All of the best and worst moments of the Vance-Walz debate, as they happened

JD Vance and Tim Walz met Tuesday night in the first and only vice presidential debate of the 2024 campaign.

Historically, the face-off between running mates hasn’t mattered in terms of the outcome in November. Nevertheless, vice presidential debates have yielded some of the most memorable political moments in recent history.

For many, the evening served as an introduction to Ohio Sen. Vance and Minnesota Gov. Walz. In a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, roughly a quarter of those polled said they had never heard of the two men.

Los Angeles Times columnists Lorraine Ali, Mark Z. Barabak, Anita Chabria and Doyle McManus watched the debate live, discussing the highlights and lowlights as they happened.

How to watch the debate| Debate moderators| What to know

8:16 p.m.: A debate like this one is, at bottom, a performance. (Is that sound Anita, screaming down a well?)

And by that measure, Vance was the night’s winner, hands-down. He might have been deceitful, shucking his MAGA persona, sanding his sharp edges and flat-out misrepresenting many of Trump’s positions.

But he was far more effective as a messenger and, dare I say, more personable than Walz, who was amiable enough but not as sunny as Ohio’s chipper young senator.

The fact-checkers, as I noted earlier, will be working overtime catching up with assorted misstatements and prevarications. But by then most of the rest of humankind will have moved on.

In fact, the debate brings to mind Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, where he stated, “The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here.” The same goes for the 90-plus minutes Vance and Walz shared a stage in midtown Manhattan.

There has never been a single vice presidential debate that’s determined the outcome of a presidential race. This will be no exception.

And with that, we’re calling it a wrap. Thanks for tuning in and for staying to the bitter end.

Please join us again here at latimes.com for more election coverage as this campaign heads into the home stretch.

—Barabak

8:04 p.m.: In his closing statement, Walz sent his condolences to the folks at home who missed “Dancing with the Stars” to watch this debate. The Walz-Vance tango is done. So who won this dance off? I’m leaning toward Vance on delivery and style, Walz on facts and substance. As for the biggest lie of the night? Vance saying he never supported a national abortion ban. As if we couldn’t just Google it.

—Ali

8:02 p.m.: Tonight was boring, but one thing stood out to me: Vance is a chameleon. This guy will literally say anything in service of his ambition. He completely changed his positions on abortion and immigration, toning them down to platitudes that no one would disagree with.

I promise you, he will be back to his hate-filled rhetoric at his next rally, and I promise you The Times will report on it. But this debate was just a sad exercise in the power of lies.

Walz was simply outgunned by Vance’s slick ability to say what is most convenient. Don’t get me wrong – Walz did well. But Vance was, to steal a line, unburdened by what has been.

–Chabria

7:58 p.m.: Walz’s closing statement is an upbeat message about Harris “bringing joy” into politics and building a coalition “from Bernie Sanders to Dick Cheney to Taylor Swift.”

Vance’s closing statement goes back to his core message: If your energy costs more, he says, that’s because of “Kamala Harris’ energy policies.”

Vance spent some of his time in this debate trying to soften his image as a partisan warrior. But as Anita noted, this race is still a bare-knuckled brawl.

—McManus

7:55 p.m.: OK folks, the candidates have left the stage. Final thoughts?

—Barabak

7:40 p.m.: Vance clearly bought his supply of whitewash in bulk.

—Barabak

7:39 p.m.: “Did [Trump] lose the 2020 election?” Walz asks Vance point blank. “Tim, I’m focused on the future. Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 COVID situation?” replies Vance. Great SNL sketch moment, except this is still the actual debate so it’s actually sad, not funny.

—Ali

7:36 p.m.: Isn’t this supposed to be over? Vance is blah-blahing about censorship. Dude, you’ve been yelling about Haitians eating cats and dogs, until Ohio state troopers had to guard kindergarten classes. What Walz is saying now is important — you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, that is not protected speech. But by now, I am not sure who is left watching.

—Chabria

7:31 p.m.: “We’re focused on the future,” Vance says.

Tell that to his running mate who’s still litigating his clear-cut, irrefutable loss in 2020.

—Barabak

7:30 p.m.: Lamest JD Vance evasion attempt yet: Vance has said that he would have opposed certifying Biden’s election if he had been in the Senate in 2020. Asked if he would agree to certify the 2024 election if his side loses, he tried to change the subject. “We’re focused on the future. We want to … make groceries affordable.”

Then he switched to a bizarre charge that Kamala Harris is guilty of promoting “censorship.”

