Who Won the VP Debate, Vance or Walz? Newsweek Writers’ Verdicts

JD Vance and Tim Walz faced off in the Vice-Presidential debate on Tuesday night, with five weeks to go until the election. Newsweek writers declare who won and why. You can have your say too—and vote for who won in our poll below.
JD Vance’s performance at the Vice Presidential debate is exactly why he was chosen as Donald Trump’s running mate. He is the wonky and shrewd version of the former President; able to cooly deploy arguments with facts, accompanied by just the right amount of emotion. Sophie Vershobow, a liberal writer fumed during the debate on X, “Trump says crazy things in a crazy way and Vance says crazy things in a normal way.” Vance is an effective communicator for Trump’s messages and speaks to normal Americans in their language, and his opposition finds that terrifying.
Bethany Mandel is co-author of Stolen Youth
JD Vance was an effective messenger for the narrative that Trump was incapable of delivering—that Republicans will take us back to 2019. Unflappable and often craven, Vance was relentlessly on message. Tim Walz came off as authentic—often authentically flummoxed—and relatable. He spoke movingly about reproductive rights and pinned the Dobbs decision and other disasters on Trump. But overall, he left too many opportunities to corner Vance on the table. Republicans must be wondering what the outlook of this race might be had they nominated a younger, saner person, like Vance, capable of making sense for 90 consecutive minutes.
Associate Professor, Roosevelt University
Tim Walz, who is clearly more comfortable at a state fair then in a debate setting, more than held his own against a flood of lies and misinformation from JD Vance. The debate was substantive but likely will not do much to change the trajectory of this race. Vice Presidential debates rarely matter much, and I doubt tonight will be the exception to that rule. With the Harris/Walz ticket leading in the key metrics that matter at this stage—money, momentum and organization—tonight served its purpose for Democrats. Continued the momentum. A win for Walz and Democrats.
Doug Gordon is a Democratic strategist and cofounder of UpShift Strategies
In tonight’s surprisingly stellar battle of presidential proxies, we learned a few key things. The first is that JD Vance excelled at the intersection of polished and prepared rather than at his usual intersection of unctuous and snake-like. The second is that Tim Walz seemed less out of his depth than many anticipated he would be. Again, this was a well-executed debate by both sides. All of that said, the winner in what should be a unanimous decision was JD Vance. While his arguments were often not based in or even near reality, he debated like a well-trained Yale Law grad rather than his opponent, who, absent one very timely fact check on abortion, doesn’t appear to be as deeply steeped in the art of debate. Will tonight actually matter over the next 34 days? Doubtful, but a win is a win, so kudos to JD Vance for claiming the victor’s podium tonight.
Aron Solomon is a legal analyst
Vance won. He pulled off a deft trifecta that practically deserves an EGOT. He successfully sane-washed former President Trump’s most inane ideas (Trump’s tariff plan would actually blow inflation through the roof) and the threat he poses. He successfully and repeatedly tied Vice President Kamala Harris to President Biden. And he shook the etch-a-sketch on his own woeful public image with Yale Law School polish on his answers, re-spinning his personal story, and offering humanizing warmth (a far cry from his childless cat lady persona). Vice Presidential debates rarely matter. This one may … for 2028: because if Trump loses, Vance has now positioned himself as the MAGA heir apparent.
Matt Robison is a writer, podcast host, and former congressional staffer
Approximately five minutes were spent in tonight’s debate on the conflagration exploding in the Middle East, and the most JD Vance could muster is that it would be exclusively “up to Israel” to determine how they’d go after “the bad guys”—even if that would consist of launching a preemptive strike against Iran. The fallacy, of course, is that any such Israeli operation could only be conducted with the military, diplomatic, and intelligence backing of the U.S. Thus Vance was effectively calling for the current “blank check” pro-Israel policy to continue without interruption. Tim Walz likewise kicked off the evening by reciting even blander pro-Israel talking points, appearing to briefly struggle with his recollection of the cliches that had undoubtedly been drilled into his head by Democratic handlers. Blessedly, therefore, both candidates became certified losers within the first five minutes. Walz also bizarrely managed to make the case that his youthful excursions to China somehow equipped him to take a more hardline stance against Xi Jinping—apparently impermissible was any admission that the insights Young Tim gleaned might have inclined him to pursue less bellicose relations with a burgeoning superpower. Oh well.
Michael Tracey is an independent reporter
On foreign policy issues, both candidates fell short of expectations. JD Vance claimed that Donald Trump delivered effective deterrence against Iran, yet conveniently failed to mention that Tehran struck two U.S. military bases in Iraq with ballistic missiles days after a U.S. drone killed Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani. Tim Walz blamed Donald Trump for having an affinity for dictators yet apparently fails to realize that interaction with unsavory people, moral scruples notwithstanding, is often a part of the job as commander in chief. On the most pressing issue of the day, the escalating violence in the Middle East, Vance and Walz chose to trumpet generalities over specific policies. Vance, for instance, needs to explain why he thinks it’s wise for the U.S. to provide unconditional support to Israel if it decides to conduct a preemptive attack on Iran—particularly when tens of thousands of U.S. troops in the region could receive the brunt of any Iranian retaliation that ensues. Similarly, Walz must explain what a potential Kamala Harris administration would do to put Iran’s nuclear program back in a box and what tough but necessary concessions it’s willing to offer to get there. I suppose we will all have to wait a little longer for actual plans.
