The vice-presidential debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz brought a striking level of civility in a political climate known for confrontation. Hosted by CBS News on Oct. 1, the debate was largely focused on policy differences rather than personal attacks, a refreshing departure from recent political norms. 

“It was nice to see candidates acting professionally, but I still feel disappointed that these are the only options for voters,” Sherahan Tahiri, a junior with a major in Writing for Film and Television, told The Panther. 

Despite the calm surface, the ideological divide between the two candidates was clear, and the debate shed light on the future direction of their respective parties. For voters in Southern California, particularly Chapman University students, the issues discussed — immigration, housing, reproductive rights and democracy — carry significant implications for both local and national politics.

JD Vance, representing the Republican ticket, sought to distance himself from former President Donald Trump’s combative style while simultaneously embracing Trump-era policies. He repeatedly positioned himself as a calm and polished voice, contrasting with Trump’s more abrasive approach. 

Early in the debate, Vance said, “I want to try to convince you tonight that if we get Donald Trump back in the White House, the American dream is going to be attainable once again.” 

Vance argued that the economy under Trump was stronger, with lower inflation and better wages, but this characterization oversimplified the complex factors that have driven inflation, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and global supply chain disruptions. 

Immigration was another key issue in Vance’s strategy, and he repeatedly linked it to the housing crisis. 

“You’ve got schools that are overwhelmed, you’ve got hospitals that are overwhelmed, you’ve got housing that is totally unaffordable,” Vance said, asserting that immigration was a primary driver of these challenges. While immigration does contribute to increased demand for housing, Vance’s argument overlooked the deeper structural issues at play, such as insufficient home construction since the 2008 financial crisis. This oversimplification risks misleading voters, particularly in Southern California, where housing affordability is a pressing issue. 

On the Democratic side, Tim Walz appeared hesitant at first when discussing foreign policy, but quickly regained his footing when the debate shifted to domestic issues such as reproductive rights and climate change. 

On the topic of abortion, Walz framed the debate as a matter of personal freedom, saying, “This is basic human rights. We have seen maternal mortality skyrocket in Texas (since its abortion restrictions took effect), outpacing many accounts in the world.” 

Walz also criticized Trump’s failure to follow through on key immigration promises, such as not fully constructing the U.S.-Mexico border wall. 

“Donald Trump had four years. He promised you, America, how easy it would be. ‘I’ll build you a big, beautiful wall, and Mexico will pay for it.’ Less than 2% of that wall got built, and Mexico didn’t pay a dime,” Walz said, highlighting the gap between Trump’s promises and his actions. 

One of the most significant moments of the night came when Walz pressed Vance on the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 insurrection. Walz asked Vance directly, “Did (Trump) lose the 2020 election?” Vance dodged the question, stating, “Tim, I’m focused on the future.” This refusal to acknowledge Trump’s defeat opened the door for Walz to highlight the threat posed by ongoing election denialism. 

“He lost this election, and he said he didn’t. One hundred and forty police officers were beaten at the Capitol that day, some with the American flag, and several later died,” Walz said, pointing to the real costs of Trump’s refusal to concede. 

This exchange underscored the fundamental divide between the candidates on the issue of democracy and could shape how voters view the integrity of future elections.

Both candidates addressed the pressing issue of gun violence, with Tim Walz emphasizing the need for commonsense legislation. “In Minnesota, we’ve enacted red flag laws and expanded background checks,” Walz explained, arguing that data-driven policies can make a tangible difference. He also voiced concern about the lack of research into gun violence, noting, “We shouldn’t just live with it.” 

JD Vance, while expressing shared frustration, focused on mental health instead of gun control policies, arguing, “We must address the root causes, including substance abuse and depression.” He suggested hardening schools with security measures but cautioned, “I hate that this is the world we live in, but we have to protect our kids.”

“I’m glad that they both were able to at the very least recognize the issue with mass shootings and gun violence in the country,” Tahiri expressed. “I hope that this translates into active policy initiatives surrounding gun control and its root causes in the nation.” 

Ultimately, the debate revealed two starkly different visions for the future of America. Vance’s call for a return to Trump-era policies contrasts sharply with Walz’s focus on progressive reform.