This time, Walz came back forcefully and reminded Vance what the question was. “Trump said he won the election when he lost,” Walz said. “This has got to stop. It’s tearing the country apart.”

—McManus

7:26 p.m.: Vance is doing a great job presenting himself as a middle-ground candidate, but when you actually listen to what’s coming out of his mouth, it’s “Handmaid’s Tale” chilling. For example, his insight into being a working mom is that “it’s extraordinarily difficult. The cultural pressure on young women makes it hard for them to choose the family model they want,” he said. Yet the abortion bans he supports offer no choice but for women to start a family should they become pregnant. His double speak makes the lack of freedoms for women sound totally reasonable. Like I said, chilling.

—Ali

7:25 p.m.: “They’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”

Oh, wait. That was the last debate.

Meme-makers across America are despairing right now.

—Barabak

7:22 p.m.: Lorraine, you’re speaking like a reasonable person. But reasonableness is not the currency of this election. Neither is truth. Walz is bound by earnestness. Vance is bound by ambition. American democracy is at stake. Vance is lying about his positions, based on everything he has said in the past year. I am terrified that he is allowed to present himself as a middle-ground, woman-friendly candidate when that is simply not true.

—Chabria

7:21 p.m.: How about civility, but with more zingers? Can’t they live in the same space? Perhaps Harris can wave the magical “wand” that Vance referred to earlier and make this less boring.

—Ali

7:20 p.m.: Ya’ll are too nice. I don’t want civility. This ain’t 2012. This is doing nothing for undecided voters.

—Chabria

7:18 p.m.: Walz’s color keeps rising like a thermometer on a hot day. Trump must seize on this opportunity: “When did Walz happen to turn red? … I don’t know, is he red or is he white?”

—Ali

7:15 p.m.: Again, one of my big takeaways is these two guys have shown—forgive the cliche—that you can disagree without being disagreeable.

Yes, the fact-checkers are going to have a field day, especially deconstructing Vance’s conversion from MAGA warrior to Mr. Measured And Even-Keeled.

But it sure beats what we’ve suffered through enduring Trump’s previous scenery-shredding performances.

—Barabak

7:12 p.m.: Vance said Trump’s energy policy — which consists of little more than “drill, baby, drill” — will drive fuel prices way down and make housing dramatically cheaper. That’s nonsense on stilts, as I wrote in my column this week. A president has no power to drive energy prices down as far and as fast as Trump claims. Even if he opens every inch of federal land to drilling, prices will still be set by the global energy market, not the president’s wishes.

—McManus

7:11 p.m.: We have a lot of land that is not being used, Vance says. That’s national protected lands. Trump wants to open them up to drilling and housing. This is a real issue in the Western states. Extremists believe that Manifest Destiny is still in effect, and it’s the Christian God’s imperative that humans use the land for development. Vance is talking extremism in code—and blaming migrants for driving up housing costs while he’s at it. There’s a whole-hot-bunch of coded language in what Vance is saying.

—Chabria

7:06 p.m.: I’m gonna say I liked those rare moments where they both said — on gun safety in schools — that the other side had a point. “Protect the Second Amendment, protect our children — that’s the priority,” Walz said.

Don’t worry, the bipartisan moment won’t last long.

—McManus

7:04 p.m.: Christ have mercy, as Vance just said. This is the most Midwestern debate in the history of stately debates. Are they going to exchange casserole recipes next? They both brought scalloped potatoes to a knife fight. Two words: Lost opportunity.

—Chabria

7:02 p.m.: Remember when JD Vance said school shootings are a fact of life? So cold. He’s staying on message tonight when he again downplays the tragedy of kids being shot to death in class. “Our hearts go out to the families that are affected by this terrible stuff.” Terrible stuff? Stunning use of vague language. Anything to protect the NRA.

—Ali

7 p.m.: Maybe they sent a more measured, less-MAGA body-double?

(Is it too soon to make a Halloween masquerade joke?)

—Barabak

6:58 p.m.: Vance is also good at turning almost any question (unless it’s on abortion) as an excuse to remind voters that incomes were rising and inflation was low when Trump was president — his ticket’s strongest argument. On that score, he’s a model of relentless message discipline.

—McManus

6:56 p.m.: Vance is cool, calm, collected. Quite the contrast to Trump, and even Walz. That’s the polish of an Ivy League education. But it’s almost too slick. Will “real” Americans relate?