Daniel R. DePetris is a Fellow at Defense Priorities
JD Vance’s entrance to the national stage this summer was a bit wrong-footed, with viral falsehoods and controversial comments helping paint the picture of a “weird” conservative firebrand. His performance on Tuesday’s debate stage was a near-perfect reintroduction to the America people, showcasing his command of family policy, a strong answer on abortion and support for parents, and putting forward the strongest national case for the Trump agenda voters have heard to date. Walz started off nervously and never fully recovered, despite some friendly moderators. Republicans who want to see a positive, compelling vision for their party in a post-Trump era, whether that’s in January 2025 or beyond, should feel confident about Vance’s performance tonight.
Patrick T. Brown is a Fellow at The Ethics and Public Policy Center
After a shaky start, Governor Tim Walz eventually found his footing, particularly as the conversation veered towards domestic issues which are in his wheelhouse. But there is no denying that JD Vance is a skilled debater who definitely won on style points. Around the 28-minute mark the Republican Vice Presidential candidate showed a soupçon of contempt for CBS debate female moderators Margaret Brennan and Norah O’Donnell—playing into the narrative that Vance has a misogynistic view of women. But for Democrats who were hoping tonight’s debate would finally convince undecided voters that JD Vance is a scary figure may walk away a smidge disappointed. Debate Verdict: Draw.
Arick Wierson is a six-time Emmy award-winning television producer
Listen, I won’t try to spin you into thinking this debate will be consequential. It won’t be. VP debates never are, except for Sarah Palin reinforcing everything dangerous about her being a heartbeat away from the presidency in 2008. JD Vance comported himself much better than Donald Trump did in his debate. Vance was polished and put on his best face, several times seeming deferential to Walz’s character. This was strategic and fairly smart. Vance was expecting Walz to go after him on a personal level (i.e., “weird”). By being nice to Walz, it would make Walz look petty and childish if he went on a personal attack. That said, Vance also continually refused to defend Donald Trump’s worst plans, ideas, and comments. His sidestep of those questions was wider than the Grand Canyon, and I believe voters noticed. Meanwhile, Tim Walz came off as unpolished, but oddly, that was a good counter to Vance’s smooth presentation because it underscored Walz as a genuine, regular guy and not a slick politician. On the issues, Walz won, most notably on the issue of abortion, where he pummeled Vance, who seemed to keep apologizing for the horrible things he and Trump want to do to women. That was Vance’s worst moment, and it was on an issue killing the Trump campaign. Overall, while Walz did win, it was a boring debate that likely won’t change the trajectory of the election.
Eric Schmeltzer is a Los Angeles-based political consultant
At a time when the world is on fire, we need American leadership that will help bring more security and human rights to the globe. Neither candidate offered a strong vision for America’s place in the world. But when it came to domestic policies, this was a substantive and respectful debate, rejecting personal attacks. At times, Vance delivered his message better than Walz, but Vance also resorted again to fearmongering tactics, particularly when it came to immigrants, and he refused to accept the results of the 2020 elections. I agree more with Walz on the issues, but voters were offered clear policy choices and will choose the candidate who better reflects their policy preferences, so it’s a tie in that sense. This was a better night for policy wonks.
Udi Ofer is Professor of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University
From his opening gaffe in which he said “Israel” when he meant to refer to “Iran” and its terrorist proxies, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz was a disaster. He improved a bit over the course of two hours, especially when the moderators served him softballs on topics like Jan. 6. But it’s the low points that will be remembered. Most specifically, his convoluted and disingenuous explanation for his lie about claiming to be at the Tiananmen Square massacre which culminated in his admission that he is a “knucklehead.” He had other gaffes including a puzzling answer about “becoming friends with school shooters,” when he must have meant something else. While he seemed likable, Democrats had to be thinking about how their antisemitic left-wing pressured Vice President Kamala Harris into passing up the far more articulate and smarter Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro as her running mate. But the main takeaway was the excellent performance of Sen. JD Vance on the stage. He was poised, polished, knowledgeable and, above all, empathetic. In this way, he debunked the Democratic/liberal media smears about him being “weird” or extreme. Instead, he illustrated how “common good’ national conservatives can appeal to both working class voters and women. What made his performance even more remarkable was that he did so well despite the egregious bias of the two liberal CBS moderators, Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan. The questions were mostly composed of standard Democratic talking points while ignoring many important issues like China and Ukraine. They kept asking Walz if he wanted to rebut Vance but didn’t offer Vance the same opportunity. Their low point was when they tried to fact check Vance on immigration and then turned off his mic when he fact-checked their fact-check. Vice presidential debates never decide the outcome of elections. But to the extent that this debate impacts any votes or continues the reversal of the momentum that Harris has had since the coup against Biden and then her defeat of Trump in their debate, there’s no question that Vance won by a mile.
Jonathan Tobin is Editor in chief, JNS.org