By Erika Kuehl | Opinion Editor, Emma Weidmann | Editor-in-Chief
Representatives from both College Democrats and College Republicans at Baylor reacted to Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz.
During the strikingly civil, largely policy-focused night, topics such as healthcare, border control, gun control, abortion and the Middle East were covered.
Waco junior JW LaStrape is the vice president of College Democrats, and Brick, N.J., senior Holly Tkach is co-chair of College Republicans weighed in.
Q: Would you support a preemptive strike on Israel by Iran?
Tkach: There were good and safe answers from both candidates. Vance is more pro-Israel, and I think that is a good view to run on.
LaStrape: That was a very safe answer from Walz. Both parties seem unwavering in their support of Israel. Walz’s response is a tad disappointing as college-age people across the nation continue to beg the Harris-Walz campaign to cease military and financial support to Israel. Overall, a very non-committal answer.
Q: Sen. Vance, did Trump make a mistake saying the U.S. must make a diplomatic deal with Iran?
Tkach: Peace through strength is needed. Unfortunately, you need to make deals with your enemies to prevent wars. Trump was effective in preventing wars; Biden-Harris evidently is not.
LaStrape: Vance, like many Americans, fails to understand the nuance of the situation. Iran has been unwilling to negotiate with the United States precisely because they no longer trust us after Trump pulled out a deal that took years to build up on a whim.
Q: What responsibility would either administration have to reduce the impact of climate change?
Tkach: Walz states how climate change is real and that Trump called it a hoax, which is false. The U.S. has cleaner energy than other countries. I love that he brought up nuclear energy, as there needs to be [more of it]. It is the most effective energy type.
LaStrape: Vance offers vague platitudes with solid pro-worker rhetoric, which contradicts Republicans’ usual anti-union stance, likely in response to recent strikes causing billions in losses. Would he have the same stance if that were not happening? Advocating for nuclear, solar energy, and natural gas simultaneously is odd.
I’m not convinced Vance has a combative plan for climate change. Walz gives good specifics and shows an understanding of the importance of a mixed economy regarding energy — solid.
Q: Sen. Vance, would you deport parents who have entered the U.S. illegally and separate them from their children?
Tkach: The bill had a lot of issues, and Democrats do not want to address that. Vance could have been more direct, but his answer was clear in the point that he was making and what he was saying.
LaStrape: Not many specifics [from Vance], not surprising. He pivoted immediately to bog-standard border police rhetoric. Deporting 1 million people would be a logistical and civil rights nightmare.
I’m disappointed in Walz. The “bipartisan” border bill was incredibly conservative in nature and a net loss for Democrats. Hopefully, we can push for a more progressive and human-first immigration bill once Harris is in office. It ends with good rebuttals from Tim, but what JD Vance said about those legal migrants was racist and appalling. Thank god they cut the mics — finally.
Q: How would you pay for your economic proposals without ballooning the deficit?
Tkach: Walz always tries to connect with the American people by seeming to understand the middle class. Walz is validating Harris’ plan of giving people a tax cut while making accusations against Trump, even though he gave a tax cut to people. Walz’s rebuttal seems frantic and desperate.
I think Vance had a very effective answer, and it is clear that Trump and Vance are more trustworthy with the economy. I love to see Vance calling out Walz. Vance is simply saying out loud what Americans have been feeling every time they go shopping.
LaStrape: Walz talks specifics. We need more of this. 3 million new houses, $6000 child tax credit is a common sense economic policy focused on the working class. He also appeals to unions, and the working class is the heart of the Harris campaign. He is right to attack “right to work” policies. The right to work equals the right to fire. It was a near-perfect answer, highlighted by Vance’s lack of a coherent counterproposal.
Q: Gov. Walz, can you explain your comments claiming that you were in Hong Kong at the time of the Tiananmen Square protests?
Tkach: Outside of the debate, this could be an interesting point. However, this is not why we are watching the debate.
LaStrape: Walz gave probably the best response to being asked about something from almost 40 years ago. It’s largely irrelevant, so let’s talk about the real issues.