—Ali

6:55 p.m.: OK, commercial break reflection: Vance is really good at this. Walz is too earnest and feels the need to respond to the attack rather than re-direct. But Vance is lying, lying, pants on fire lying about how MAGA is the party that supports pregnant, single women. Folks, that just ain’t true. That is he so openly just spewing lies that sound really, really good on national television with no push back is heartbreaking for journalism—and voters.

-Chabria

6:50 p.m.: A pretty good distillation of this debate and the candidates’ performances when each addressed previous controversial statements.

Walz was asked about his apparently erroneous claim to have been in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests. His response was a rather long-winded disquisition that boiled down to, yeah, sometimes I screw up, but people know my heart.

“I’m not perfect,” Walz said. “I’ve been a knucklehead at times.”

Pressed to directly answer the question, Walz said simply, “I misspoke.”

Vance—who obviously saw this one was coming—was asked about his previous description of Trump as “America’s Hitler” and text messages the Washington Post recently unearthed in which he criticized Trump’s performance as president.

“I’ve always been open,” he said, without missing a beat. “I was wrong about Donald Trump”

Vance then pivoted to an attack on the media – I was misled! – and said it’s important to publicly own up to a mistake. “That’s one of the reasons,” he said, “I’ve done so many interviews.”

Take that, Kamala Harris!

–Barabak

6:47 p.m.: Vance backpedals on abortion as fast as he did on immigration. Seriously, this is criminal lying — and I mean criminal because MAGA outlawing of abortion is jeopardizing the lives and futures of women. This answer is so disingenuous it actually just made me mad. And making me the most mad? That CBS isn’t fact-checking and their moderators are letting the lies fly like Brood X cicadas.

—Chabria

6:45 p.m.: What the heck was that abortion question to Walz? Do you believe in abortion at nine months? C’mon. That is some serious over-compensating by the moderators.

—Chabria

6:42 p.m.: Agree, Doyle, the knucklehead line was effective. Perhaps Vance will use it to excuse himself for publicly calling Trump an “idiot” and “reprehensible” before he signed on as his running mate. But it’s unlikely.

—Ali

6:40 p.m.: Walz offers the best all-purpose excuse for a misstatement I’ve ever heard a politician give: “I’m a knucklehead at times.”

(In this case, it was about an inconsequential controversy over the fact that he said he was in China during the Tienanmen Square massacre.)

Who among us doesn’t wish they had thought of that line?

—McManus

6:40 p.m.: Vance pulls out the Trump trope: Why hasn’t Harris gotten done all the things she’s talked about? “She had the opportunity to enact all these great policies,” Vance said.

No she didn’t.

I did a whole column on the subject, but the bottom line is: She’s VICE president.

If Vance doesn’t understand the inherent impotence of the job, he’ll find out soon enough. (Assuming Trump prevails in November and Vance steps into the job of understudy.)

—Barabak

6:39 p.m.: I hear you, Anita. I have found myself spacing out from time to time, which is not great considering we’re live blogging. God help us if there’s a pop quiz after this lecture.

—Ali

6:38 p.m.: OK, Lorraine. Maybe I’m going a little too far saying they are droning on. But here’s the deal – these guys are so deep into an actual debate that actual voters are likely tuning out. We live in an age of soundbites. So far, this is a term paper.

—Chabria

6:35 p.m.: I love that Walz keeps checking his notes. Such a high-school teacher move. But not the “Peanuts” teacher, Anita. He’s that teacher who wants to make sure he delivers the correct information.

—Ali

6:31 p.m.: Mark, I love that you love an old-school debate. But I feel like I’m watching the teacher from “Peanuts,” who drones on with no real words. “Waaa waaa, waa waaaa.”

—Chabria

6:30 p.m.: One analyst I spoke with beforehand suggested, absent Donald Trump’s bluster, this could be a more thoughtful, substantive debate than either of the two featuring the candidates atop the ticket.

And so far that seems to be the case.

Each is making his points without a lot of the histrionics and Sturm und Drang that turned Trump vs. Biden as well as Trump vs. Harris into the rhetorical equivalent of a high school food fight.

Pretty good opportunity for those watching to appreciate the difference between the two tickets.

—Barabak

6:29 p.m.: Mics cut for both. Stop babbling.

—Chabria

6:26 p.m.: The wave of “a Kamala Harris open border wand.” Magical words from Vance about immigration, but not magical enough to keep his mic from being cut a moment later. Walz’s was cut as well.

—Ali

6:24 p.m.: Springfield! Walz brings it up. Then, weirdly, he says something nice about Vance, that he believes Vance too wants to solve the issue of immigration. People, we are here to fight! Vance comes back with an also-weird answer where he says Walz wants to solve the problem too. Are we bro-mancing here? Ya’ll, not to be shallow. But, yawn.

