Vance and Walz debate abortion, immigration and gun violence

On Tuesday evening, October 1, Tim Walz and JD Vance participated in a vice presidential debate hosted by CBS News. Although less dramatic than the previous presidential debate, the event provided important insights into the candidates’ policy positions. The discussion focused primarily on three major issues: abortion, immigration and gun violence, with both men aiming to strengthen the positions of their respective running mates: Kamala Harris for Walz and Donald Trump for Vance.

The debate was considerably more civil than the controversial meeting between Harris and Trump three weeks earlier. That earlier debate was marked by Trump’s emotional outbursts, including his claims about the size of his rally crowd and an unfiltered tirade accusing Harris of being a “Marxist.” Harris experienced a brief boost in the polls after the debate. In contrast, Walz and Vance largely refrained from attacking each other directly, instead focusing their criticism on the data of their opponents’ presidential candidates. However, this debate was not without blunders, some of which could overshadow the policy discussions of the coming days.

Abortion emerged as one of the most important issues in the debate, reflecting its prominent role in national politics. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, in line with Harris’ message, focused on the personal impact of restrictive abortion laws. He told the story of Amanda Zurawski, a Texas woman who, despite serious health risks during pregnancy, was denied an abortion due to state laws. Zurawski is now part of a group suing the state. Walz also reported a young Kentucky girl who, after being raped by her stepfather, was forced to carry the resulting pregnancy to term.

Walz’s strategy was to humanize the consequences of anti-abortion laws, making clear that such decisions should not be left solely to the states. “These are basic human rights,” he argued, criticizing Trump and Vance’s position that states should control access to abortion. He also pointed to rising maternal mortality rates in states like Texas, suggesting that these deaths are happening at a much faster rate than many developed countries and are linked to restrictive abortion laws.

Vance, a senator from Ohio, refuted Walz’s arguments, but without providing specific counterexamples. Instead, he sought to shift the focus from abortion by emphasizing the importance of federalism and the role of the judiciary in protecting states’ rights to regulate the issue.

Immigration was another key topic in the debate, and both candidates approached it with their eyes on their running mates’ records. Walz highlighted Harris’ work as California’s attorney general, particularly her efforts to combat human trafficking and drug-related crimes committed by transnational gangs. He framed Harris as a seasoned leader on border issues, in contrast to the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

Walz criticized Trump’s approach to immigration, particularly his decision to sabotage a bipartisan border bill that had the support of the National Border Patrol Council. According to Walz, Trump’s intervention was politically motivated, intended to keep immigration as a campaign issue. This line of attack was intended to portray Trump and Vance as more interested in electoral gains than solving the country’s border problems.

Vance, in turn, stuck to the standard Republican line, blaming the Biden-Harris administration for the increase in illegal immigration and arguing that border security had been neglected under their watch. However, he did not directly address allegations of Trump’s interference in the bipartisan immigration bill. One of the most awkward moments for Vance came when he was asked about Trump’s proposed “largest deportation in US history,” a plan that has raised concerns about the fate of families with mixed immigration status. Vance dodged the question twice, but failed to clarify whether a Trump administration would separate parents from their children from the US.

Walz, who also made an indirect attack on Trump and Vance’s misleading statements about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, suggested that their demonization of migrants had real-world consequences. He cited bomb threats and increased security measures at schools, which stemmed from unsubstantiated claims that Haitian immigrants were harming local communities.

Gun violence and school shootings, another pressing issue, drew a clear distinction between the two candidates. Vance opened by acknowledging the tragedy of the school shootings but shifted responsibility for gun control to broader issues such as border security. He linked the rise in gun violence to illegal firearms trafficked by Mexican drug cartels, even though most guns used in school shootings are purchased legally in the US. This evasion of gun control specifications allowed Vance to refrain from endorsing restrictions on firearms, particularly the AR-15, which has been used in several mass shootings.

Vance’s solution to the school shooting crisis was a focus on “hardening” schools, improving security, strengthening doors and windows, and increasing police presence. He admitted that this was not an ideal solution, but one he considered necessary in the absence of effective gun control.

Walz, on the other hand, approached the issue more directly. He shared his experience meeting with parents of children killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and spoke emotionally about the need for stricter gun control. He pointed to Minnesota’s “red flag” laws as a model for reducing gun violence. “Our first responsibility is to our children,” he declared, arguing that schools should not resemble fortresses to ensure safety.

However, Walz stumbled during this part of the debate when he accidentally said he had “become friends with school shooters” instead of victims. This gaffe quickly gained traction on social media and overshadowed his otherwise strong stance on gun reform.

Vice-presidential debates are typically seen as less influential than presidential debates, but in close elections even small shifts in voters’ opinions can be significant. Although neither candidate delivered a decisive blow, the debate provided a clearer picture of their policy priorities and political strategies.

Walz focused on personal stories and policy details, particularly on abortion and immigration, aligning closely with Harris’ platform. Vance, meanwhile, presented a more polished performance but avoided directly addressing key issues like the deportation of immigrant families and specific gun control issues.

As the election approaches, it remains to be seen whether the debate will sway undecided voters. But with both camps locked in a tight race, even small moments — like Walz’s gaffe or Vance’s immigration evasion — can play a role in shaping public perception of the candidates and their running mates.

Follow Blitz on Google News Channel