Q: Sen. Vance, if you become vice president, why should Americans believe you will give Trump the advice he needs to hear, not the advice he wants to hear?
Tkach: I think it is effective that he openly changed his mind on Trump, and he was effective with his answer. It was not the most effective question.
LaStrape: This is officially the “you said this years ago” section. I’m willing to give both candidates a pass here and move on to stuff that actually matters. Vance’s responses were all expected and the only acceptable answer.
Q: Gov. Walz, do you support abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy?
Tkach: Walz, like all the Democrats, is desperate with peddling misinformation.
Amber [Thurman] could have lived in another state other than Georgia… just saying. Also, when a woman is pregnant, it is no longer just her body. Killing her child is not her body, it is her offspring.
Walz is using emotion, not logical information. His answer is another way of saying “My child must die so that I am not tied down and need to deal with the consequences of having sex.” “It is woman’s decision” – what about the innocent child?
LaStrape: Walz gave a great answer. He ignored the attack from Vance and cut to the heart of the human rights issue of maternal mortality. Bringing up the tragedy of the bans is paramount — another near-perfect answer. By contrast, Vance seems to focus more on platitudes than policy on this issue.
They should have muted them once they started interrupting each other. I am very disappointed that the moderators aren’t following the rules both parties agreed to.
Q: Sen. Vance, do you think holding parents responsible could curb mass shootings?
Tkach: Vance’s response to the question is strong. The violence that has occurred in our country has increased from the open border issue and illegal guns. Increasing security is common sense, not taking away guns. Taking guns away isn’t going to help; it will make people begin to build guns illegally. I am glad that Vance is bringing up the issue of mental health and cities.
Walz is wrong — taking away guns is in fact infringing on the Second Amendment. He states that Harris has never been against guns, but there are multiple interviews of her talking about buy-backs. There are ways to stop gun violence without taking guns from people.
LaStrape: JD Vance opposes red flag laws. That’s disappointing and radical, even for the Republicans. He does another border pivot, which is getting predictable. Increasing security [in schools] is a terrible policy. It tries to stop the problem after it’s already happening as opposed to addressing the actual issues.
Vance mentions the mental health crisis. Walz had a great response about the idea that mentally ill people are not inherently violent — and most importantly — that other countries do not have this problem.
Q: Gov. Walz, the Harris campaign promises a $25,000 down payment assistance for first-time home buyers and a $10,000 tax credit. They also promise to build three million new homes. Where are you building these homes, and won’t handing out that kind of money just drive up prices higher?
Tkach: It sounds that Walz was babbling and avoiding the question. Does he care about the national parks? Don’t build on federal land? Why does it need to be built there anyways?
Vance’s rebuttal was good. Don’t blame the immigrants who want to live the American dream, blame Harris. She has been in a leadership position for the past three and a half years. Why has she not done anything while being in office? I agree, we should kick out illegal immigrants and give Americans a chance. We do not have extra land and houses to give out to illegal immigrants. Vance is very effective at the start of his rebuttal and is using facts to relate to the audience.
LaStrape: Walz had a great answer. Houses are homes, not commodities. This is one of the most pernicious aspects of our modern-day expression of capitalism. Don’t let them build on federal land and our national parks —great jab. Vance responds with the insane position of de-regulating the housing market, then (once again) pivots to the border. He really only has one talking point. “Drill, baby, drill” is a horrifying phrase to everyone with a surface level understanding of climate change.
Q: Sen. Vance, can you explain your healthcare plan for how Americans would work and how those with preexisting health conditions won’t pay more?
Tkach: Trump has concepts of a plan because he is not in office. Let’s be transparent. Trump did his best to make healthcare affordable for as many Americans as he could. It was for the middle class!
To Walz’s rebuttal, Trump did not repeal the Affordable Care Act. He adjusted it. He did not eradicate it. But, yes, protect people with preexisting conditions. I wish Vance would mention making hospitals give an itemized list with costs for transparency
LaStrape: Trump had eight years to get a plan done, and he has nothing. Still seems to not have one. The ACA has done great work since its inception, and that work has been continued under the Biden-Harris administration. All Vance can do is appeal to “Trump’s” great economy, the economy he inherited from Obama.
