center in New York City. The candidates refrained from any personal attacks — a contrast between the behavior of their running mates.

“We had two candidates on stage who largely refrained from personal attacks or saying just straight-up bombastic, weird stuff like we saw at the last debate,” said Ibrahim Zeeshan, sophomore in LAS and general member of Illini Democrats. “It was very policy-oriented.”

Jack LaMorte, senior in LAS and president of the University’s branch of College Republicans, shared a similar viewpoint on the candidates’ demeanor.

“I think they were both talking about policy the whole time and not really attacking each other,” LaMorte said.

The night began with discussion of ongoing tensions in the Middle East — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised retaliation against Iran for a missile strike just hours before the candidates took the stage.

During questioning from Brennan, Walz confused Iran with Israel when reiterating Israel’s need to defend itself, drawing criticism the following morning. Zeeshan attributed the stumble to Walz’s fresh entry into national politics and said he preferred Walz’s answer to Vance’s.

“Gov. Walz has only been in the spotlight for around two months, so of course, he’s going to be less experienced and a bit more nervous,” Zeeshan said. “That being said, in regards to the response on the question about the Middle East, I think the Governor had a stronger response.”

LaMorte disagreed, noting that Israel would like to hear sentiments similar to Vance’s, which emphasize that the United States would support a retaliatory strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

A standout moment of the night was during the discussion of immigration. When discussing the controversy surrounding the actions of Haitian immigrants in Ohio, a heated back-and-forth occurred between Walz and Vance, ending with a fact-check of Vance by Brennan. 

However, LaMorte said the moderators relapsed on their promise not to fact-check candidates and that the moment proved to be in Vance’s favor. 

“(O’Donnell and Brennan) said they weren’t going to fact-check the candidates, and then they instantly did,” LaMorte said. “And I think that that was a strong moment for Sen. Vance.”

Zeeshan said that the moment was a low point for Vance. He said the discussion surrounding illegal migrants in Springfield, Ohio, mentioned in the September presidential debate, has been fact-checked and proven false multiple times.

“There’s a senator from Ohio, the very state where this is occurring, trying to deny this on live TV and trying to defend it,” Zeeshan said. “It’s just not a good look overall.”

On the topic of the 2020 election and the Jan. 6, 2021 riots, in a rare, tense moment, Walz said it was a “damning non-answer” after Vance didn’t directly answer when asked if Trump lost the 2020 election. 

Zeeshan said he wasn’t shocked at Vance’s response, considering it was in Vance’s best interest to tow the Trump campaign’s line.

“I was disappointed because, on national television, a candidate for a major party ticket continued to perpetuate ‘the big lie’ and not answer this very simple, obvious question,” Zeeshan said. “I think that’s the part of the debate that everyone’s going to remember the most.”

But, LaMorte emphasized that Vance is only supporting the president’s ideas — ideas Vance only supports to appease his party.

“(Former) President Trump doesn’t believe that the 2020 election was valid, which is a shame because I very much do, and I think that he lost to President Biden,” LaMorte said. “I think that Sen. Vance also thinks that (Former) President Trump lost, but he (isn’t) going to go back on what his candidate has been saying.”

Abortion, the economy, inflation and gun violence were other notable topics discussed. The candidates shared a tender moment when Vance consoled Walz after Walz mentioned his son witnessed a shooting at a community center.

LaMorte said Vance’s speaking skills, coupled with a tough approach to policy, sparked a strong initial reaction in viewers, winning him the debate. 

“I do disagree a lot with Sen. Vance on a lot of certain policies, specifically the economy,” LaMorte said. “But I think that he did a very good job in breaking that ‘weird’ narrative that the Democrats have been putting on Republicans this cycle.”

Zeeshan said although he understands why polls have the men tied, in the end, Walz’s style and substance gave him the extra edge.

“He talked about the policies that he and the Vice President want to implement moving forward and what’s been done already,” Zeeshan said. “He actually answered the questions, whereas Sen. Vance just repeated the same old, tired rhetoric (and) deflected questions.”

[email protected]