—Chabria

6:22 p.m.: As Mark noted a few minutes ago, from a technical standpoint, Vance is very good at this format. He’s relentlessly blaming every problem in the country on something he calls “the Kamala Harris administration.” Chaos in the Middle East? The “Harris administration.” High gasoline prices? “Kamala Harris’ policies.” A crisis on the southern border? “We have a massive immigration crisis because Kamala Harris … wanted to undo all of Donald Trump’s border policies.”

Without debating the substance of all these issues, everything Harris has done for the last four years has been carrying out the policies of the president she worked for, Joe Biden. But it’s in Vance’s and Trump’s interest to rebrand it — hence, the “Kamala Harris administration.”

—McManus

6:21 p.m.: Vance’s tie matches Margaret Brennan’s suit. Walz’s tie matches Norah O’Donnell’s. Conspiracy theorists are going to have a field day.

– Ali

6:20 p.m.: Vance has it all over Walz so far on style points.

The Democrat still seems a bit unsettled to my eye — pausing, occasionally stammering over his words, peering down, scribbling notes.

Vance is forceful, direct-to-the-camera. Speaking in crisp, neatly indented paragraphs. Even a JFK-style karate chop or two!

—Barabak

6:18 p.m.: Vance is backtracking so fast on immigration he could win an Olympic gold medal. All of a sudden, there’s no dog tacos in sight. Instead, we’re only going to deport criminals, which no one disagrees with. This is 100% not what he says to his base.

—Chabria

6:17 p.m.: JD Vance offers a hypothetical in response to a question about Hurricane Helene and climate change: “Let’s just say carbon emissions are true.” Yes, let’s say that, because it is true!

—Ali

6:12 p.m.: Vance brings up Hurricane Helene and promises that the federal government will do everything possible to help with recovery if Trump is elected. Except Trump wants to do away with itty-bitty things like FEMA and the Weather Service. Hmm. Are we going to send elves?

—Chabria

6:10 p.m.: Vance is a very skilled debater and manages to show it off on the very first question.

It dealt with Iran’s attack on Israel but Vance — deftly — pivoted into a brief autobiographical introduction of himself.

Polls show these two men are strangers to a large chunk of the electorate, and Vance is clearly mindful of the need for that type of overview before getting into the rhetorical meat and potatoes of the evening.

—Barabak

6:10 p.m.: Fickle, fickle are the fates. Walz hits Trump as fickle and clearly the jitters are past. This is off to a strong start as a superboring policy debate. Fireworks, please!

—Chabria

6:09 p.m.: On the specific question of whether he would support a preemptive Israeli strike against Iran, Vance said, essentially, yes: “We should support our allies wherever they are when they are fighting the bad guys.” That’s going to set off some back-and-forth over the coming weeks — because that’s a recipe for a gigantic regional war between Israel and Iran.

—McManus

6:07 p.m.: Vance comes out strong and clear with a brief bio. Hillbilly. Mom fighting addiction. America! He’s off to a strong start.

—Chabria

6:06 p.m. Walz starts off sounding nervous, but making his points. C’mon, coach. Play the game!

—Chabria

6:05 p.m.: Debate starts off with a question about Iran and Israel, but Walz shows he’s not going to wait for an in to attack the opposing ticket. He used the moment to address another global threat: “A nearly 80-year-old Donald Trump talking about crowd sizes is not what we need in this moment…. Those around Trump see how dangerous he is when the world is this dangerous.” I’d use a football analogy here about playbooks and winning strategies, but I know nothing about sports. Simply put, he showed some moxie.

—Ali

6:01 p.m.: And away we go!

A brief handshake between Vance and Walz. Midwest Nice prevails!

Joe Biden and Donald Trump — who plainly detest each other — wouldn’t deign to shake hands. Kamala Harris took the initiative in her debate with Trump, crossing the stage and extending her hand.

“Let’s have a good debate,” she said.

“Nice to see you,” Trump responded. “Have fun.”

And she seemed to.

—Barabak

5:45 p.m.: Can JD Vance feign normalcy for 90 minutes? What will it take for Tim Walz to appear more folksy than he already does? Coveralls? A wrench in one hand, and a Farmer’s Almanac in the other?

So many deep questions heading into tonight’s debate between the senator from Ohio and the Minnesota governor. The name of the game is appealing to working-class voters in the “blue wall” states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin (the rest of us are superfluous), but what that looks like depends on the candidate. Is it about demonizing immigrants or big business? Lamenting abortion bans or the high price of eggs and milk?