Walz had a great rebuttal about affordable healthcare, childcare and free school lunches. These are all the fundamental building blocks of a flourishing community, and he’s right — going pre-ACA would be disastrous for everyone in the working class.
Q: Gov. Walz, how long should employers be required to pay workers while they are home taking care of their newborns?
Tkach: I agree with Walz on his answer, which is a little surprising. New families need to be home when a baby joins. Vance’s rebuttal was good, and I agree with him as well. I think that different families will have different choices when it comes to returning to work options. It is good that Vance brings up that not every mother is looking for the same thing.
LaStrape: Walz advocated for paid medical leave, a wonderful policy that promotes family building and child-rearing. Walz wants to build up communities economically, like he did in Minnesota. There was a good bipartisan answer from Vance. It gives some hope that a deal might actually be in the cards. We’ll see if it comes to fruition.
Q: Sen. Vance, is President Trump committed to the $5,000 per child tax credit you have described?
Tkach: Vance’s answer is that childcare is expensive since not many people do the job. Walz rebuttal was that this is not the biggest issue Americans are worried about. We need more workers, yet there are not more jobs to match.
LaStrape: Vance pushing for tariffs is concerning because they always drive up the price of domestic goods and hurt the working class. Glad we got some pushback on that. Walz is right — childcare is expensive. He appeals to bipartisanship.
Q: Sen. Vance, would you again seek to challenge this year’s election results, even if every governor certifies the results?
Tkach: Why are we focused on the future when our current life is in need of major help? Yes, censorship is all over social media, which is unconstitutional and goes against our First Amendment right of freedom of speech.
There are more important questions. Walz is pushing a false narrative again as he talks about “imprisoning your political opponent.”
Vance made a strong statement about the First Amendment. Let us have good conversations without being censored. This conversation going back and forth is no longer productive since Walz is lying.
LaStrape: Vance pivoted from the core of the question, but this debate path is unnecessary. The 2020 election is not relevant. Your guy lost; move on. Censorship is irrelevant. It was a very disappointing line from Vance.
Walz had a good jab about Jan. 6 not being comparable to Facebook. Walz says JD Vance’s non-answer is “damning,” and I think he’s right. Overall, it was a great answer from Walz. “Settle issues at the ballot box” is the quote of the evening. He’s refusing to let Jan. 6 be downplayed.
Note: One day, moderators will learn to actually mute the candidates’ mics. But that day is not today.
On the candidates’ closing statements:
Tkach: Walz, Taylor Swift will not worry about paying money to the government. That is why she feels the need to endorse Harris. What does she know about politics? Yes, obviously Vance will support Trump. He is his running mate. What’s new? But thank you for acknowledging that you are disrupting the “Dancing with the Stars” schedule. I’d much rather be watching Derek Hough on my television.
Vance is acting like Harris, saying how he was raised. The Biden-Harris administration created a more difficult world to live in. Again, Harris has been in office for 1,400 days and yet nothing has happened. The closing statement was nice, but the handshake was a little awkward though…
It was a great overall summary by Vance on current issues. Thank you for bringing up that Harris is currently in office and has done nothing.
LaStrape: Good job focusing once again on the economy. Middle class-first policy is the heart of the ticket this year. Vance offered populist rhetoric with little economic policy, which is crucial right now. Vance seems content to keep pushing Trump’s policies and polarizing rhetoric with nothing insofar as substance and solutions.
How did each candidate do overall?
Tkach: Overall, it was a good and entertaining debate. I thought Vance did a phenomenal job with relaying the facts and understanding what the American people have suffered the last few years under Biden-Harris. Walz did what I expected and played a game based on emotions and not facts, tried to defend Harris’ terrible record and is running on policies that will not work.
LaStrape: Overall, it was a solid debate by both parties. Walz performed just as well as Harris, and Vance (unlike Trump) rose to the occasion in a lot of ways. Walz addressed the attacks levied at him well, and Vance dodged some really important questions: no concrete deportation, housing or childcare plan. Meanwhile, Walz defended a well-thought-out plan with specifics on these issues.