Breaking news also presents challenges. Who will dare to go near the expanding war in the Middle East, where Israel just launched a ground invasion into Lebanon and Iran launched missiles toward Israel? Gaza has been a hot potato on the campaign trail, and this is a conflict that the winning party will inherit.

And remember, this is a VP debate so the potential is high for it to be about as exciting as watching your dog sleep. Consider memorable outtakes of past VP debates: Former Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan nervously drinking copious amounts of water during his debate with VP incumbent Joe Biden in 2012 (see the “SNL” sketch), or the fly that lodged itself in then-Vice President Mike Pence’s hair as he sparred with Harris in 2020 (see the “SNL” sketch).

But with an incredibly tight election on the horizon, this could be the rare VP debate that makes an impression — or lends itself to another great “SNL” sketch.

—Lorraine Ali

5:30 p.m.: In the battle of Midwestern dads, I think we’ll see each one try to steal a little mojo from the other. JD Vance will try to come across as amiable and reasonable (a ginormous stretch after his Springfield rants) while Tim Walz will try to go tougher and throw some not-so-pleasant-guy punches against Vance and Trump.

How that switch lands with viewers will determine the winner. Do we like a bully who can play nice, or a nice guy who can take on a bully? I’ll let you figure out who is who.

Along with the usual topics — immigration, abortion and the economy — current events, including Tuesday’s attack on Israel by Iran and the federal response to the devastation of Hurricane Helene, will probably pop up.

But enough guessing, here we go.

—Anita Chabria

5:20: p.m.: The most important thing to remember about a vice presidential debate is that the two candidates onstage aren’t really running against each other. They’re just surrogates (OK, super-surrogates). Their main job is to represent the candidates at the top of the tickets.

That’s why Lloyd Bentsen’s “Jack Kennedy” line, while brilliant, didn’t affect the election of 1988. It’s why campaign insiders consider Joe Biden’s solid 2012 performance against Paul Ryan a model to emulate, even though it didn’t feature any memorable quips. Biden made a better case for his boss, then-President Barack Obama, than Obama had made in his lackluster first debate against Mitt Romney.

So Tim Walz’s main mission is to make the most effective case he can for a Harris presidency, and remind voters of everything they dislike about Trump. JD Vance’s mission is to make the case for a Trump presidency and reinforce undecided voters’ doubts about Harris.

I’d expect Vance to spend most of his time talking up Trump’s first-term economy and attacking both Harris and Vance as “dangerously liberal.” Polls suggest those have been the Trump campaign’s most effective messages to the few remaining undecided voters.

And I’d expect Walz to deliver a folksy explanation of Harris’ economic plan and a middle-class attack on Trump’s economic proposals (tax cuts for corporations, high tariffs that would push prices up).

Wild Card: Will Walz remind voters that Trump is 78 years old (in contrast to Harris’ youthful-by-current-standards 59), making it more possible that Vance, with his weird views on childless cat ladies, could end up in the Oval Office?

—Doyle McManus

5:10 p.m.: Allow me to kick things off with some thoughts on what I’ll be watching for, then you all can chime in.

As noted, it’s virtually certain that nothing said or done at CBS News headquarters in New York will matter a whole lot once the studio lights fade. Recall, from 1988, Dan Quayle and the infamous “You’re no Jack Kennedy” rejoinder, which Democrat Lloyd Bentsen leveled after the youthful Quayle compared himself to the youthful president. The gibe blew Quayle off the debate stage; then, just a few weeks later, Republicans won the White House in a landslide.

That said, it could be an interesting and, dare I say, entertaining evening — depending on your tastes in entertainment. Tim Walz and JD Vance share a Midwestern pedigree and that’s pretty much it.

Walz is all avuncular, with his can-I-help-shovel-your-walk approachability and good cheer. His attacks — “They’re weird!” — tend to singe, not burn. Will he take a more aggressive tack tonight?

Vance has certainly given him plenty to work with, whether it’s his denigrating remarks about “childless cat ladies” or the phony horror stories he’s conjured about supposedly pet-eating Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio.

Vance, who’s approached his understudy role with fists up and teeth bared, seems to have the tougher challenge of the two, making himself appear more likable while taking on Walz and, especially, Kamala Harris.
But maybe Vance doesn’t care about his popularity with voters beyond the MAGA base. He may simply play to an audience of one, Donald Trump, who only has one mode and one method: attack, attack, attack.

—Mark Z. Barabak